User talk:Whaleto/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 12 Dec 2005--7 May 2006

Best of luck, Whaleto, and have fun! Ombudsman 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman probably did not notice that I inserted a shorter welcome before. Well, never mind. Nice to know John is very welcome to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 13:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Back at the ranch[edit]

Now back to the actual discussion. This all started because Wikipedia has a policy (WP:NPOV) that states explicitly that not every minority view needs mentioning. You can say what you want, but most information on is not widely accepted. There is no reason to presume that the "external links" section of articles should not fall under the aegis of this NPOV policy. Hence, links have been removed. So far there has been no indication that this has changed, and I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale. Sorry. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 11 December 2005

Someone from 86.128.x.x keeps putting in a wacky link to "". David W. Hogg 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that information about vaccines and their side effects should not be suppressed. However, the link is not an appropriate source for this information because of the competing extremist information and conspiracy theories as outlined on the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine. As already reviewed by InvictaHOG, the commentary on Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers distracts from the criticisms of vaccines and decreases the value of link. Andrew73 13:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"One of my favorite guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I have not lodged accusations against your motives and would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with user created content, not a mere collection of links. I hope you agree that pages like vaccine are better when contributors add well-referenced, NPOV prose instead of simply adding links. It would be a poor page if it were simply dominated by outside links with instructions to "go read, it's all there!" You are right about - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." InvictaHOG 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: "I'm not sure why you call me a "vaccinator" - I have never personally administered a vaccine, and the only vaccine I ever prescribe in my position is flu vaccine. Does that make me a "vaccinator"? Please avoid labeling people. I have had a look at your site, and I'm more than just shocked by its inflammatory language, talk about conspiracies, coverups, "medical fascism" and the "medical mafia", whatever that is supposed to mean. The fact that some "medical men" have joined your ranks and are the authors of your stuff is of marginal importance to the actual issue - the fact that in this world the views expressed on your site are indeed very fringe. If you were to ask a group of 100 people to read through your site, a large majority of them would find themselves in disagreement to most of the material presented. The rest would just be confused. I have no problem with significant views being represented. We have a long page on Andrew Wakefield, because his views are well known and are supported by a signficant minority. Similarly there would not be slightest problem with significant minority views being represented on other vaccine-related pages. Our neutrality policy (see WP:NPOV) clearly indicates that we do not need to include your views just because they are being held by a few people, even though some may have "M.D." behind their names. Having a website does not automatically indicate notability or significance. Wikipedia is not going to be a forum for your views. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm by definition a vaccinator! Well well, we love labeling don't we. I think your website (and all your views for that matter) are not rational examinations of the evidence available put nasty personal vendettas that harm people in the long run. If I were in the business of "suppressing the anti-vaccine view" I'd be doing something completely different, namely editing the relevant articles in a biased fashion. But I'm not doing that. All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"

Use diffs[edit]

{{Welcome}} (you seem to know your way around, but welcome to your new username nonetheless).

John, you'd save yourself a lot of hassle if you simply used diffs (the URL generated by clicking "last" in the history screen). This actually reflects edits better than simply copy & pasting comments. For one thing, in the dispute resolution process, diffs are much preferred. JFW | T@lk 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Medical controversies[edit]

Please note this article is up for AfD you may want to review the article or it's discussion. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hi again John

Think you might find some issues less of a brick wall if you study this article which includes advice on links to external sites, (and my apologies if you have read it already).

Once the ground rules are known, it is often easier to concentrate on find a new and more effective (but perhaps less than obvious) methods of adding to the collective sum. You can then use all the same rules to defend your contributions.

Personally: Wikipedia requires me, to adopt a certain mind set, that is 'different' again, from the mind sets I use for other intranet knowledge bases or exploring out in cyberspace. (Now that's a thought: I wonder if anybody else finds they have to go into Wiki-mode before editing?)

Wikipedia might not be perfect -but at the moment I think this is as good as everyone can collectively get it. --Aspro 13:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is only to do with allopaths suppressing anything critical to allopathy, any other reason is just a cover story, which is why they want to delete the main anti-vaccinator, Viera Scheibner [1], and Vaccination critics [2]. There is some spacious reason on that one. Lily Loat, the main anti-vax person a few years back got wiped out and directed to National Anti-Vaccination League []. I suppose it will be only a matter of time before that gets deleted, although as it is in the past they may ignore it. john 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[edit]

