Talk:Alfredo Bowman/Archive 1

Recent changes

Some of the recent major changes have strong evidence of OR and POV-pushing. Granted, it is a bit more NEUTRAL, with a more tidy lead some of the following are either unsubstantiated via sources or exaggerated.

Problem #1: *Occupation: witch doctor based on [1] "In June 2004 Jackson was reported to be spending $3,960 a night at Loews Miami Beach Hotel meditating and praying with Sebi (described as a “witch doctor” in some reports), to prepare for his forthcoming trial on nine charges of child abuse."
Reason: Based on that lone piece in which he is described as witch doctor in some reports (by who?), we are unable to distinguish whether or not his religious beliefs is actually related to his healing practices. To describe his occupation as a witch doctor solely based on this is OR. The passage specifically states, meditating and praying with no mention of healing. Though, we can "infer" that meditation and praying may have healing properties, this is not definitive based on his healing practice.

Note: There is also overwhelming sources rendered that are in direct conflict to this one claim.

Problem #2: *POV: quack.
Reason: Based on the same source [2], there is no way we can infer that he is a quack. Again, if this is based on the above passage, due to implying that his religious beliefs is some how in any way involved in his healing practice. Based on his teachings, he never once mentions mediation and prayer as a need for his dietary healing plan. Even if this source states, "prevented from making therapeutic claims for any of its products" and "he had never studied medicine", we cannot prove or infer that his medical practices are in fact fraudulent.

Problem #3: *Possible POV/OR: Pseudoscientific.
Reason: While this claim is arguable, I could find nothing of the sort found in the source provided [3]. If so, please state the page number and cite the passage.

Problem #4: *Possible POV/OR: denied germ theory as a source of disease, taught AIDS denialism.
Reason: Again, while the former is arguable, the latter (AIDS denalism) is not (wouldn't this contradict the fact that he could cure AIDS??). If so, please cite the passage. I could not locate these claims in the snippet view based on [4].

Note #1: In regards to AIDS denial, an editor also took the time to insert a hidden in-line note stating "<!-- this is not a reliable source except as an example that Bowman taught AIDS denialism -->"

Note #2: Contrary to Problem #1 ("witch doctor"), this source does state (in the snippet view), that Alfredo Bowman is indeed a herbalist.

Problem #5: *Possible POV/OR: faux-afrocentric
Reason: Based on the source provided [5] (page 27), and again it is arguable, never once does this source state anything African, unless we are to "infer" that the Moors are synonymous with "African". Personally, I would agree that the Moors were indefinably African/Afro-centricism, though the article on the Moors would disagree, citing "inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages". We cannot have it both ways.

Note: An editor also took the time to insert a hidden in-line note stating "<!-- this is not a reliable source except as an example of Hotep quackery -->"

Problem #6: Strong POV/OR: unique organs of Africans.
Reason: There is absolutely no mention that the organs of Africans are unique based on [6] and [7]. In fact, if you did any substantial research on Alfredo Bowman, you would have learned that his "faux-afrocentricism" cites a valid claim that people of African descent for example are more prone to sickle cell disease, which is backed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. If this is unique, then yes it is unique but not by the misappropriation of the information within or absent from the sources which is cited in this article. Bowman believes this "balanced western diet" is not suitable to the biochemistry of a person of African descent. We cannot prove this to be true or false, hence POV-pushing.

@SchmuckyTheCat, please include page numbers wherever possible if you haven't done so already and cite the exact passages (here) for these claims because I have been unable to verify them, some of which may be subject to removal and/or reversal. I will give the benefit of the doubt before any such action, though an explanation of the above is warranted. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging, multi-contributing editors, who may have an interest in a speedy resolution to the inquiries mentioned above. Connormah, Roxy the dog, Wikishovel, Rathfelder, Trappist the monk, and HanotLo. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, do be more careful about who you indiscriminately accuse. For my part, I have made two edits to this article that repaired malformed cs1|2 templates, which edits have nothing to do with your complaints.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I Don't have much of a horse in this race, I was just reverting vandalism. But I just thought i'd add that some of the sources just seem to be in the wrong places. For example the quote from [8] ,here could be used to back up the quack statement since a quack is someone who promotes false medical practices HanotLo (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: In no way was this a “discriminatory accusation” (perhaps it is you who should reflect on your own accusation); don’t know how you read what I wrote in such a manner; never said “associating contributors” nor have I included anyone else to the primary thread @Trappist the monk. Simply, to all those who have contributed (more than three occasions was my bar) to this article, regardless of the type of edit, may have a vested interest in a speedy resolution.

