Talk:Vernon Coleman

Shock-jock: controversialist : entertainer : NOT a public enemy

I quite like the old codger: he forces people to think, and sometimes he is on the ball, and sometimes he isn't, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to nit-pick entertainers because we don't like their jokes, it is our job to record their relative importance and notability, and Vernon is a popular counter-cultural icon of sorts - as indeed are many other controversial journalists, TV personalities, authors, and broadcasters. By being so hostile and POV, all we do is inflate his importance! Excalibur (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember you also writing: "This article on Vernon is a hatchet job from start to finish: and you know it fine well. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia in that POV form: either he is notable, or he is not. He is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast, not some kind of hard core fanatical conspiracy theorist (whatever that is, presumably someone who disagrees with your own version of the facts)" on my talk page. Once again, please provide impartial sources if you desire for the article to be changed via agreed consensus. MrEarlGray (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

and so I did: like anyone else, I am perfectly entitled to change my mind every week or so should I choose so to do: that is a sign of editorial strength, not weakness. All I am urging editors to do is to be kind: Vernon is not exactly a global threat, is he? Excalibur (talk)

You provided no impartial information, only a rambling rant. An individual whose misinformation has been reported in global sources during a global pandemic may be seen as a global threat. MrEarlGray (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is a former general practitioner, and the author of over 100 books, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[citation needed] He is a militant vegetarian[3] and [4][5]

One of his novels, Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War, has been turned into a movie with the same name.[6]

According to The Independent, Coleman has "been censured by the Press Complaints Commission and banned by the advertising watchdog" and "irritates just about everyone".[7]

Coleman complains that his campaigning has made him many enemies and he has been regularly attacked by large corporations and their spokesmen. According to his website (www.vernoncoleman.com) the book which inspired both complaints (‘Food for Thought’) listed 26 scientific papers proving that meat causes cancer. When the meat industry complained about an article based on the book, and an advertisement for it, both the PCC and the advertising watchdog refused to look at the scientific papers but upheld the complaints.[citation needed]

According to The Independent "Vernon Coleman is many things and he has written books about most of them." "He's frank, fearless and prolific. He's outrageous, outspoken and iconoclastic. A Vernon Coleman book will change your life...and may even save your life."[citation needed](Independent 14 May 2008)

"...our doctor is completely independent, and can afford to stick two fingers up not only at medicine and mainstream publishing but also at Bush, Blair, Lord Hutton, those who want to surrender British sovereignty to a European superstate, the pharmaceutical industry, animal experiments, Dr Atkins, Uncle Tom Cobley and everyone who eats meat. (You have been warned, Mr Blair)"[citation needed]Spectator 6 March 2004 and 20 March 2004)

In 1983 Coleman prepared the text for a series of home doctor programmes for computers.[citation needed] (The Times 29 March 1983, British Medical Journal 8 September 1984, British Medical Journal 27 October 1984)

He was a CSV volunteer in Liverpool in 1964/5 ('Volunteer in Kirkby' - "The Guardian" 14.5.65) In "How to stop your doctor killing you" (1996) he argued that it is the breakdown of the immune system which contributes to the development of cancer. In 1981 he resigned from the NHS after refusing to put diagnoses on sick notes. ('Bumbledom forced me to leave the NHS' - "Pulse" 28.11.81) In 2003 he resigned from The People newspaper after the editor refused to print a column criticising the Iraq War ('Conscientious Objectors' - "Financial Times" 8.8.03)[citation needed] JimmyWolf74 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

== the expression "militant vegetarian" is a bit POV in my humble opinion: perhaps you might consider replacing it with the expression: "an enthusiastic promoter of healthy food that doesn't screw up the planet" ? By the way I am NOT a vegetarian, but neither do I feel the need to beat up those who are. Excalibur (talk)

"...an enthusiastic promoter of healthy food that doesn't screw up the planet" is lacking encyclopedic tone. MrEarlGray (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excalibur: Can you please skip the chatting and concentrate on improving the article? Nobody here is interested in what you eat or what you think about the subject of the article. See WP:TALK. Also, your formatting stinks. New stuff goes to the bottom, and the "==" thing is for headers. See WP:INDENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Restore all the books and tv series Vernon Coleman has written and been in and remove the bit where he allegedly wrote an article for the scum denying the existence of aids in the 1980s because no one has given an exact date or year and remove “conspiracy theorist” “aids denalist” “pseudoscientific” and “discredited” because he has thousands of scientific papers backing him up which are no match for your 40 you supposedly have😂 or better still remove the protection 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:EDED:47E6:EAFB:4BE9 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources that discredit him and that make him a conspiracy theorist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:B5B3:2FAF:B135:94B5 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Already done. See the sources used in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased Article

I'm a fan of Vernon Coleman and as a result I actually have previous versions of his Wikipedia page. Over recent years I have seen this page change greatly from one of summarizing the man and the positives and negatives of his life and career. This is called being unbiased and fair. However, what I have seen recently on this page is an attack on the man. He has done a lot of good throughout his life, but where is this mentioned in this page? This is why I don't rate Wikipedia. You sell it as though anyone can edit and contribute and yet if I edited this page and added some positives about Vernon Coleman's contribution to the debate, I know they would be deleted. The people editing this page have a hidden agenda. Where is the list of his more than 100 published books? Where is the list of his medical qualifications, as is done on other Wikipedia pages? etc etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not usually list over 100 books. Excerpts, containing the most important ones, are fine. If you have reliable sources about any "medical qualifications", bring them.

We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. When reliable sources say mainly bad things about someone, Wikipedia will not try to mislead its readers by pretending that the good/bad ratio is 50/50. That would be dishonest. You want the article to be dishonest? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia will not try to mislead its readers by pretending that the good/bad ratio is 50/50. That would be dishonest." Eh? You don't want an unbiased article? What? Why does presenting an unbiased article have to be "pretending"? Why would showing both sides to an issue or person be considered "dishonest"? What a nutty stance to hold. It's like saying presenting both sides of the Brexit Referendum would have been "pretending and dishonest". You need to rethink your moral code. I see others have raised the point in this discussion area about a direct attack on Coleman, and they are right. "Excerpts, containing the most important ones, are fine." --> They are all there on his 2 websites and Amazon. "If you have reliable sources about any "medical qualifications", bring them." --> They are all there on his 2 websites.

If you disagree with WP:FALSEBALANCE, this is not the place to discuss it. The right place is Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. But you will not succeed because changing that guideline would be a really stupid and absurd idea that has been rejected before.

His website is not a reliable source. Neither is Amazon. See WP:RS. If you disagree with WP:RS, the right place is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not here. But read the FAQ at the top first. And if you still want to change the rule to include unreliable sources: again, you will not succeed because changing that guideline would be a really stupid and absurd idea that has been rejected before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"you will not succeed" --> which you sate twice. You sound like some sort of authoritarian judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. "really stupid and absurd idea" --> Yes Mein Fuhrer. "His website is not a reliable source" --> Not a reliable source for a summary of his own books! Really! "want to change the rule" --> who wants to change Wikipedia's somewhat questionable rules. All I indicated at was listing some/all of his 100+ books, which used to be included but removed by someone or some body with a hidden agenda. I expected this kind of response from Wikipedia and it moderators, some of which are a little dubious.