John, FYI, there's now a stub about your website on Wikipedia! Andrew73 22:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it wont last long! john 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on user pages[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate it if you would try to limit the vaccination related discussions to the individual pages instead of my user page. If you really want to have a conversation with people, my page is certainly not the place where all the cool kids hang out! InvictaHOG 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it goes with being territory of being a hatchet man for allopathy. If you weren't suppressing all my links I'd have some sympathy. Surely you can delete it anyway. john 10:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I delete Whale links, no more explanation needed. It's not the content, it's the wrapper. InvictaHOG 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not an allopathic wrapper, for sure. Who ever cares about the wrapper, it's the content. Nice try, you can fool most of them with that sort of flannel. You'll enjoy my page to you, I'll enjoy making it. Thanks for the fun. john 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Identification of publications[edit]

Hi John -- when you add publications, please include identifying information. Harvard referencing is preferable, but at a minimum you need to include a year of publication, and a PMID or ISBN. Content that cannot be independently verified will be removed, and references without IDs are very difficult to independently verify. --Arcadian 17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not sure what you are referring to, I took Harvard system to be peer reviewed, and most articles I use are magazine or media. I usually have the hard copy of anything I put on. john 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • John, when you read something in the popular press, look up the actual research paper or clinical report that it reviews. Journalists have a duty to their editor and the editor has a duty to the owners of the business, and the business is there to make money. This creates distortions often big distortions. Make your own interpretation of the original source, and quote from these. See Journalism especially yellow journalism. For instance: The papers said the Wakefield's clinical report was retracted... Look at the Lancet and you will find nothing of the sort! That -I would have thought- was a factual inexactitude that you would have spotted, but not if you just read the Daily Blurb.--Aspro 21:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
John -- magazines are discouraged on medical pages because they aren't peer reviewed. However, if you feel you must include a magazine on occasion, then to be compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability, you should include an ISSN (the equivalent of ISBNs for serial publications.) Publications without an ISSN, ISBN, or PMID are usually Self-published, don't meet the standards of Wikipedia:No original research, are inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and subject to removal. --Arcadian 16:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Second warning[edit]

John - this is your second warning that you are violating Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, for this edit. Please refrain from such edits in the future. --Arcadian 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, reliance primarily upon 'peer-reviewed' articles, if that is policy, violates the very nature of NPOV. Even the editor of JAMA or some such prestigious journal has lamented the outright bias of articles in his own publication, because the realm of medical journals is now rife with conflict of interest debacles, akin to bribery charges to which that heavyweight Republican lobbyist just pled guilty. Second, please don't be too hard on new editors. Ombudsman 23:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is the policy that is the policy, but if you can't cite a book someone has written on the subject then I find that bizarre. It may look good on paper but peer review is mostly junk science, a BMJ editorial put the figure at 1% being scientifically sound. And if Wiki is read mostly by laypeople what use is is scientific jargon of peer review which is mostly junk to 99% of your readers? Viera Scheibner has read hundreds of peer review vaccine articles, so I would prefer to read her magazine article where she has translated and sorted the evidence. Peer review is the main doorkeeper for the medical industry as Duesberg pointed out.

"For the public ever to break command science it must first understand the basis of its enormous powers. The medical establishment derives these powers from three sources: (1) enforced consensus through peer review, (2) through commercialization, and (3) the fear of disease, particularly infectious disease. Traditionally, the power of medical sciences has been based on the fear of disease, particularly infectious disease."--Peter Deusberg (Inventing The AIDS Virus)

Is medical science so badly organised that most of the results of their clinical trials are invalid? To answer this question I quote from an editorial in the British Medical Journal in October 1991: "Where is the Wisdom...? The poverty of medical evidence" "…only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence… ...This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound". For cancer the figure is about 6%, not 15%. How is it that the peer review system, that determines which scientific papers are of sufficient quality to warrant publication, lets all these unsound papers through? To answer this question I quote from Tom Jefferson, from the Cochrane Collaboration’s Methods Group interviewed by the Guardian (UK) in January this year. He said: "If peer review were a medicine it would never get a licence…We had great difficulty in finding any real hard evidence of the system’s effectiveness, which is disappointing, as peer review is the cornerstone of editorial policies worldwide”. "An Assessment of Orthodox Treatments of Cancer" by Don Benjamin

"They did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really trust what you read in scientific journals. They pointed out that when they tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money from the drug companies." Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker

"Vera Hassner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, has been warning about such powers for years. The companies design the drug trials," Sharav says. "They select the subjects. They maintain and interpret the data. They select which parts get published. They choose who will become the reviewers in the prestigious medical journals. And they pick 'key opinion leaders,' who they pay handsomely" to promote the drugs. "It's perfect," she concludes. "They have it made."----Merck Move Shows Industry Adrift