Thanks @HanotLo for combating vandalism but some of those overturns have been at what was in opposition to the unsubstantiated claims made in which I cited above. For some reason, they have gone largely unchallenged and not a single peep was made about it on the talk page. That’s concerning to me. Nonetheless, relooking into ‘’problem #2’’. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In your initial post in this topic, the first sentence is the accusation: Some of the recent major changes have strong evidence of OR and POV-pushing. You then go on to enumerate the specifics of that accusation. In your second post, you ping a handful of editors without explanation or qualification so we are left with an accusation and a list of the accused. After I objected to your accusation, you qualified the name list post and stated the criteria that you used to determine which editors should be pinged. An arbitrary number of edits regardless of type is simple, yeah, but clearly indiscriminate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I came to this article from a post in a light hearted group called "Things Woonatics Say...". I was already passing familiar with Sebi because I'd written a paragraph about him in some essays about major figures in the Fauxtep conspiracy movement. The article was an unreadable mess of unusable source material before I touched it. Even the first sentence was mashed together fragments without verbs. I, no doubt, take a strong position about woo, conspiracies and pseudoscience. But so does Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to pseudoscience, particular claims of quack medicine.

Prob #1 - The Telegraph obituary is probably the best reliable source used here. Sebi was a quack, no holds barred. The article already sources his bio on Quackwatch. He was already in the Quack category. Sebi was not a biochemist, a doctor, or any other words sympathetic sources use. Those occupations have meaning in the real world where people have degrees, specializations, and certifications. The source says "witch doctor". Quackwatch uses "quack".

Prob #2 - This is not a problem. His medical practices were fraudulent. Full stop. Telling people they can cure AIDS with blueberries, walnuts, and $250 bottle of snake oil after charging $500 for a patient fee is fraudulent.

Prob #3 - This is not a problem. We name people involved in pseudoscience as such all the time. Dr Oz says it in the first sentence. The source (which I did not provide, and wouldn't use) makes the claim of fact that Sebi advocated the "alkaline diet'. The alkaline diet is pseudoscience. Therefore Sebi practices pseudoscience. Sebi's entire practice was based on nonsense rejected by science.

Prob #4 - It is not arguable that Sebi denies germ theory. He said it every time he opened his mouth. "According to Western medical research, diseases are a result of the host being infected with a 'germ', 'virus, or 'bacteria'." Then he goes on to say why the "African approach" to obtain the "African Bio-mineral Balance" requires his collection "African Bio-Balance Therapy" pills for men at $1500. AIDS denialism is some variation on the causes of AIDS, usually involving denial that the HIV virus causes it. The source shows Sebi makes that claim. The source is otherwise unreliable for anything. It's gay softcore porn from the 80s. It's only reliability is that it is written as a first hand account. Note: I didn't first use that source and was going to delete it, but in the limited circumstance of a first hand patient report from the time period, it's demonstrative. I inserted the line you mention in note #1. Your note #2 says this calls him an herbalist, but this source can't back up that claim.

I notice you said "he could cure AIDS". He claimed to cure AIDS. There's no evidence he ever cured anyone of anything but their wallet being affected by gravity. If you believe Sebi cured AIDS you're not going to have a good time editing Wikipedia.

Prob #5 - Sebi became more and more involved with Fauxtep nonsense in the last 10-20 years. It doesn't matter how you define "Moors", it is in the context of how the source uses the word. "Moors" in this usage is Fauxtep reclamation that anything on Africa is African and anything African is Black. I didn't create this source. I added that hidden line about Fauxtep quackery. Sebi says he doesn't use Western medicine he uses the "African approach". He was all about Afrocentricism - if it made money, and therefore, he didn't care whether it was true or not. If you've got better vocabulary than "faux-Afrocentrism", I'm open. Wikipedia doesn't cover the fauxtep/Hotep/Kemet stuff very well at all. A lot of that reason is Blackademia refusing to call out what's bullshit because it's hard enough getting real Afrocentric education done which results in no sources for WP.

Prob #6 - this needs to be reworded, no doubt. It's also no doubt Sebi taught "specialness" about Africans.

Sebi taught that Africans (and descendants) have unique physiology. Much more than sickle cell (which he could not treat either). Telling your customers they are unique and different than mainstream and therefore need specialized care knowledged on those difference is great marketing. It's undeniable he put "African" before everything and claimed African origins for everything.

"the biochemistry of a person of African descent" (your words) is no different than any other racial/ethnic/geographical biochemistry. That's pseudoscience. The typical American diet sucks for everyone, not just Africans. What's POV (pseudoscience) is claiming Sebi's diet is more beneficial than a diet made by people actually educated in nutrition or that his diet meets special needs of Africans or worse - that his diet cures diseases/conditions like herpes, AIDS, or autism. (ALL DISEASES, he claims).

