Talk:John Bradshaw (author)

Untitled

Isn't it supposed to be called theologist? Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"theologian"?

Where is the evidence that John Bradshaw is a theologian? I recognize he often refers to himself as a theologian but promoting ones self as a theologian does not does not make one a theologian. For instance claiming I am a rocket scientist does not make me a rocket scientist. And having a divinity degree does not make one a theologian.

John Bradshaw has published in numerous thrological articles and taught and lectured in thousands of churches.

Lecturing in a church does not make anybody a theologian.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

POV/bias

I just tried to remove some of the glaring POV in this article. This is supposed to be an article about John Bradshaw and not a pamphlet promoting John Bradshaw yet the article read just the opposite in places. It could probably use some more fine tuning Mr Christopher 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He currently seems to be working at the Meadows if anyone is interested in mentioning it. He's a licensed counselor and lecturer. I don't know why he is described as a theologian. --DanielCD 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good info and point. I saw that the Meadows also calls Bradshaw a theologian, but again other than self-promotion where is the evidence he is a theologian? If we are going to call him a licensed counselor I think we should include what specific counseling discipline he has a license for. For instance is he a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, a Marriage Family Child Counselor, a licensed psychologist, etc? I think asnwering who gave him what license should be answered prior to calling him a licensed counselor. Mr Christopher 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: John received a B.A. in theology from St. Michael's College at the University of Toronto. He was a seminarian in the Basilian priesthood. EDUCATION University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1955-1958, B.A. Graduated Magna Cum Laude.

Recipient of the Following Awards: Trustees' Scholarship. John MacDonald Scholarship in Philosophy. Cardinal Mercier Gold Medal in Philosophy. Trustees' Gold Medal for Academic Excellence.

University of Toronto, 1960-1963, S.T.B. Degree (Bachelor of Sacred Theology) and M.A. in Philosophy.

Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1969-1972. Graduate work in Psychology and Religion.

University of California - Santa Monica - 1997 Masters in Spiritual Psychology.

---

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Faculty, Saint Thomas High School, Houston, Texas 1958-1960

Faculty, Saint Thomas University, Houston, Texas 1963-1964

Faculty, Sacred Heart Dominican College, Houston, Texas, 1965-1970

Strake Jesuit College Preparatory, Houston, Texas, 1966-1969 Chairman of the Religion Department

Rice University, Houston, Texas, Teaching Fellow, 1969-1972

Management Consultant, Denka Chemical Corporation, Houston, Texas, 1977-1980

Texas General Resources, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1980-1983

Board of Directors and Director of Human Resources Program Faculty, Ultimate Strength Conferences, The Houstonian, Inc., 1980-1982

Consulting Practice, 1969-1988

Palmer Drug Abuse Program, Board of Directors, 1981-1988

Palmer Drug Abuse Program, Los Angeles, President, 1981-1988

The Life Plus Codependancy Treatment Center, National Director, 1987-1990

John Bradshaw Center at Ingleside Hospital, National Director, Los Angeles, 1990-1993

Lecture Series at more than one thousand churches and synagogues, 1960-present

---

AUTHOR

Bradshaw On: The Family - 1986 (Health Communications, Inc.) Bradshaw On: Healing the Shame that Binds You - 1988 (Health Communications, Inc.)

Homecoming: Reclaiming and Championing Your Inner Child - 1990 (Bantam)

Creating Love - 1992 (Bantam)

Family Secrets - 1995 (Bantam)

Bradshaw On: The Family (Revised) - 1996 (Health Communications, Inc.) Published in 42 different languages.

---

TELEVISION PROGRAMS (Partial Listing)

Host, Spotlight, a weekly one-hour television program - 1969-1972

The Eight Stages of Man - eight part PBS series - aired 1982

Bradshaw on the Family - ten-part PBS series - aired 1985

Where Are You Father - one-hour PBS program - aired 1986

Healing the Shame that Binds You - one-hour PBS program - aired 1987

Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families - two-hour PBS program - aired 1988

Surviving Divorce - ninety-minute PBS program - aired 1989

Bradshaw On Homecoming - ten-part PBS series - aired 1990

Nominated for an Emmy Award Creating Love - ten-part PBS series - aired 1992-1993

Eating Disorders - three-part PBS series - aired 1994-1995

Bradshaw On: Family Secrets - six-part PBS series - aired 1995

Host, The Bradshaw Difference, a nationally syndicated daily talk show - 1996

produced by MGM

• John was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award as Outstanding Talk Show Host in 1991*

I suppose you can see why he calls himself a theologian.