John, I want to thank you for adding these ISBN numbers in your recent edits. I know it's not fun to have to go through the extra work of identifying your resources, but content that is sourced has a better chance of remaining in Wikipedia. --Arcadian 01:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The big pharma behind the curtains[edit]

  • John, and Arcadian for that matter, you might want to take a look at report - 'A pill they won't swallow', to further enhance your understanding of the cultural influences in the medical field. And while you're at it, please take a look at Categories_for_deletion#Category:Medical_Controversies, to learn more about the notion that there are virtually no medical controversies, just a few scattered reports about medical superstitions, and about how such superstitions might be harmful to innocent Wiki readers who read about them. Ombudsman 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There was no way they would allow that one, so I didn't bother with it, if you look at my medical hoax page you will see why, as 98% of orthodox medicine (allopathy) is based on a lie, and nutritional medicine and naturopathic herbalism could replace it at 2% of the cost, in a nutshell. john 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman actually misrepresents the many reasons for deleting that category, but I suspect your keep vote is a foregone conclusion. There are actually so many medical controversies that listing them all would be completely pointless. But because it was created for anti-medicine trolling I thought I should cite that as the main reason for deleting it, QED. JFW | T@lk 09:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it would be a long job making that page, especially with the constant buthering from medical editors such as yourself, which was one reason why I created It is not anti-medicine, you are confusing anti-allopathy with that. Like most allopaths you are fairly clueless about the bigger picture. john 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Arcadian. Removal of links[edit]

How do you account for removal of link on Vaccine controversy page? john 15:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of the verdict at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, I believe that removing those links is appropriate. had a fair hearing, and most of the people who reviewed it considered it not to be appropriate for Wikipedia. However, you might want to take a look at InvictaHOG has proposed a compromise you might be interested in, involving Wikisource. --Arcadian 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy into that--'fair hearing' isn't exactly what goes on here. It is who can gather the most mates, essentially. And the only argument against is still ad hominem. john 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you don't accept our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I can't really be much help to you in the future. But if you don't read anything else, please read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption. If you keep doing what you're doing, some admin is going to block your account and IP address. It won't be me -- I much prefer building things to administration. And I don't want you to get blocked. I think it is important that the case against vaccination be as clear and as well-sourced as possible. I'm not going to leave any more of these messages on your talk page, but before I go, I want to impress upon you one last time, that if you want your voice to be heard, you need to read, understand, and comply with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Arcadian 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Verdict? Could you provide a link that supports any notion other than that a valid consensus was not reached? Is there a list of websites somewhere that such verdicts are archived? The very notion of such a broad verdict seems very much at odds with the Wiki's mission, especially since, unlike the CDC, NHS, et al, and the Wiki actually honor the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of information. Such an across the boards verdict banning all links would set an entirely detrimental precedent, and would veer from what seems to be an established process of making judgments one link at a time. Ombudsman 09:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my User page[edit]

Here it is:

Comments on user page
If you want to leave comments leave them on my talk page and I wont tidy them up, thanks. john 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. It was an honest mistake. (My User page is reserved for myself, and is about me. My Talk page is for discussions, which is why it is labeled "discussion"!)

In contrast, your User page and your Talk page are quite confusing, since you liberally place stuff by other people on your User page. I would suggest you clean it up and reserve it as a biography page. Use your Talk page for the discussions.

You can also create extra pages as personal archives. I'd be willing to help you with that. -- Fyslee 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Archives page[edit]

Here is your new archives page, numbered one, in case you want to make more at a later date:

It is prepared with a TOC code, so when appropriate headings and subheadings are used, they will appear as a TOC.

You can now do many things with it, such as making a bar with instructions at the top, and placing your stuff there.

-- Fyslee 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Neil Miller[edit]

Keki Sidhwa[edit]

John, the contents of this article are copied from Sidhwa's personal website, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Do you have documented permission from Sidwa to use his information? --CDN99 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

discussion in Talk:Epidemiology[edit]

You posted a comment about there being no controlled trials regarding Autism and MMR. The discussion there has continued. You may be interested it Talk:Epidemiology. Steve Kd4ttc 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Threats of Bans [[3]][edit]

john Regarding the threats against you here [[4]] you may find this helpful.

WP:AGF says:-

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."

So is your comment that something is "propaganda" a comment on content? How is it a personal attack? How are you to express your view of content if you are not allowed to use normal dictionary meanings to express yourself? I struggle to understand this attack on you.

As for the use of the term "vaccinator", if an anti-vaccinationist is so broad it includes "those who oppose vaccination on principled or other grounds", then surely the converse is vaccinator is anyone who supports vaccination on principled or other grounds.

