Talk:Peter Dingle

This article reads like an advertisement for Dr Dingle. Surely that is an abuse of Wikipedia, especially given his shocking role in the death of his wife (see the coroner's report http://www.homeowatch.org/news/dingle_finding.pdf) --81.101.197.228 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement because it IS an advertisement. I don't know if it's intentional and written by Peter Dingle himself or someone on his behalf, but he is listed in the media as a 'self proclaimed media personality,' his only notability is being involved in killing his own wife through pseudoscientific snake oil practices of homeopathy. The coroners report about it isn't even linked. Interestingly, his website doesn't even mention his dead wife, and the single by-line here is worded interestingly. His first wife. So clearly within a few years he'd replaced her. I will be making an application to the director of public prosecutions in Perth, Australia to look into this matter as criminal negligence in the coming days. Francine Scrayen, the homeopath involved, has also been getting some public heat for issuing legal threats to anyone who mentions her involvement in Mrs Penelope Dingle's death. That said Ms Scrayen is the only reason that Peter Dongle is even publicly notable, and the horrific death of Penelope Dingle. Not exactly something that one would want to be known for but it is the sole manner in which this man may possibly meet the notability requirements.

I do strongly suggest this article be cleaned up and made to address the 'self proclaimed media personality' element as well as the death of his wife through homeopathic practices of Francine Scrayen (who told her that she could cure her cancer, as long as she doesn't try any other medical practices). But do try and keep it neutral, I do urge you to read the coroners report about this[1] but don't let that skew your POV on this matter and stay professional if you do modify this article. If we can't get someone to do so in a few weeks I'll give it a shot myself if I must. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. François Robere (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I got rid of the line about "the cancer returning", because it was a lie. The cancer never "returned" as it was not removed and there was never any "failed attempt at chemotherapy" as by the time she received professional medical care the only thing that could be done for her was palliative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.157.82 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wilyman PhD

Given that Dingle was not a supervisor of the final PhD as delivered, was not listed on that PhD, and we don't know anything about the degree of his involvement, it seems to be undue to include Wilyman's PhD here. Is there any particular reason to assume that Dingle had a significant role in the PhD as published? - Bilby (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I would appreciate you please stop WP:STALKing or 'Wikihounding' my edit efforts on Vax topics. As this has been your M.O. for some time as I believe it reflects WP:HA and WP:FRINGE/PS on your part. Thank you in advance. Gongwool (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable, non-blog sources which address the questions raised above? Before we emphasis his role in a single doctorate, it would be best to have an understanding of his significance in that PhD. - Bilby (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool, can you address the above instead of returning a poorly sourced claim back into the article, and removing an attempt to identify it as such? Do you have any reliable, non-blog sources which discuss Dingle in relation to the thesis? - Bilby (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your WP:STALKing. The prof expert cite you have a problem with is non controversial (it just supports what the student says). I disagree but if your claim is that it is a blog, then read WP:BLOGS where it says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It's a non-controversial sentence just stating student/supervisor relationship fact. Jeez, please stop nitpicking, just because a POV compels you to follow my edits around. If I sneezed then you accuse me of some or other policy breach. End of story. You're beginning to scare me, Bye Gongwool (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)