Yea, just a matter of looking it up. If I find the time today I'll try to look at it. --DanielCD 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for the 12 step wiki link help :-) I thought I was losing my mind. And yeah if we can identify what license he may have that would certainly be good info for the article. Mr Christopher 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work to remove the POV-like language. His ideas are not all completely dismissable, and he has done a great deal to bring awareness of some valid ideas in psychology. The article seems to make like eveything he did was bunk. "Wounded inner child" is tacky and pop, but that's only one small aspect of his larger work. What about family systems theory? Need to mention that, as they is his lynchpin. --DanielCD 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, after formulating a theory about the effects of childhood events on adult behavior, he devoted himself to advocating this theory, describing it as championing the concept of "reclaiming" the self through a process of making changes one step at a time.

I'm not sure about this. Funny wording? I don't think he made any theories. This sentence is uncited, so I removed it as highly questionable. This whole article needs a re-write. --DanielCD 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence is the result of my bungled attempt to remove the previous POV in it. I am not attached to it in any way. Mr Christopher

006

pop psychology

Daniel, I feel strongly that the term "pop psychology" belongs in this article. Not enough to make a big deal out of it but here are my reasons Bradshaw has possibly contributed more than anyone else in the 20th and 21st Century to creating programs to "heal" millions from their neglect and abuse in their childhood and has helped hundreds of thousands with their numerous addictions and depression. He was nominated by his peers and “one of the one-hundred most influential writers on emotional health in the 20th Century.” Many psychiatrists, prisons, colleges and most treatment centers in the country use his work. His books are used in many universities and colleges in psychology departments. He has been published in peer reviewed psychology journals, and, he offers empirical data to support his claims and theories. His work has been subject to peer review and analysis, and therapists and analysts clamor to his trainings and workshops. His theories are taught in psychology classes. There are clinical diagnoses for many of the things Bradshaw calls "diseases" (or "dis-ease" as Bradshaw describes them) or conditions. Bradshaw is synonymous with an Albert Ellis or Abraham Maslow.

And as an example, Bradshaw's latest book is Moral Intelligence. He is also working on completing "Post Stress Romantic Syndrome” well that certainly sounds like psychology but again this "syndrome" is simply a make up term (diagnosis?) for which Bradshaw outlines a solution in his book. Yet most of us who have been in a long term relationship know and understand the concept of post stress romantic syndrome. There was a time when codependency was all the rage The concept of "toxic shame" hit its peak a decade ago. These are all concepts that exist only within the recovery and pop psychology movement. Once the pop psychology popularity fades a new book and "concept" is introduced. These "concepts" are the result of testing or observations, or data analysis, and we now have brain imaging and MRIs that clinically show that his inner child grief works actually changes brain patterns. .

John Bradshaw would never describe himself as a “guru” or “pop psychologist.” Though others have, his tenure of over 40 years teaching his theories with academics and laypersons alike are considered the proof of the pudding. . Melody Beattie is a perfect example. One day she is an unemployed mother of two who is a member of a 12 step group. The next day she is a leading "expert" on a make up concept called "codependency." The primary difference in Melody Beattie and Bradshaw is Bradshaw has four of degrees.

Pop psychology is variable - Bradshaw wrote numerous books on healthy family and then after 20 years of marriage, he and his 1st wife Nancy divorced. His work at times tends to center around what he's struggling with at the moment. He feels strongly that there are no quick fixes in life…that it’s for growth and hard work. A lot of people feel better after doing his work, and there is nothing wrong or bad about this, it is simply to be distinguished from mainstream psychology which is rooted more in scientific and testable notions versus feel good fads couched in clinical jargon.

There is no debate that Bradshaw is popular and his ideas, no matter how unscientific they are, enjoy the same popularity. And there is nothing wrong or sinister about being a prominent pop psychology leader and selling books is not a crime. Bradshaw is about healing…that’s here his interests lie. He is a prominent author, theologian, teacher, and lecturer. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. I think it is important that the article reflect these realities in a NPOV manner.

So yes, he's pop. But he is also largely well-intentioned in his efforts. 12-steps made him an evangelist for that movement because it had a powerful effect on him. He genuinely wanted to get the message out, but got caught up in the goopyness of the pop-psy market. . I just want a balance... --DanielCD 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally these symptoms are so utterly vague that most anyone can be diagnosed with them (thus anyone should buy the book).

I agree with that.