Thanks for bringing these issues up for explanation. The way I've written it may be strongly worded but every bit of this article is in a better state than when I found it. Things can always be improved. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another ref calling him a witch doctor. [9] SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We would not use these as sources, but just so you understand when the fauxteps use the term Moor, they have their own corrupted usage: [10], United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, [11]. This is all cult religion, pseudohistory, pseudoscience, quackery, whatever. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd accept "witch doctor" "Snake oil salesman" "Quack" "Con Man" and any number of other terms to describe him, reliably sourced. He wasn't a herbalist, according to the source, but a "Self-proclaimed herbalist." Cant see the issues described at great and confusing length by the OP. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)"

As would I Roxy the dog, but that’s been the problem. However, before I respond to the above (I am working on one) and thank you for all for responding, let I remind everyone that to be a “herbalist” does not require a degree. In fact, modern medicine recognizes it as “a form of alternative medicine and pseudoscience, as its practice is not strictly based on evidence gathered using the scientific method” which would support the above mention. [12] What he is though is a “self-proclaimed healer”. Again, there are far more sources that refer to him as a herbalist. Also, the source you provided SchmuckyTheCat does not mention “witch doctor”. So, to all sources refering to him as a herbalist, from that alone you can interept that he is a practitioner of pseudoscience. Problem #3 solved. Savvyjack23 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I still have absolutely no idea of the point you wish to make. Perhaps if you could reduce it all to a couple of small sentences, or make your points one at a time, and very simply, it would help. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The point being Roxy the dog is, as it stands based on numerous sources, Alfredo Bowman is a herbalist. I’m sorry but there is much to discuss, if this is a bit overwhelming please feel free to simply look on. We are not to interpret from a sole source that Bowman was a witch doctor, which stated “by some reports” —what reports? This is hearsay from within an article that is being considered a credible source. There is a huge difference between someone mixing herbs and a witch doctor; a practioner of magic. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that what you want to say in the article somewhere? "Alfredo Bowman was a herbalist"? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Reaching consensus

The following is what I was able to gather on the issues stated above. Please feel free to agree or disagree. This is in no way definitive and is always open to discussion and interpretation with reliable sources.

1. Witchdoctor as occupation.
DENIED. Though it could be mentioned somewhere in the article. Not enough evidence to suggest such a claim, especially as his occupation. We also we do not know if his “mediations” or religious views are synonymous with his so-called healing approach with the usage of herbs. (Though he has stated he is not a Christian he often cites Genesis 1:29; Daniel 1:12; Ezekiel 47:12 and especially Revelation 22:2 for his (divine) reasoning for herbal usage stating “the herbs are for the healing of the nations”). Are we to call Judeo-Christians witch doctors as well if they adhered to these passages? No. It would just simply be pseudoscience. See Explanation #3.

Note: Again I quote Telegraph.uk [13], "In June 2004 Jackson was reported to be spending $3,960 a night at Loews Miami Beach Hotel meditating and praying with Sebi (described as a “witch doctor” in some reports), to prepare for his forthcoming trial on nine charges of child abuse." -They prayed for their upcoming trial! How is this synonymous with his practice of pseudoscience involving herbs? It also states he is referred to as such “by some reports” —well, what reports? This is hearsay from within an article that is being considered a credible source.

What editors were saying: SchmuckyTheCat - "Those occupations have meaning in the real world where people have degrees, specializations, and certifications". Roxy the dog, "Self-proclaimed herbalist."
My response: A "herbalist” does not require a degree. In fact, modern medicine recognizes it as “a form of alternative medicine and pseudoscience, as its practice is not strictly based on evidence gathered using the scientific method” which would support the above mention. [14] What Bowman does not have, is a license or certificate (or can provide a claim) to diagnosis, treat and cure any disease, which is true for pseudoscience practitioners. "Self-proclaimed herbalist" is still an herbalist, since we cannot hold them to a scientific standard and regulation with degrees and certificates.

2. Honduran quack (in the lead especially).
DENIED. Quackwatch does have a biography on him, though their final impressions of Sebi was “Alfredo Bowman—a/k/a "Dr. Sebi"—liked to tell stories. I have been unable to find any published evidence suggesting that he did extensive research or cured people who were seriously ill”. —albeit not a strong recommendation, it is still not conclusive to suggest he is a quack, even when they found grey areas of potential fraud in this PDF source. [15] Hence, this is a far different tune then somebody like Stephen Barrett Kurt Donsbach, which Quackwatch concluded saying, “I know of nobody who has engaged in a greater number and variety of health-related schemes and scams”. [16]

Conclusion: Quackwatch cannot verify his ability to potentially cure people. We cannot impose WP:OR as we, nor they, do not know if he indeed had the ability to do so. Quackwatch neither confirms nor denies it. In general, we need to steer away judgments we cannot prove. There are plenty of alternative methods that could be considered placebos on the market today; acupuncture, yoga, meditations etc. and the prices per visit all add up and insurance usually does not cover such practices. If Bowman charged $15 for his products that he claims to cure AIDS would he still be considered a snake-oils salesman? It doesn't matter. Where's the proof? We are not here to convict anyone but to render information backed by reliable sources and verification of the subject in question, alone.

3. Pseudoscientific.
UPHELD. Based on numerous sources claiming that he is an herbalist [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and a practitioner of an Alkaline-diet [26] [27] both of which are under the pseudoscience category.

4. “...denied germ theory as a source of disease, taught AIDS denialism”.
UPHELD. Based on [28], where Bowman states “Germ, virus and bacteria, no such thing. Body invaded by mucus that has been broken down. Without that breaking of the mucus membrane, there wouldn’t be any disease. The only reason why the mucus membrane might be compromised is because the lacking of iron”.