Similarly, I understand the term allopath is an accepted term for those who practice conventional western medicine

How can it be abuse, a personal attack or uncivil to describe someone as an allopath or vaccinator who falls into those categories. Surely it must be more of an attack and an insult to call someone an anti-vaccinationist who is not?

The Invisible Anon 08:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the allopaths run this place, don't they, so what they say goes. JDWolff is always looking to be offended so she can ban someone. I'd also have to ask why she is so anti being called an allopath and vaccinator. Truth must grate. john 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just sick beyond words of the fact that you seem to be getting away with slurs. There is an important context issue here. I am an allopath, because I do not believe in homeopathy, yet your use of "allopath" is meant to be offensive. It would be correct to refer to me as a Jew, yet to say "that Jew Jfdwolff" would be offensive.
I strongly resent being lumped with "medical industry propaganda". This suggests that my opinions are not my own but dictated by others. For a thinking human being this is an insult, and you are not to make these allegations about any editor. Your destructive use of ad hominem in every single debate must stop. JFW | T@lk 10:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I second this. The Invisible Anon has very kindly taken onboard some of my concerns about content that inflames the dispute here; it would help if you did likewise. As JFW says, you can see from the Allopathic medicine article that "allopath" is taken (and used) by some as a term of abuse: therefore it shouldn't be used. 'Hit lists' of editors you disagree with, and detailed documentation of perceived slights, is never seen as creditable to an editor.
I also resent being lumped into some conspiracy. I'm not a doctor; I drifted into this topic through an interest in controversial 19th century characters. Any edits/deletions I've made to your postings are down to your breaches of fundamental Wikipedia guidelines - such as rules on self-promotion, respecting copyright, and properly sourcing/researching articles. I'd have acted the same whatever the topic. One just saying
Ebenezer Jenkins Sproat was a professor and proponent of vaccination.
Why vaccination is great (1872)
How to vaccinate friends and influence people (1885)
would be equally substandard as a biography.

We don't need any more vaccine pages, we already have dozens all written by vaccinators [5] along with all of the vaccine disease pages. And don't lest forget the truth which gets pushed to one side here under NPOV. Vaccination never eliminated smallpox, or any death rate for any other disease. Think about that. And I don't trust your judgement on medical matters if you think Quackwatch is a viable organisation suitable for external links on Wiki.. john 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you also include the vaccine injury page which was just started today? Andrew73 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I asked you before to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Even if you believe other editors' motives are malicious or a conspiracy, it is a breach of good faith to publicly express them. You've likewise been warned before about personal attacks. Despite this, for a while now virtually all your edits have involved some kind of accusation of bias or conspiracy. I'm asking you to get a grip and stop. It's detrimental to constructing an encyclopedia.
JDWolf is the only medical person out of 7 or so that has complained, I think she is overly sensitive. If she hadn't deleted all of my links then I wouldn't be more kindly disposed towards her, as it is I haven't called her an allopath for some time. john 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You clearly have a lot of access to historical material. If you're really interested in these historical characters, help by building fuller biographies. Tearlach 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would in time but they get deleted. 3 are up for deletion by merger now. If you can stop the deletions then I may come round to your point of view. And I don't take kindly to being called mentally ill and equated with the Nazi party Eg: A rather separate organisation with a general anti-vaccination view but with other more significant characteristics was the Nazi party. In addition, there is a considerable overlap with homeopathy and conspiracy theorists, and a subset of the material shades into the appearance of psychosis. This medical editor will not get told off for this abuse, it is just me for upsetting some overly sensitive medical personage. Would you call that double standards? john 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would in time but they get deleted. 3 are up for deletion by merger now. If you can stop the deletions then I may come round to your point of view'.
I probably can - but I'd like to see some agreement from you on what biographies are supposed to be. You write biographies as if being opposed to vaccination were the only point of interest. People do other things: Sir William Job Collins, for instance, was also an eminent ophthalmic surgeon, a Liberal MP (twice), and later Vice-Lieutenant of London. Adding all this is bound to reduce the focus on vaccination; I don't want to see accusations of a sinister agenda to this. Same goes for anything that might be viewed as discreditable or eccentric. A lot of Victorian scientists and doctors had non-mainstream interests such as spiritualism, Theosophy and bees-in-bonnets about premature burial, and campaigners against vaccination were no different. Tearlach 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I write biogs with the anti-vax data as I have those books available,a nd I admit my aim is to balance out the Wiki bias over vaccination, I'll add more general data, or someone else can, when I have the information. Anyone coming here would think anti-vax belief was quackery, because of the bias, the pages being written by vaccinators/allopaths. I use that term(s) as they don't like to be tagged as having anything other than a scientific approach to vaccination, whereas the truth is they believe in vaccination as it is the main tenet of their profession of allopathy, and is there purely due to politics, not science, it is easy to disprove smallpox vaccination, for example. Hence, no doubt, JDWolfs annoyance when I point that out. I don't mean to give offence, I just like to expose their bias. She looks to be in denial, possibly. john 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

