Talk:Vernon Coleman

Reversion of Lede

An editor Roxy The Dog has misrepresented a suggestion put forward in talk along with the last lede untainted by the BIAS obviously that has crept into the article which is un encyclopedia.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) I reject the charge which you made, The discussion in the article has comments to ping those interested as you are messaging me is not biased canvassing. The consensus process is starting and Any infraction which you may have identified in your opinion was on my part inadvertent. Please note the consensus bold editing dispute advice which recommends assumption of good faith etc. I am not easily offended but do please observe the niceties yourself.

RogerGLewis (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"ArgleBargle?" is that a reference to a Wikipedia policy. I suggested a Lede and you also undid a new section Roxy the Dog. I will re-instate that new section in talk and report your edit as vandalism. 78.69.176.146 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) please review the new section . The vandalism involved is frankly looking mendacious.

Restore Lede to pre Covid 19 denialist bias attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring This section will need to be built up as it is not possible to restore the perfectly reasoned Lede proposal as the section has been archived further vandalism has also been see by a cut and paste from a previous discussion on my taklk page about the Greta Thunberg and Extinction rebelilion pages. 78.69.176.146 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Dr Vernon Coleman 2019

− Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is a former general practitioner,[1] and the author of over 100 books in 25 languages, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[3] His books have appeared on several bestseller lists, including the Sunday Times. Life Without Tranquillisers reached the Top Ten of the Sunday Times in March 1985.[4] His book Bodypower reached several bestseller lists in the UK.[5][6][7] 78.69.176.146 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC) I propose that this Lede is re instated as previously suggested, I will invoke a consensus procedure to take this to a vote as the Lede is protected .

NEW Replacement Lede   .

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is a former general practitioner,[1] and the author of over 100 books in 25 languages, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[3] His books have appeared on several bestseller lists, including the Sunday Times. Life Without Tranquillisers reached the Top Ten of the Sunday Times in March 1985.[4] His book Bodypower reached several bestseller lists in the UK.[5][6][7] Coleman is a militant vegetarian[8] and antivivisectionist.[9][10]

This lede was the lede from december 2019, Dr Coleman views are controversial and the entry at that point in time made that quite clear. The more appropriate way to deal with the Covid 19 allegations against Dr Coleman would be a seperate Section detailing any controversy. I will build up the argument and start drafting the new lede and a new section for which the Covid 19 denialism debate can be. I intend to spend some time on this as the article as it currently stands brings Wikipedia into disrepute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 06:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC) added as suggested in edit warring guidance RogerGLewis (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I agree a section should be written outlining how independent bodies have criticised Coleman's Covid-19 denial, I vote to reject your suggested lede as it is not reflective of the significant criticism Coleman has received from independent bodies over his many years of publishing. The suggested lede you mentioned was not "perfectly reasoned", because it failed to reflect the verdicts made by independent bodies when discrediting his works. Not everyone has time to read an entire Wikipedia page, therefore the lede should be generally encompassing of the entire article, which, in this instance demonstrates Coleman has not produced much if anything of merit to the medical community or society at large. I say this as Coleman's fringe publications have not received acclaim from independent medical bodies, instead they have been subject to ridicule due to the danger they pose to the general public. Therefore, similar to Andrew Wakefield the lede should be reflective of why the individual warrants a Wikipedia page, which in this case is Coleman's fringe claims - none of which have passed a peer review. Additionally, no-one has been able to provide a verified source backing up the best-seller claims - ideally we need someone to dig through the archives or microfiches to go back that far to approve their inclusion. You are welcome to 'spend time' on the article but any changes you make must be supported by evidence and be free from bias and peacocking (for example: no-one can be a 'militant vegetarian', such words are rhetorical) as per Wikipedia's TOS. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray Thank You for your helpful comment, I accept what you say about the 2019 Lede I suggested "The suggested lede you mentioned was not "perfectly reasoned" , The december 2019 Lede, is though, I think more appropriate than the Present one. Your comment on Andrew Wakefield is I think weakly relevant to this article That case is more akin to the Duesenberg case than the Coleman Case, both Duesenberg and Wakefield having attained more Mainstream academic eminence than Dr Coleman, who achieve greatest prominence as a Newspaper columnist on health matters, Media prominence in this age denoted noteworthiness more than academic achievement.