5. Faux-Afrocentrism.
UNABLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION. The problem here is “faux”, or false-Afrocentrism. We know that people of African descent are more prone to certain diseases even in the United States where we share a lot of the same things. While there could be a number of external factors such as economics, can we really conclude his “theory” as faux or false or would that be considered POV? We aren’t to make blatant conclusions such as this; we can say it is part of his pseudoscientific but whether or not it is faux, I cannot reach a conclusion. Perhaps it is indeed the wording.

6. ”Unique African Organs”.
ALREADY OVERTURNED. (Thanks) The current is surely suffice and neutral, we can elaborate more on the possible “uniqueness” he may have spoken about in-article sourced reliably of course. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Jim Jones, is an example of an occultist/witch doctor and “healer” who gave his followers the famous kool-aid to drink (which led to their death). This was known, this was a fact. Bowman on the other hand is not Jones and if he was or a lesser type, we are to prove that. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This court document by Casewatch.org [29] states that Bowman conceded to a settlement (though not found guilty) because his party could not afford further court costs and agreed to publish three advertisements retracting his prior claims in a newspaper stating that he in fact cannot diagnose, treat and cure any diseases but was aloud to continue his pseudoscience (without any sort of licensing) just as long as he didn’t continue to make such claims. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, dude, you don't get to decide unilaterally what is or isn't truth or denied or upheld. This isn't a court. It's a consensus driven discussion not one moderated be a self-claimed prosecutor.

I'm fine with the introbox claiming "herbalist" but the intro should state, plainly, that he was viewed as a quack, even a witch doctor, by the mainstream. You seem to think we need to prove he didn't heal anybody. We don't. Herbalism doesn't heal AIDS - or anything. Neither does acupuncture. Neither does homeopathy, yoga, or meditation. Period. Full stop. We do not need to prove that Sebi didn't cure AIDS via anything he did either. This article, or talk page, isn't a battleground over things already discussed hundreds of time on the pages devoted to those quack therapies. We have two sources (Fox and Telegraph) that call him a quack and witch doctor. If anything, those are the most mainstream sources. Say what they say.

(I'm a little confused by your statement that Quackwatch calls Stephen Barret a quack. Stephen Barret is the primary author of Quackwatch. I doubt very much he calls himself a quack.)

On faux-AFrocentrism. You'll need to provide an alternative to discuss. Sebi's teachings/beliefs/methods/whatever align with the kind of nonsense that comes from Umar Johnson, Dwight York, etc - fauxtep bullshit. Sebi predates any awareness of that stuff but he fits right in. If you don't want to call it Faux-Afrocentrism, you'll need to replace it.

And if the FDA sues you - you're a quack. Slam dunk. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I’ve been mobile typing the whole time. It’s hard gathering all these sources on here and the new wiki mobile format sucks. You are correct (via Quackwatch), I meant to say “Kurt Donsbach” not Stephen Barrett. Also, I never said I was deciding unilaterally; simply the rendering of my analysis in concise points (to make it easier for some) based on sources, which may be challenged at any time.

When the FDA sues you, it doesn’t mean you are automatically a quack. The FDA sues people and companies all the time. In fact, it sued Pfizer for $2.3 Billion. "The largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company, but they aren’t considered a quack company.

New York Amsterdam News, one of the newspapers Bowman used to publish his advertisements, wrote an excerpt after the trial called “Herbalist found not guilty in 'fake' healing case” by Jamison H., Oct 11, 1988.; one of the few third-party accounts found, stated that the jury voted in his favor because it was not persuaded that he was making medical diagnoses or prescribing medicinal substances. There were even undercover agents present at his compound as well. The report also in fact refers to Bowman as a herbalist.

Come on, are we having a legit discussion or are we going to be spuing personal opinions on here all day? May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum.

In short, simply what I am proposing is herbalist as occupation, scratch witchdoctor and scratch quack from the lead. His meditations has nothing to do with his pseudoscience other than trying to win a court case for MJ, which may be his religious beliefs and fraudulent claims may be explained as controversies against his practices in the body of the article. Likewise, I am not stating alledged witchdoctor couldn’t be mentioned somewhere but in the infobox and possibly in the lead, would just read as slander based on what we have. As it stands, the article is surely a lot cleaner but in no way neutral based on sources. In fact, I have called out all the empty claims these sources were supposed to back up (as per original inquiry). Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep the quack category, not advocating its removal for the simple reason he claims to cure AIDS and we cannot prove it; we’re just not calling him a “Honduran quack” in the lead. No other article who is listed in the quack category is written in such fashion. It is fair to say he is a Honduran herbalist foremost; though never said he was a good one. The article will then explain itself accordingly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"No other article who is listed in the quack category is written in such fashion." I opened 22 articles in that category. 7 of them said "quack" in the lead sentence, lead paragraph or introduction section (for lengthy articles). Other lengthy articles said it in the body. Most did not reference the term to anyone specific because quack is a general use descriptor. It's perfectly fine to say that someone who denied germ theory and claims to cure AIDS is a quack. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Two mainstream sources - out of all the marginal ones used - use the term "witch doctor". Where in the article should that be mentioned? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A good start to your revisions. I’ve added a bit of a cleanup. Based on 9 reputable source, I think it is fair to say he was an herbalist. Though, we can let the information that follows to explain his quackery. Reworded and moved some pieces around to give it a bit more of a balanced approach when read. As for witch doctor, I think it could be mentioned when this article has a bit more meat in regards to when he treated Michael Jackson, which would inevitably fall somewhere in the “Career” section of the article. The article is in better shape but it is nowhere near complete. Really, we should now be going into his pseudoscience and grafting his beliefs into the article. It is currently just a shell for many anti-modern medicine terms without answering the question, how? Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, we need to be more duly with our inline citations. As it stands, they cannot back most of what we’ve got on here due to the many rearranges. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, as per above, the witch doctor mention was not related to his supposed healing practices by the use of herbs, which is why Bowman is even notable for an article; instead it was in relation to winning a court case for a client through prayer and mediation, which would fall under “Personal life”. He never taught any of this in his practice. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The places that call him a witch doctor use that to refer to him as an identifier, not an activity. There's a few more good WP:RS for the phrase, I've just been contemplating how to include it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