Co-dependency is a crippling disease affecting hundreds of millions worldwide. Eventually you resent what you do to make others “happy” and they resent you for interfering. There are COSA, CODA groups all over the world. You might even give "pop-psychology" its own section and discuss some of these ideas.--DanielCD 16:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know what "codependency" means. I think this word is dying out as it is so poorly defined. The self help article needs more mention of pop psychology as well. --DanielCD 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: you may know more than I may. He started out well-intentioned, but I lost interest in him when the "lists.” I read your older comment and didn't see the new one 'till now, so I'll re-read it. --DanielCD 16:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And I certainly don't want to imply that the fact he is a pop psychologist means he is acting on bad faith or has bad intentions. I do not feel that way. I think we should somehow mention he is a leader within the pop psychology and recovery movement in the opening paragraph. And because there are other John Bradshaw wiki articles we have to differentiate him from the others. "Theologian" is what he is called now, what do you propose we use as a substitute? "Author"? "Lecturer"? Mr Christopher 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Author would probably be best. I didn't mean to get into this so deep. He became a "leader" because he was a powerful speaker and others with crazy ideas latched onto his boat and got him to endorse all their ideas. Amend it as you see fit; I certainly trust your judgment. :). --DanielCD 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand completely; I often say the same thing to others. I would defer to Flo as to what she is seeing. I think it's passable as it is, other than that one sentence. --DanielCD 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD and Mr Christopher, it was that one sentence and MAYBE the way pop-psychology is used. I'm not going to elaborate because you both know what I mean. One of us needs to fix it by re-wording that sentence. I know you are busy so I'll be glad to do it or Mr Christopher can. FloNight ^talk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few resources that relate (equate?) John Bradshaw and pop psychology. When I get a little time I will add some of those cites and keep an eye on how it is portrayed in the article. I'll let Daniel work on that one sentence but I am not sure if it is even needed. And there are a few resources that say pretty much the same thing that one sentence implies. I might substitute a credible outside source for Daniel's sentence. This seems to be the theme of my life this week, a lack of cites and a lack of time. I need to work on both! Mr Christopher 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: Do not wait on me to fix it though, if you have a fix by all means impliment it. Mr Christopher 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My thinking: First, some people still like and support his work. It is not highly questionable to them. Their pov needs to be addressed if this wording stays. As the rest of the article shows, he is not a kook. If he did something to discredit his work, the article needs to say so. If not the wording is too strong. I see it more a matter of time marching on. In with the new, out with the old. Second, pop-psychology is often used as a derogatory term. Popular psychology has more legitimate usage in an academic sense. (Even that term is somewhat derogatory.) We need to consider all the meaning of the word when we use it. I think we can use other words and say the same thing. Remember, WP:BLP urges editors to choose the least harmful route to get the point across if we can be true to the the meaning. FloNight ^talk 21:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I added my try at a temp fix. Need to read more about him to get better perspective. --FloNight ^talk 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say it was all highly questionable. I knew Flo would come in and fix it anyway (lol). not really. Perhaps I made a boo boo. Sowwy. --DanielCD 02:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo I hear what you are saying about pop psychology and popular psychology yet I don't think we should be overly sensitive to the use of those terms. Here's why - the simplest way for one who proposes new theories in behaviour, psychology and mental health to avoid the impression that their ideas are more pop psychology than the result of psychological research and tested hypothesis is for them to actually present those theories to mainstream, peer reviewed psychological journals and publications where those theories (and data if any) are subject to peer review, testing, and critical analysis. I have yet to find any evidence that Bradshaw has ever made any such attempts (or values that process and scrutiny of his own ideas).

I'll see if I can dig up some of his responses to criticism as well. This doesn't make him a bad guy, or mean his ideas are not worthy or popular (or helpful), it just means his ideas fall outside the scope of scientific rigor and he has apparantly never made any attempts to change that. I think that is one of the hallmarks of what constitutes pop psychology. Having said that I think we are now using the popular psychology description in this article in a NPOV manner. What's your take on the current version of the article? Mr Christopher 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. If we only accepted knowledge generated purely by research, we would know next to nothing about anything. But if this is going to get into an epistemological discussion, I don't want any part of that. Just because someone hasn't done research doesn't mean they are clueless. --DanielCD 21:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll stay practical. Most clinical practitioners use a mixture of scientific, peer-reviewed plus non-research methods in their practice. You would be quite surprised by the number of treatments that have never been tested yet are accepted in clinical practice. Staying practical, I remind that he never had a problem getting a licence to practice (most states have these requirements for everyone that does counseling and rehab) or meeting credentialing requirements. Being a tad epistemological, remember that there is a differnce between research case definitions and clinical diagnosis. Let's even throw in self diagnosis. They all have their place in the scheme of things. --FloNight ^talk 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good now. We need to be careful about introducing controversy into the article. I don't think there much controversy. FloNight ^talk 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The source that was removed may not explicitly state that he self identifies as a theologian but almost any promotional web page that carries information about him refers to him as a Theologian [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. So no, none of those pages contain the phrase "I John Bradshaw self-identify as a Theologian" but he allows all of his marketing material to refer to him that way so how could he not be seen to self identify as one ? I find it difficult to imagine that he never reviewed and approved any of his promotional material. No Guru 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the statement. --DanielCD 16:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He asserts that he is a Theolgian. Other people (interviewers, reviewiers, etc) refer to him as such [11] [12] [13] so I think not including some reference to it is a dis-service to the article. No Guru 16:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that wording is better. --DanielCD 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. No Guru 16:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre PBS John Bradshaw