Other articles with similar revisionism on thought crime are Mullis , Mikovits ever Judith Curry, I will continue working on a more neutral Lede and a separate section on Covid 19, up to december 2019 the entry had much less traffic, it seems that Dr Coleman's views on masks and lockdowns have elevated his status from an eccentric Militant Vegetarian to a full blooded thought criminal of the highly infectious and dangerous variety. Regarding prominence as a Daily people columnist and sunday people Columnist Dr Coleman was undoubtedly prominent nationally in the United Kingdom. this Independent newspaper article in and of its self proves that to have been the case.Media: Doctoring the books Media medic Vernon Coleman is best known for his views on sex, but what he really cares about is animal rights or this one in the same publication. DOCTOR ON THE MAKE Vernon Coleman is a media doctor with knobs on: tabloid superstar, telephone advice line proprietor, prolific author, animal rights activist - and champion of cross-dressing Given the broader scope of the Lede you suggest it will take more work than a revised lede with a summary of the Post Covid 19 thought criminal appellation, I will post something over the course of the next few days as I need to fit it into my day job as it were. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thought crime doesn't exist and you have linked Wikispooks as a source. Wikispooks is a "deep-state conspiracy" site peddling nonsense. You are welcome to spend whatever time you wish on writing a lede, but please check your sources for bias RogerGLewis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits(talk) 14:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to suffer from the common rookie misunderstanding that in Wikipedia context, "neutral" means that all ideas are equal. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Among the people who have edited this article or Talk page recently, you are probably the least experienced, and you should adapt your attitude accordingly. Less wild WP:PROFRINGE polemics in the flavor of "thought crime", more rule-based reasoning. All those people whose articles you linked - BTW, Kary Mullis (written [[Kary Mullis]]) is easier to write and read than your style - are fringe proponents and should be treated as such. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:49, 11 December 2019 This is the lede immediately before the change to the shorter "Thought Criminal" revision.

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is a former general practitioner,[1] and the author of over 100 books in 25 languages, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2]

25 December 2013}}</ref> and a range of novels. His books have appeared on several bestseller lists, including the Sunday Times. Life Without Tranquillisers reached the Top Ten of the Sunday Times in March 1985.

His book Bodypower reached several bestseller lists in the UK. Coleman is a militant vegetarian and antivivisectionist. One of his novels, Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War, has been turned into a movie with the same name. 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.

I will build a list of notability support from independent sources 1. The Press Gazette By Dominic Ponsford A former tabloid columnist has devoted an entire book to criticising the newspaper from which he resigned. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Copying and pasting of old versions is not how discussions work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

During a major re write of a lede there is no other way of establishing a starting point and as the discussion has been archived it is only the relevant part of the lede I have reference, please see the comment above from MrEarlGray thank you for your comment Hob Gadling, I am a casual editor of Wikipedia but have done so casually since 2009 and have had periods of more serious editing on Green Party leadership articles. As an experience editor I trust you will cooperate in trying to get the Lede up to Snuff.

I think we are making a reasonable start and when a draft lede is ready based upon the material set out above hopefully we can achieve something suitable.RogerGLewis (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits Re Thought crime doesn't exist? This is a Talk page and as such my writing style is chatty, that's my natural natural way of speaking freely, I understand the need for encyclopedic language for the article itself but whilst brevity is encouraged everywhere a casual turn of phrase does not necessarily denote verbosity.RogerGLewis (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you are trying to do here, it makes no sense. You are throwing random text into this Talk page, and trying to understand what you are trying to say would be too much work. It's not worth it. Why don't you look at other Talk pages to find out how this is usually done? EOD, as long as you keep using this page a a garbage heap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This page is getting painful to read with all the template spam. Could we have a cleanup, please? MrEarlGray (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

agreed was just trying to RogerGLewis (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiquote Lede Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English author and conspiracy theorist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues. This is better than both above if we can agree to that I am happy to add a draft new section for the article on the Covid19 disputes. Regarding consensus process Hob Gadling I an trying to get the consensus process working as I did resolving the edit warring on Extinction rebellion, and also Shahrar Ali RogerGLewis (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed another incredibly stupid template that still remained on this page. Pleas stop adding them. Also please read WP:TPG and do not post to any talk pages until you understand. Perhaps if you limited yourself to two sentences per post here, and didn't use words with more than two syllables, we might understand you. I am talking to you RogerGLewis. SHEESH. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the grumpy dog. Please can you refrain from ad hominem attacks and stick to the revision of the Lede please.The in use and under construction templates are to prevent edit conflicts and unintentional vandalism.