organizing scratch links

Jackson calls in witch doctor Michael Jackson is being treated for drug and alcohol addictions by a witch doctor

Jacko sees witch doctor Jacko sees witch doctor

Jacko's New 'Doctor': No Scrubs, No Diploma sort of Jackson's "Dr. Bombay"

Reference already used described as a “witch doctor”

Image

This article could use an image. If someone who watches his videos on YouTube sees a video that is marked as CC-by or Public Domain instead of "Standard YouTube License" find a good moment and take some screenshots of the video. Or just post a link to the video. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Herbalist or not

The wikpedia article Herbalism is a dog's dinner of different perspectives and views. Yet within it is stated that in some places a herbalist is recognized by a community or even academic discipline. For example the UK. In other places Herbalism is conflated with homeopathy and quack cures. As a result calling this Dr. Sebi a herbalist does not differentiate this. His use of the term Dr. is misleading to say the least. He did not hold a doctorate of any kind from either an academic institution NOR from any indigenous community of practitioners. As a result he could not be said to be a Dr. OR a herbalist any more than I can if dressing up in a soldier's uniform call my self as part of an army. In short he is an imposter or strictly a charlatan - The word comes from French charlatan, a seller of medicines who might advertise his presence with music and an outdoor stage show. In this case his charlatanry is masquerading as a herbalist. That others call him a herbalist is their wrong use of English in describing him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Yup. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

POV/OR Pushing and use of faulty sources

Hi tornadochaser-

I've noted that your edit on this article possibly violates Wikipedia's rules against OR/anti-neutrality and use a number of false premises in order to express a biased point of view.

These are:

1) Bowman claimed to cure all disease with herbs and a unique vegan diet based on various pseudoscience claims. His diet was based on the discredited alkaline diet.[7]

From Dr. Sebi's site:

"In contrast, as we examine an African approach to disease, it diametrically opposes the present Western approach. Specifically, the African Bio-mineral Balance refutes the germ/virus/bacteria premise. Our research reveals that all manifestation of disease finds its genesis when and where the mucous membrane has been compromised. For example, if there is excess mucous in the bronchial tubes, the disease is Bronchitis; if it is in the lungs, the disease is Pneumonia; in the pancreatic duct, it is Diabetes; in the joints Arthritis. All of the African Bio-mineral Balance compounds are comprised of natural plants; which means its constitution is of an alkaline nature."

You deliberately misstate his point of view in order to discredit him. You also falsely deride traditional African medicinal concepts as pseudoscience even though various peer-reviewed studies have established the medicinal efficacy of herbalism and other traditional medicines.

As well, you falsely create a link between the alkaline diet and Dr. Sebi's work in order to point out that the central point of the alkaline diet-that foods can effect the body's homeostasis and thus alter its Ph-is false. However you ignore prevailing research that establishes that organic, plant-based, non GMO diets that are low in sweeteners have demonstrable positive effects on both the prevention and cure of disease.

2) and factored in faux-afrocentric[9] claims about the unique genetic characteristics of Africans and its diaspora.[10][11]

In addition to the mildly racist characterization of Dr. Sebi's research as "faux-afrocentric", you cite two sources here: one of which is an author lauding Dr. Sebi, but it never specifically links him to any of the beliefs espoused by the author. And the second is a letter posted to an unrelated party site that is unsigned, unverified, and a primary source (this is frowned upon in Wikipedia land)

3) Although he used the name Dr. Sebi, Bowman was not a doctor and was considered a quack by actual doctors, attorneys, and consumer protection agencies.[1][4]

Obvious bias and failure to consider supporters as well as detractors.

4) Bowman was arrested for money laundering in March 2016 while attempting to transfer from a plane from the United States to a private plane at the Juan Manuel Gálvez de Roatan Airport while carrying $37,000 in cash.