As amazing as it might seem, Bradshaw was once a humble counselor with a typical private practice in Houston, Texas. Finding information about that era (pre PBS) has been an empty well for me so far. From original research I know he was a counselor with a masters in psychology who blended Ericksonian hypnotherapy with NLP (and A.A./12 steps) as his primary counseling approach. I cannot find anything to support this (other than positive remarks regarding Erickson/NLP and of course A.A. as a theraputic approach) but if anyone else comes accross something about his ealier years it might be noteworthy. He had been counseling people a very long time prior to his best selling author and lecturer status. And if anyone comes accross any licensing info (such as an LCSW, MFC, etc) that would probably make sense too.I think he was certified in NLP and maybe a few other disiplines. None of this is a big deal, but it might be noteworthy if anyone stumbles upon something that sheds some light on his earlier history. Mr Christopher 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons

Hi there. Do others agree with Christopher's decision to remove the reference to John Bradshaw as the inspiration for the "John Goodman" character on the classic Simpsons? I thought it was noteworthy, at least as an aside, though perhaps I should have listed it under trivia. I watched the PBS series and read the book Healing the Shame that Binds You and the Goodman character (voiced by Albert Brooks) is bang on. Just curious, Shawn Goldwater, Montreal.

I think it would need a reference and a bit more elaboration as to its importance. --DanielCD 17:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had included a citation. Regarding importance, I figured that the Simpsons appearance was a testament to his prominence in pop culture (though the honour of being on the Simpsons has, I grant you, diminished greatly since then). Anyway, disregard if you think it's too trivial. Shawn in Montreal 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't helped my case by getting the character's name wrong. It wasn't John Goodman it was Brad Goodman! I'll show myself out now... Shawn in Montreal 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Its plainly obvious

Its plainly obvious to me that these people who discredit John have had a nerve hit when reading Johns books or listening to Johns tapes. They then react by defending their own parents by mystifying them. This is exactly what John brings to light. Sad isnt it? Never undersetimate the power of denial.....

Patty Haley Grass Valley, CA

Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance either, missy. Clearly You should have taken the blue pill and not the red one, Patty H. Or simply refused to drink the kool-aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Theologian, Philologist, Counselor, Healer, Human-being

My Own "Human All Too Human" Experiences Of (likely you will call them) Subjectiveness Content; I take that chance in defense of a very good and compassionate scientist's work; A man whom carries long studies in words, faith, hope and circumstance; inviolably a philologist, but much, much more: I stand in the hyena pit to state to you-all, out there:

I have never in my life run across a more deserving leader, a man whom refuses to take advantage of repeat subscribers, telling them they don't have to repeat or write it all down in order to get it right. This is a very first for me.

I will tell you that after finding Alanon and then ACOA ( I don't care I am exposing my anonymity; this is too important; more important than my (any) pretense or privacy!) within the second month of 1988, I had found a group of people whom I finally felt were my family. By summer 1990 I discovered, during a vacation travel through some regions of British Columbia, Canada, and only by repeated omnipresent acts of vastly omniscient generosity (acts of what I refer to as God Almighty) call them coincidental occurrences, I located Mr. John Bradshaw's works for the first time.

Having been told of this person, only once prior, I was then soundly of the opinion I was not looking for any "gurus" but that the 12 step programs were of a "self help" nature and "guru" would not work. When I read and observed Mr. Bradshaw's works, written and video, I soon discovered he is not anywhere near to being a guru. He is more of a genuine gift to humankind, from his "experience, strength and hope," of shared revelations, given his true tales of woe and also primarily his ability in turning very, very complicated life distractions, psychosis, into simple to understand jargon, understandable by even lay-persons. He is the Isaac Asimov of healing inner turmoils in that he explains so that any education level may comprehend, but more, he shows ways even a babe could feel to heal.