RogerGLewis (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Again I have removed a useless template. RogerGLewis please read WP:TPG and WP:CIR It is clear you are incompetent. Until you come up to scratch on talk page usage, you will make no progress. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

please refrain from vandalism the under construction template is necessary when vexatious editors are doing what you are doing.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a re draft of the lede. with some citations as to suggested good practice in Lede writing.

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues.He was formerly a newspaper columnist , and general practitioner (GP). Originally coming to prominence as the original TV doctor in the UK. . Dr Coleman again came to prominence during the 2020 Pandemic after publishing a video on youtube which provoked criticism that he was a conspiracy theorist(n 1), anti-vaccination activist, and AIDS denialist. New proposed lede ends. Notes. the Corbyn article has a very interesting drop down reference (n1)

{{refn|group=n|For the conspiracy theorist descriptor, see:

• Glastonbury 5G report 'hijacked by conspiracy theorists'. BBC News.
• Anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine and anti-mask protesters crowd London's Trafalgar Square. The Independent.
• Coronavirus protests: Jeremy Corbyn's brother among protesters arrested at Hyde Park 'mass gathering'. The Independent.
• Piers Corbyn charged with breaching lockdown rules on two occasions. The Daily Telegraph.
• Who is Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers? Mask protests, climate denial and support for a no-deal Brexit. anti-vaccination activist, and AIDS denialist, ( Need to look at code here) haqving dificulty cutting and pasting , work in progress will fix.),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake (WP:PSCI)

If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#Rule_of_thumb

Could we RoxyDog Roxy the grumpy dog. and MrEarlGray MrEarlGray and Hob Gadling get the lede in line with the rule of thumb? and following the wikipedia guidance on reaching consensus in talk pages. Thankyou.

RogerGLewis (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the grumpy dog. Intemperate editing and ad hominem Roxythedog, final warning RogerGLewis (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Utter, utter stupidity removed for the (at least) third time. I dont think I have seen a more hopeless editor this year. I am withdrawing from this Talk page until he's gone undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor, the reason so many people criticise Wikipedia is the arrogant attitude of some editors. I'm afraid that for all your protestations Roxy the grumpy dog. you are marking yourself out as one such. I would invite you again along with Mr Early Gray and Hob Gabling to consider the change in empasis and ordering in the revised lede I have suggested. I propose to add it to the Article tomorrow if there are no objection and if there are I propose to put it to a consensus vote with appropriate notices on relevant editing pages. RogerGLewis (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Roger, every editor has rejected your proposal and yet you are still saying "I propose to add it to the Article tomorrow if there are no objection". You are clearly unaware that a consensus can decide against your POV and, as the many posts above show, your proposal has been rejected by myself and other editors. If you keep spamming these pages and spamming names you are liable to be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. MrEarlGray (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed New Lede.

Here is a re draft of the lede. with some citations as to suggested good practice in Lede writing.

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues.He was formerly a newspaper columnist , and general practitioner (GP)( British Medical Doctor). Originally coming to prominence as the original TV doctor in the UK. . Dr Coleman again came to prominence during the 2020 Pandemic after publishing a video on youtube which provoked criticism that he was a conspiracy theorist (DIF =>) , anti-vaccination activist, and AIDS denialist.

New proposed lede ends.

I realise that this page is contentious and have read the Archives and studied the difs, The article needs a comprehensive re-write although a good start would be to replace the Lead(Lede) with a properly sourced encyclopedic Lede according to Wikipedia Lede writing guidance.