This is inaccurate. Dr. Sebi was arrested, released, and re-arrested and charged then with money laundering, though his arrest records have not been released. This charge (money laundering) was never substantiated and was not the original charge. Source: https://chicagodefender.com/2016/08/15/no-mainstream-farewell-for-dr-sebi/

5) You label him a charlatan in the final "see also" but ignore the widely available positive reviews of his work and treatments. Whether or not you agree with them, you must agree that they...exist.

Please kindly respond or I will be left no other choice but to report you for these clear violations of impartiality and misuse of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddeleon82 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018

"Maa" is the name dr semi gave Alfredo Bowman as she was like (Einsteins wife) the master behind the man. Currently another woman previous wife has hijcacked Maa's entire company and property "Usha Village, is named after Maa, and dr Sebi's daughter

There is youtube videos where dr sebi is stating he was betrayed by this imposter and her daughters and another Youtube clip showing various interviews of dr Sebi's wife claiming these imposters are making fake products that are not working and have taken over all the social media accounts leaving the real mrs semi, maa and usha their daughter stranded. In addition, maa was 30 years with semi developing all these with him and not these imposters that maa had employed and then suddenly dr sebi gets arrested at 90 and dies in prison without any bail " 41.150.11.231 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read WP:ER and explain clearly the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

"His various pseudoscience claims" -is complete bogus - none of what he did was pseudoscience. He went against the grain of traditional scientific methodologies, but only because he was grounded in African herbalist traditions and wasn't trained with respect to "theories". These traditions used herbs, and as Dr. Sebi described it in a biochemical sense (Biochemistry is science) that herbs function well with the body because carbon based herbs interacting with the carbon of the body balance and resonate with the electrical charge of the human body, whereas dousing the body with chemicals only destroys cells (destructive) and does nothing to re-harmonize the balance of the human body in a constructive manner. 2600:6C55:7C00:2F66:4C18:85DA:F2B4:63E4 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I would also point out that your explanation of why his claims are not pseudoscience, "carbon based herbs interacting with the carbon of the body balance and resonate with the electrical charge of the human body, whereas dousing the body with chemicals only destroys cells (destructive) and does nothing to re-harmonize the balance of the human body in a constructive manner" is absolutely pseudoscience. That sentence makes no sense whatsoever scientifically. --Krelnik (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that many(most?) pharmaceuticals are carbon based, I am not shure how the herbs being carbon based makes them any different from "chemicals". Tornado chaser (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

this article is extremely biased

this is the most biased article i've ever seen on wikipedia. even worse than the pizzagate article which acts like it was proven fake news when in fact it was quite the opposite. does mainstream media and big pharma really have full control over wikipedia. that's shameful guys.

dr sebi was proven in court to be true and real. he had nearly 100 cured patients to prove it, all with comprehensive documentation from studies done by classical qualified doctors. and as an amateur expert on the matter myself, i know what he is saying is the truth without needing to investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.77.248 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources if you want to change the article. Tornado chaser (talk)

I was thinking the same thing, that this article is laughably biased. I'll provide an example or two since they were asked of the other fellow. Also, I'm a noobie with wikipedia, so I ask for your patience with me, and I apologize for the errors in post etiquette and/or content that I am probably making.

"Bowman claimed to cure all disease with herbs and a unique vegan diet based on various pseudoscience claims" (article)

Are all of the claims pseudoscience? Was his claim based on any legitimate science too? And if that claim is based on some legitimate science, shouldn't that be included for neutrality and thoroughness purposes?

He was right about meat-based saturated fat having a prominent role in heart disease, a fact that is pretty much common knowledge now. He was also correct in suggesting that his vegan diet could prevent or reverse diabetes. After all, according to the American Diabetes Association, "Research supports that following this type of diet can help prevent and manage diabetes." (1) and the American Heart Association makes similar claims about diet and heart disease. Yet the article here fails to acknowledge the claims he made that were not pseudoscience. The result of course is that he is framed in a particularly unfavorable light. This is a common trend in American medicine, failing to embrace/appreciate the value (or from a certain perspective, the cost) of preventative medicine, and while it's tempting to go on a rant about public health, lobbying, and policy, I'll spare you all that fate.

1: (http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals/meal-planning-for-vegetarians/)

If health science isn't your cup of tea, then I'll just point out the elephant in the room...

"He was held for several weeks in a Honduran prison as his family was attempting to obtain his release and subsequently died en route to Hospital D'Antoni on 6 August 2016 due to complications of pneumonia after police officials realized the severity of his ill health.[13][14][15] The length of his time in custody and the condition of the jail may have contributed to his death.[13] [emphasis added]"

The police "realized the severity of his ill health"? The negligence here is that we're failing to acknowledge the contentious context in which this all occurred. The likelihood that, at the very least, intentional negligence played a substantial role in his death, far outweighs the possibility that the police conveniently and unimaginably 'didn't notice' that he was slowly dying over the course of weeks.

If you'll indulge me, I'll conclude this by suggesting that wikipedia is not much better than CNN.com, FOX.com, or MSNBC.com, though many of its editors and readers are fine people I am sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18d:8900:e614:c450:f1ea:3148:7e98 (talk • contribs)

death_cause in infobox.