The man John Elliot Bradshaw, whom I only met briefly, as I wished to avoid glad handing or taking anything away from him, but to provide to him, to share with him, gracefully as I could, some relevant creative writings for his own burdens at that time of his own life experience. I approached his stage at a moment of pause, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, at the Calgary Centre, in 1992. Given I understood; I heard and felt his own great soul burdens from his own childhood, and I knew his work as being only for the betterment of humanity, and important; very important.

You see after observing his lectures and works literal and verbal; I began to find my own healing from visions from my own past many, many of the which I cannot share with you here but one such I will, and I note that I write these words here not in defense or for mesmerism regarding these works above mentioned; and not for some glorifying of self, but as a moment in sharing with you people, what I have seen in my own experiences.

The healing which I have been able to secure for my own, call it inner self, or inner child, just as result of allowing my memories to surface and then being now able with all the tools in healing them; have profoundly changed my life and for the better I assure you. My originating recollections, which required many years in finding, were of a klinking sound (bottles klinking before had meant a happy, play time. Time for some music and songs,a horsey ride perhaps and a sip of bitter beer!)which aroused a toddler that it was play time, although it was late, late at night. Then followed were the two big kids, unhappy and miserable, as usual, so this little fairy crept forth, braver than any soldier about to face a vastly superior and deadly foe, creeping stealth fully, missing all the squeaks on the floor boards and stairs, to see; The most beloved, laying on the floor of kitchen tiles made up of red and white squares onto which black red blood was oozing from the most depended upon persons face. Her eyes glazed over, her look as one of utter defeat, as her face blended into the hard tile floor as if she were kissing the floor. She was not moving. She was motionless, her eyes open but her glance forward into the floor as if she were no more...I looked and to where I might find help, in my silence I wished to scream but for fear and the coldness of frozen time I held my breath...He was turned standing across the kitchen facing the slide out breadboard cutting and preparing food as he was busily making himself a sandwich. Why was this scene made more crazy by that action?, I wondered and my four year old mind had to interfere, I had to make some announcement of my presence, that this frozen scene might change! I made the stair squeak with my foot, and suddenly the monsters came again to life and ready for to engage, only once again, into the fray of the battle...he turned very sullen and angry and roared "What the hell are you doing up!?" Her nose breathed into the blood and tears, making a gurgling sound, as she breathed back to life before rising in defense of one of her little ones...And on it went over and over and over.

It wasn't until I finally got up the courage to take off the old suit of armor, the ages of coverings, lay down my sword, heave off my chain mail, that I could begin to finally breathe and live my one and only life. At twenty-eight, I began my life and at forty-seven, I now write in so that you might learn to appreciate that when I say my X masses were fraught with flying turkeys and flying trees, you might know that I am not crazy, I am only now just beginning to remember and relay to you that there may be hope.

God Bless you John Bradshaw, thanks for the good work you do. You've so helped me in my journeys and discoveries. I am alive and living now in the healing of my past. I am your humble brother I write now and share that our world might become reflective of your work, and I believe you are a theologian, a philologist, a counselor, and a wonderful person, faults and all, when and if I see any faults that is. You have helped to inspire that I free exponentially more prisoners from my memories, from dungeons what were once sacredly secret(once called family privacy) now I know they were secret wars and their casualties were my own inner self and inabilities to be me.

Seal Van Horne, Esquire to the Light of my Higher Power Jesus The Christ

WTF?

Not a single cite in the article? This "article" is nothing more than a promotional piece for a new age guru. One, who like all the rest of the psychobabbling frauds, broke all of his own rules, including ditching his wife for a younger model (a flight attendant, how cliche!). I'm astonished anyone takes anything he ever wrote with any seriousness. But how about citing some of the BS written in this "article"? PS; The comments right above my own almost made me throw up. Does that have to stay on the talk page? It's gross and has nothing to do with the article. Yes lots of people are very naive and they eat up new age psychobabble nonsense from people like john bradshaw, but must we be forced to read your gross fan mail to him here? the hero worship for new age gurus is simply gross to witness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought I propose we keep the comments above, from the love smitten bradshaw follower. it provides the reader important insight into how mindless people who believe in new age nonsense become. clearly that guy has lost his mind. oh and the woman who suggests anyone who does not love john bradshaw has some sort of issues is a good example of how mindless new age followers are. they make bradshaw tons of money, but, I mean, read their comments and tell me if either sounds like a mentally well person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article needs serious attention as it has no citations, has a serious case of POV and needs copyediting (for instance, the Biography section claims he is the author of six books, but the Résumé section says five and the bibliography lists seven).Autarch (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

His death

no mention of cause of death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.251 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• John Bradshaw Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

deleted as copyrights violation. Best regards -- Neozoon 19:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)