.The last discussion for article deletion did not result in a consensus , but some cogent points were made pertinent to the current stale mate. .I am a casual editor of Wikipedia but have taken the time to study this process on this page in depth as I am currently coding a collaborative design application which uses semantic and ontological algorithms to mine data and offer consensus solutions to affordable housing community design, as such: I have as much time as is needed to do the grunt work on this. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As the lead is supposed to be a short summary of the salient points in the body text, dont you think you should look at the body first? You should also put refs in the body, rather than your reference bombed lead, which is normally not acceptable. I think that the main point for you to consider is that the need for a change to the lead has certainly not been established. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 07:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Roxy the dog. 1. don't you think you should look at the body first? I have looked at the body of the article and yes it needs attention 2. The referencing approach I have adopted is an attempt to encompass what is a sprawling array of diffs across several archived talk pages and also the deletion discussion. As I am not competent in citing diffs ( I am looking at how to do it properly later) I felt that the Reference magazines I have made for my own use, and which i have published and linked to,allow me to add in the references properly in due course, without duplicating my own efforts or increasing the required effort of editors interested in the improvement of the article. 3. Is the argument for the Lede to be re-written established?. There was no consensus in the deletion discussion, (User:bibliomaniac1515 April 2020 (UTC)) that was some time ago. A properly sourced consensus process would answer that question, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is sufficient doubt as to the standard of the Article and of the Lede to approach the matter, as potentially controversial.RogerGLewis (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have posted this notice to the Biography of Living persons Talk page (Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard)

Vernon Coleman This article has been the subject of a deletion discussion in april 2020 and there are several archives of Talk page discussion. I have proposed a rewrite of the lead (Lede) , the main body of the article also requires attention to return it to an encyclopedic standard. I have added a proposed new Lede on the talk page, and I am seeking assistance from the wider editor community to address the current problems in the entry. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know where to post because this talk page is a mess, so I guess I'll just go to the end of the last section. I do see that he's labeled an anti-vaccine activist with no mention of that in the article body, and while it seems pretty likely that is true it should be supported by the body text. I'm not terribly fond of how the lead is written now because it splits up the "conspiracy theorist, activist" stuff from the "His medical claims are widely considered to be crap" line. Maybe something along the lines of Vernon Coleman is an English writer and blogger who writes on topics related to human health, animal welfare and politics. He was formerly a general practitioner and newspaper columnist. He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, pseudoscientific medicine and COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific. That groups the "He is a this that did that" together and then groups the "General consensus is he makes very bad medical claims" together. I think we need to stipulate the COVID-19 conspiracy theories, since that is how the sources we're citing frame it. I changed the verbiage on the anti-vaccination to pseudoscientific medicine because there's no mention of vaccines in the body, and there is plenty of mention of pseudoscience. Obviously this is just a rough hack at it, but hopefully it can lead towards getting something everyone can agree on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be a massive improvement in my opinion (ScottishFinnishRadish) I would vote for your amendments set out in green. Regarding the larger re-write, with a more balanced lede as per your suggestion, and that Draft, I think it would be somewhat less critical. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support text proposed by ScottishFinnishRadish. Definitely seems like a huge improvement though "discredited and described as pseudoscientific" sounds redundant. I might pick one or the other for the lead. It looks like he authored Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe and Effective Is Lying and was fact checked on the subject in PolitiFact so the anti-vaccination part would appear accurate though this needs to be developed in the body with supporting citations before making it to the lead. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think discredited and pseudoscience are fine together since they speak to different, although related, things. There is plenty of regular science that is discredited, and plenty of pseudoscience that isn't discredited because no one bothers to discredit non-scientific theories. That said I'm not terribly bothered if consensus is to use one or the other, but I think using discredited addresses him having been an actual doctor and pseudoscience addresses his current beliefs and statements. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with all text proposed by RogerGLewis due to clear malicious intent. A consensus on the lede was reached until RogerGLewis suggested a highly redacted suggestion from an very old edition of the page (which was favorable to Coleman) which referenced only the "true" information in praise of Coleman's works. I also have evidence here which shows RogerGLewis is purposefully suggesting sources which are in no-way impartial. I say this because the "Yumpu" is a copy-paste of Wikipedia articles, "Vetapedia" (a blog) claims Wikipedia is trying to "disfame (Colemans) reputation" and finally "NotTheGrubStreetJournal" is (according to the about me page) RogerGLewis's personal blog where RogerGLewis has written favorably on Coleman's view that "Wikipedia is a prophylactic (weapon) against thought crime" ". All these sites claim Wikipedia and its editors are malicious actors and then link to a video of Coleman criticizing Wikipedia. Third; Coleman did not come to prominence in 2020, because sources going back to the 1980's demonstrate his notoriety. I instead suspect what may have come to prominence was RogerGLewis's knowledge of Coleman in 2020 and a then Roger himself desired to have Wikipedia align with Coleman's biased views. Suddenly linking to Coleman's 'BrandNewTube' after he was banned from YouTube is effectively free advertising for Coleman, something which he has instructed his viewers to do via his videos, multiple times. In short, changing the lede this significantly strikes me as attempting to push a particular POV which is not the purpose of Wikipedia, RogerGLewis is not acting impartially, however I am however in favour of adding a category outlining how Coleman's works have been criticised by independent bodies regarding his spread of COVID-19 misinformation MrEarlGray (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the consensus version that you refer to the currently live version or something else? - Wikmoz (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus version I refer to is the current live version. MrEarlGray (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The text proposed by ScottishFinnishRadish is very similar to the current live version. It just omits the critical elements from the first sentence. Dives head first into them in the third sentence. Your objection is that the criticism doesn't appear until the third sentence? - Wikmoz (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The only reason I moved the critical elements is for readability. I think it flows better in my version without losing the valid criticism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray, can you clarify your objection to the proposed text? - Wikmoz (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Phew, I thought it was what I wrote! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I support The text proposed by ScottishFinnishRadish, this Draft in "green" the ordering of the sentence is much more balanced in my opinion. "Vernon Coleman is an English writer and blogger who writes on topics related to human health, animal welfare and politics. He was formerly a general practitioner and newspaper columnist. He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, pseudoscientific medicine and COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific".