Having the cause of death in the infobox as "pneumonia" was removed with an edit summary of "read the documentation."

Parameter	Explanation
death_cause	Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness, e.g. Bruce Forsyth, Eduard Khil.

As the remover no doubt did not notice there is a section called "death controversy" in the article. His death is significant to the bio because the Fauxtep community spreads conspiracies about his death. That's sourced and in the article. In the aftermath of the death of Nipsey Hussle, social media like black Twitter has been overwhelming with false claims, so it's an important issue to highlight front and center. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

At this point I would disagree regarding significance - the existence of conspiracy theories about his death does not in itself make his cause of death significant to his notability. The argument to highlight prominently his cause of death to dispel those theories, though, may warrant its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"The argument to highlight prominently his cause of death to dispel those theories, though, may warrant its inclusion." Yes that!! :)

The obituaries are our best and most objective sources by WP standards. Had he simply died of old age in LA or Honduras it's unlikely he would have gotten obit attention by those sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Alfredo Bowman → Dr. Sebi – He is most commonly known as Dr. Sebi, and is referred to as such in most sources. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous closure
The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Bad close I fear. unnacceptable, in fact. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. I initially closed this as moved, as there was no objection after a full listing, and the request seemed reasonable. But Roxy the dog has left a message here and on my talk page querying the close, so I am reopening it for a further week. Roxy, please give your reasons for opposing here, with evidence if appropriate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This guy had no medical training and was considered a quack by the medical community. It is misleading to call this article "Dr Sebi", it will confuse Wikipedia readers into thinking this guy was actually a doctor. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Would you say the same for Dr. Dre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Obviously not. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Me neither. You see, the thing is, the actual thing, is that Dr Dre isn't pretending to be a doctor. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose He is most commonly known as Alfredo Bowman, and is referred to as such in most sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above opposes. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of "most commonly known as" it's just wrong to name the article Dr Sebi. Wikipedia has tendency to deny invented honorifics to charlatans. That may not be a written policy, but it's a clear trend. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Change False claims to Unsubstantiated claims. Karipose (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, the phrase is well-sourced in the context where it is used in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback action on 31 August 2020

Link: [30]

Michael Jackson isn't the subject of the article so we don't need to spend time on this. The 2004 trial was a criminal trial. You cannot settle a criminal trial out of court with money for the defendants. The criminal trial went to the jury and he was found not guilty. The original wording "acquitted" is correct. It is incorrect to say he settled out of court - those were separate legal actions. The only connection to Bowman is timing, so only that one trial is relevant here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a line of this article needs to be changed to avoid confusion.

"Alfredo Darrington Bowman (26 November 1933 – 6 August 2016),[2] better known as Dr. Sebi (/seɪbiː/), was a Honduran herbalist and self-proclaimed healer, who also practiced in the United States for a period in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Bowman claimed to cure all disease with herbs and a vegan diet based on various pseudoscientific claims"

I think the term 'vegan' diet is a problem here. He doesn't claim his diet is about going vegan. Where the confusion comes from is that he (supposedly) said dairy and eggs are acidic. I'm not editing it myself because I'm too lazy to watch Dr. Sebi's speeches myself and fact-check what I'm saying. I'm going more based off of claims I read online about Sebi and don't know the best way to find 'official' information we know is from Sebi himself. That being said: the claim Dr. Sebi said 'vegan' diet specifically is also not there. I do know from some interviews Dr. Sebi has done that he's mentioned alkaline and acidic foods, but I don't know where he claimed to cure all disease with alkaline food specifically. I would appreciate some people doing research from official Sebi interviews (allegedly the Dr. Sebi site isn't curated by Sebi and has been altered by other individuals which would make sense with the expensive herbs they sell which would probably go against what Sebi preached but that's just my theory) so that these things can be fact-checked more. While it's true Sebi has said meat, dairy, and eggs are acidic (as I remember vaguely from the interviews I watched and can't confirm with evidence), I don't recall him ever displaying his diet as 'vegan', I recall him being more focused on what was acidic and what was alkaline, such as red rose potatoes over other varieties of potatoes with my evidence from the voice recording on here: http://advocatesfordrsebi.org/red-rose-potato/ There's also a Wikipedia page for an alkaline foods diet: Alkaline diet 172.58.121.40 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mister Bowman didn't call his diet either vegan or alkaline. It was his. All Wikipedia is reporting is that they are similar when compared by sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for protection and revision of article

It is hard to figure out where to begin with an article so disgraceful in regards to Wikipedia's policies as this one. So I will begin with the obvious.

First and foremost, this article, without any question, needs to be protected. It is in an appalling state and is rife with bias, Wikipedia policy violations, outright falsehoods, and a slew of errors. The list of issues includes, but is not limited to, the following: WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:AD, WP:BLP, EOD (Expression of Doubt), MOS:LABEL, and NLL (Negatively Loaded Language). There are a plethora of examples within the article of each issue listed above.

These issues should be addressed and fixed.