ScottishFinnishRadish , Wikmoz & RogerGLewis all agree it seems. Regarding consensus the current lead does not have consensus, the last discussion was truncated as I was blocked from editing and the request I made for posting the discussion to appropriate notice boards was ignored.I posted a notice at (Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard)Vernon Coleman which seems to have attracted some interest. I believe that a number of archived discussion participants would cetainly disagree that a proper consensus had been reached on the article as it currently stands and other notices should be posted to relevant editor Boards, I do not wish to canvas and must for the record reject MrEarlGray's allegations of COVID-19 misinformation I am editing in good faith and have no fealty to or with Dr Vernon Coleman. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)78.69.176.146 (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, You are aware that Coleman wrote a book called "Vaccines Are Dangerous - And Don't Work", aren't you? And another called "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying"?

Also "Warning issued as 'dangerous anti-vax' leaflets posted through doors in Luton notes that [t]he leaflets claim to tell the "truth about vaccines" using information from Dr Vernon Coleman, a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccination activist.

Dundee Evening Telegraph: "The leaflets appeared through doors and letterboxes in Perth earlier this week and were titled “19 truths your government won’t tell you about Covid-19”, quoting Dr Vernon Coleman, a discredited former doctor and conspiracy theorist.". The Daily Record calls him "a conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist and AIDS denialist".

Vernon Coleman is a rabid antivaccinationist and anti-medicine conspiracy theorist. This is obvious from media coverage, from his books, and from the crap he writes in What Doctors Don't Tell You, a magazine thankfully no longer sold in shops due to the endless litany of complaints about the terrible advice and misleading advertisements it contained.