24.242.250.170 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any actual examples of the problems you observe? You appear so vituperative, it shouldn't be too hard for you to give actual concrete examples from your plethora, accompanied by WP:RS reliable sources to support the changes you propose. I have looked, and cannot find any badly sourced content, or policy violations of the policies you have highlighted. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"He was considered a quack by licensed doctors, attorneys, and consumer protection agencies in the United States."; "Some of his followers question the circumstances of his arrest and death. They claim that there was a conspiracy to silence him because his teachings differed from the medical establishment and threatened the pharmaceutical industry.". - Examples of weasel words, as it claims a group or groups of individuals express a belief without giving any named examples of those who hold that view.

Words such as "quack" and "pseudoscientific" are not based in actual cited articles or sources, and therefore are negatively loaded language (see WP:PEACOCK). "Pseudo-" specifically brings up the issue of MOS:LABEL. These, among other non-cited pejoratives, would violate WP:NPOV, because uncited labels and pejorative terms would mean the writer is asserting negative (and therefore not neutral) elements.

This article, in previous years, was far more neutral in tone. The addressing of the "pseudoscientific claims" was much more neutral and detailed in versions such as edit 788163997. Older versions also agreed on the fact that the diet Dr. Sebi promoted was not vegan (he disapproved of blood from meat in diet, but did not exclude all animal products and byproducts).

Neutrality was significantly affected by the individual who made edit 825947765, who appears to be the sole source of all the issues present in the article, who constantly undid revisions that attempted to make edits that made the language of the article more professional and neutral, and the individual often attached notes of less than professional behaviour and language to his revisions that remove edits aiming for neutrality. 24.242.250.170 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said above, viz ... Do you have any actual examples of the problems you observe? You appear so vituperative, it shouldn't be too hard for you to give actual concrete examples from your plethora, accompanied by WP:RS reliable sources to support the changes you propose. I have looked, and cannot find any badly sourced content, or policy violations of the policies you have highlighted. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

24.242.250.170, Bowman was wrong about everything. The pH of blood is regulated to stay within the narrow range of 7.35 to 7.45 it is not altered by eating alkaline or acidic foods. There are reliable sources on the article criticizing Bowman's claims as pseudoscientific [31], [32] etc so the content is sourced. Bowman's pseudoscientific claims about mucus causing disease have no scientific basis; this idea was taken from a noted quack Arnold Ehret. Most of Bowman's discredited ideas were taken from older naturopaths that he did not credit (he was not an original thinker). It's clear however that Bowman did advocate a vegan diet. Here is his list of foods [33] you can eat on his alkaline diet. All animal foods are forbidden including honey so he was a vegan and promoted that diet although he did not use that term. Bowman knew nothing about nutrition and often made basic mistakes like including the avocado as a vegetable on his list when it is a fruit and claiming rye is alkaline when it is acidic. The only legume you can eat on his diet is chickpeas but he included these as a vegetable, he also listed olives as a vegetable which is incorrect. His claim that all animal products are acidic is also false because duck eggs are alkaline. You could be correcting him all day. The article is well sourced and we do not need to remove any criticism of his pseudoscientific claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw the same harsh approach but it's factual so removing doesn't serve neutrality. However since McGill University is the main source and super critical when they are guilty of the same I added cited material on how universities like McGill utilized the same pseudoscience on genetics and race for other purposes. I also noted that Harvard University has now said there is no biologial differences. Anyone that would like to update what I addded to make it flow better in the context of the information being given please do so. My intent was to not validate his claims but rather to show that they were based in what was considered factual at sometime during his life and research. If I can find when it was debunked and widely made known with medical journals updated I will add. Asr1014 (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You were turning the article into a racial debate, this is totally unacceptable [34] "Bowman's theory on genetics was in direct conflict with the pseudoscience on race that scientists and universities had utilized for hundreds of years to preserve and ingrain the concept of white superiority". If you make this sort of nonsensical racist edit again your account should be blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Your assumption is totally unacceptable. Trust that I am the last person you need to make threats or low key call racist. I looked for other universities who had commented on his practices. I came to the talk page so that someone could look it over, put it in better context with my intent (to show that its was a debunked theory and not bash the man for beleiving what he read) or delete if it didn't work for the article. I only put their "purpose" so to not validate anyone's claim that there was any difference. All you had to say was hey I deleted because it wasn't relevant, not a fit,etc....but wait..how does deleting the information I put from a Honduras's travel website that interviewed him about his background, when he moved and worked prior... that's nonsensical and racist? Oh ok.Asr1014 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Copying what I wrote at WP:FTN: "If good sources report controversy about the McGill University, it would belong in its own article and is irrelevant here and inappropriate to attempt to pointy-WP:GEVAL in this context, of course. And if reliable sources also put Bowman's claims in context in relation to countering the prevalent white racialism, it's acceptable to mention it..." —PaleoNeonate – 22:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your comment explaining a better way to gage if something should be included or not. You are absolutely right. It was pointy and that wasn't the my intent. Glad you understood where I was going and that I did not hit the mark properly. Asr1014 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)