Coleman disputes all of this. But then he would, wouldn't he? He makes a nice living preying on the fears of the gullible, and doubtless joins the many other charlatans in considering Wikipedia's reality-based coverage of his noxious outpourings as some kind of restraint of trade. But we're not here to present the world as conspiracy theorists believe it to be, we're here to present objective facts. Even when that might stop some random dude from selling anti-vaccine propaganda. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw that after writing that first lead, which I think I mentioned elsewhere on this page. I'm fine with changing psuedoscientific medicine to anti-vaccine activism. When I wrote my first rough draft I had only reviewed the sources in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger, you claim "I am editing in good faith and have no fealty to or with Dr Vernon Coleman." - Yet, you have written on your blog, which you have linked here, in an entry titled "Taking the Lead in a ship of April Fools. Amending the Lede, No greater passion “Than the Passion to Alter Someone Else's Draft”" and wrote "Dr Coleman correctly diagnosed the use of Wikipedia as a prophylactic (weapon) against thought crime, and the coordinated banning of the Drs You tube video, and substantial re-writing of his wikipedia entry on the date that it went viral after being put on line are all borne out by the Wikipedia articles Page view statistics.". MrEarlGray (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr EarlGray, The Page view statistics bear out that the interest in Dr Coleman's Wikipedia Entry coincided with his Viral Youtube video and the nature of the article changed dramatically after the traffic increased, that is clear for anyone to see and I have merely pointed it out. Wikipedia is characterised by factional ingroup editing , I do not take part in any factions , I do observe ingroup biases and infighting between Editorial teams, one such group has been suggested to be operating on this page, if you read the Archived discussion comment by Excalibur talk|). My interest in Wiki's and the work of Ted Nelson on Hyper text as I have said is currently being put to use in development of a collaborative community design project hence why this article with its many layers is of more interest from a coding semantics perspective for me. I am an enthusiastic advocate for Wikipedia but, also critical ((as is Larry Sanger ( Co Founder) )), of the poor management protocols as applied to Rogue Editing by Editors with administrator privileges and the abuse by some editors of those same privileges.I will continue to engage in the substantive issue in question on this page. Again for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat my support for Scottish Finnish Radishes proposed amendment, see Green Bold Above.) which reads better and adds much needed balance to some of the excessively partisan aspects of the rest of the entry.I do not see that your side bar regarding my bone-fides is of any assistance on the support for and need of the suggested change by ScottishFinnishRadish , Wikmoz & RogerGLewis RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the current lead. There is still no demonstration by Coleman puppets of the need for a change to the lead, other than as a sop to the subject, who doesn't like what the facts say about him. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 18:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just responding to the WP:BLP/N request regarding the lead. Never heard of Coleman before that. The proposed revision seems to improve WP:NPOV. The criticism is preserved, just excluded from the first sentence. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also here from WP:BLP/N. I think the WP:NPOV stays the same since all of the same information is in the lead. I just think it reads better in that order, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not support making any changes to the existing lede. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Whilst the current discussion sees a majority for the change to be made, there clearly is no consensus either to keep the Lede or to change the lede. To reach such a consensus I think some notices to other appropriate message boards might be in order, whilst a consensus is still unlikely, a clearer majority might be achieved by widening out the discussion. {{talk fringe|COVID-19 misinformation}} User:RogerGLewis:NPOVN-notice,regarding WP:NPOV & WP:COI, I think we need a NPOV and COI review and post a notice to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion , if there are set procedures for this process I have not been able to find them and would be grateful for assistance on how to widen the discussion. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger, we do things by consensus here, not majority vote. The Discussions for discussions noticeboard may just be able to help too. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 13:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious that Roger isn't going to stop spamming until he gets his POV added to the article.MrEarlGray (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good thing there are plenty of eyes on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• The version in green (ScottishFFinnishRadis) is fine, Roger's is a laughable whitewash. Coleman is a crank, and it's really not our job to fix that. I mean, he even appears in WDDTY. How obvious does it have to get? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I repeat my support for Scottish Finnish Radishes proposed amendment, see Green Bold Above.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If Roger can repeat his support for something, then I repeat my support for the current version. I urge others to repeat their support too!!! -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 20:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest running with ScottishFinnishRadish's version. Move the second sentence to the end of the paragraph. Roxy, EarlGray, would this help? I'd still remove one instance of the twice-stated "pseudoscience". The anti-vaccination statement can also be restored if anyone endeavors to actually edit the body content to reflect this. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Video et taceo. 78.69.176.146 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lead of Special:Permalink/1015541130 is good and clear, with the advantage that the first sentence, that often can be considered a short description, includes some important points. —PaleoNeonate – 05:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The ordering of the lede paragraph will help with some of the more enthusiastic "ducking stooling" of Dr Coleman, Video et Taceo from my IP address I was editing in another Wiki

and its easier to navigate between pages when one is not logged in. still voting for an unpoisened well RogerGLewis (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger seems to be now tagging this page on as many boards as he can to garner it attention. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, has written over 100 books which have sold over two million copies in the UK alone. His UK publishers include: PAN, Penguin, Corgi, Arrow, Star, Mandarin, Macmillan, Century, Thames and Hudson, and Sidgwick and Jackson. His books have been translated into 25 languages and sell in over 50 countries. Vernon Coleman's books have been serialised in newspapers and magazines all over the world, and many have been turned into television and radio series. (His novel, Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War, was turned into a movie starring Pauline Collins, Peter Capaldi and John Alderton). He was the doctor on British television and the first agony uncle on the BBC. Dr Vernon Coleman is a former GP. POLICEMATRIX (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus for any changes before requesting an edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This proposal removes all criticism from the lede and is promotional. Autarch (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Would be helpful to add a new section to try and reach a consensus on the ScottishFinnishRadish draft Lede. Thankyou.Roger logged out as couldn't get a new section to work or add comment to bottom of new lede section. 78.69.176.146 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

False information

There appear to be an alarming lack of sources on this article proving any of the claims laid out (anti-vax, pseudoscience, discredited etc). It is therefore come to our conclusion that this page has merely become a source of misinformation and blantent and purposeful smearing. It would seem this page is also protected in order to prevent correction. Oneswhowatch (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thirty Three sources as I type this. An alarming lack? What would constitute a surfeit of sources then? Ample sources? Concerned minds wish to know. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 06:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Roxy. The sourcing is more than sufficient for the text of the article. I was also brought here from a notice board posting, so I'm hardly protecting to prevent correction. Are there any sources in particular that you think are being misused, or are unreliable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it strange how all the denialists have some form of "truthism" brandings to their names. The sources here are impartial. Facts may not align with your world view, but that doesn't stop them being facts. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is junk and there is nothing you can do about it. Editors moved in to completely rewrite the entry at the beginning of the "pandemic", to smear Coleman and punish him for his crimes in the eyes of the establishment. The article should be held up as an example of awfulness, of the way Wikipedia has been hijacked for social manipulation. The article has been nominated for Good Article designation - says it all ...

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vernon Coleman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bougatsa42 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I take it Wikipedia has rescinded its rules about slandering living persons. It is clear that his page has been hijacked as part of a campaign to smear those who dissent with the sponsored narrative on pandemics, vaccination and civil liberties.

Both the general introduction and the introduction to his writing are designed to denigrate Coleman. The opening sentence "Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist, blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues" so clearly prioritises Coleman's crimes in the eyes of the establishment that it's hard not to laugh.

The writer/s appear to have trawled through Coleman's life looking for dirt, though they haven't found much. "He is no longer registered or licensed to practise as a GP principal, having relinquished his medical licence in March 2016." This is pretty desperate - Coleman was 70 and hadn't been practicing for years! His views on AIDS are expressed as opinions rather than being definitive - I note the expression "AIDS denier", coined like others similar to discourage scientific scrutiny.

Absolutely no understanding is created of Coleman's many achievements and accolades: "Britain's leading health care campaigner" (The Sun) "Dr Vernon Coleman is one of our most enlightened, trenchant and sensible dispensers of medical advice." (The Observer) "Sharpest mind in medical journalism." (Daily Star) "His message is important." (The Economist) "Perhaps the best known health writer in the world today" (The Therapist) "Probably one of the most brilliant men alive." (Irish Times) "The patient's champion." (Birmingham Post) "Britain's leading medical author." (The Star) "An articulate and prolific medical author." (Sunday Times) "He writes lucidly and wittily." (Good Housekeeping) "Coleman is a very funny writer." (This England) "Marvellously succinct, refreshingly sensible." (The Spectator) "Compulsive reading." (The Guardian) "The doctor who dares to speak his mind." (Oxford Mail) "It's impossible not to be impressed." (Western Daily Press) "His advice is optimistic and enthusiastic." (British Medical Journal) "He's the Lone Ranger, Robin Hood and the Equalizer rolled into one." (Glasgow Evening Times) "Vernon Coleman writes brilliant books." (The Good Book Guide) "...no thinking person can ignore him. This is why he has been for over 20 years one of the world's leading advocates on human and animal rights in relation to health. Long may it continue!" (The Ecologist) "Dr Coleman is one of our most enlightened, trenchant and sensitive dispensers of medical advice" (The Observer)

Wikipedia would do better to designate the Vernon Coleman article in its present form as its worst ever article.

This doesn't read like an actual ga review, rather a screed by an account with 300 odd edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that the nomination was not made in good faith either, the article certainly doesn't come up to that standard yet, there is far too much in bubble editing to allow for the improvement needed. It is also worth noting that this "reviewer" has a grand total of 356 edits to this project as I type. Very experienced editor. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:21, 15 April 2021 (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.