john, please see here [[6]] full explanation of the need for a term to describe what is otherwise called "conventional western medicine" viz, allopathic medicine. I do not question the bona fides of the editors who created the page Allopathic medicine but as we all know, it may not necessarily be accurate as reflection of current intention or usage.

I had a look at the allopathic page, and got told off before. Yes, it will have been written by allopaths. I think this is the truth, but I doubt if anyone could say that here, and you can see why. john 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please also see here [[7]] for a dictionary definition of the term "vaccinator" - which does not seem to be in the context of pejorative use.

use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term[edit]

Please also see here (emphasis added) the use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term "For your work against quacks, viz. anti-vaccinationists and others, I award you this picture of Sir William Osler and three colleagues!" [[8]]

Please note the context of the comment and the individuals involved. Clearly, the choice of the term anti-vaccinationist will be taken by some readers and possibly editors of Wikipedia themselves to be a personal attack on all mentioned in that page and that indicates anti-vaccinationist is taken to be a pejorative term. Perhaps it is an inappropriate page title and needs to be changed to avoid causing offence. The Invisible Anon 21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true. I never used the term "anti-vax" term as it is perjorative (new word for me, but just the one I've been looking for), and for that reason you wont find anyone who is anti-vax describing themselves as such. It has always been thus, eg this 1895 book by Hutton "Anyone who adopts the cause of the "anti-vaccinator" is, ipso facto, reckoned by a vast number of people—who on any other subject would judge fairly and patiently—a crank, a faddist, and a fool." You can see this in front of your eyes by reading the page Midgley has created. You can see his intent by the way the more suitable and non-emotive term Vaccine Critics was deleted for this page. He may believe sincerley that anti-vax are psychotic, but that doesn't make it OK. Also anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics, so he is effectively deleting 90% of vaccine criticism. And to get an idea about the term, I would have to ask people if they were happy to be termed "anti-vax", as I wouldn't list them as such otherwise. john 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This repeated and incorrect assertion is getting tiresome. Vaccination critics - a page created by User:Whaleto was deleted foollowing a afd discussion archived at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaccination_critics on 9 January 2006. I was not involved in the discussion, at all, nor aware of it. Among the things asserted to be wrong with it - from that discussion - are that it was ""A compilation of organisations, books and people critical of vaccination." how is that an encyclopedia article? It's not a list either.", that "

encyclopedias have articles, and this is not an article. I honestly think the champions of vaccine criticism would better serve their cause by writing one or more clear, NPOV articles rather than trying to insert these long lists into every vaccine article. There's lots of debate on the talk pages, but it doesn't carry over to the article(s) at all - instead, there are lists upon lists, trying to make up in sheer volume what they lack in content. Give me well-reasoned arguments instead of hysterics. Your lists here are closer to hysterics." and that it was "A bunch of nonsense intended only to push POV". If I'd seen it, I expect I would have an opinion on it, but I didn't.

Clearly, the list described was in no way similar to the long and complicated article on anti-vaccinationist which you have accused me several times of replacing it with - different name, different subject - according to User:Whaleto there are many more critics than anti-vaccinationists-, different time.

Anti-vaccinationist was created on 23 January 2006. [9]

Please cease repeating this story, it is visibly inaccurate, and even if the article was on an identical subject, the reason it persists is that it has some slight merit, whereas the view from the afd was clearly that John's article had at most insufficient merit to remain a part of an encyclopaedia or be turned into one.

These persistent plaints come very close to John's declaring that he is not a member of the cooperative enterprise and does not accept its processes or the views of others in it. Midgley 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bayly1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bayly1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Leicester: continuing breach of good faith[edit]

In Talk:Anti-vaccinationists, Midgley asked you a reasonable question about J.T. Biggs' book Leicester: Sanitation versus vaccination]: "I wonder if you could either boil down to a couple of paragraphs, or point to the right chapters to read first to get the answer to this question: Why were Leicester more able to do sanitation than other places? Who were the people who made a difference? What was it about the area that was different?" [10]

All that was required was something like my answer:

See, Chapter 69 onwards. The Leicester Sanitation Committee, particularly under the Chairmanship of Alderman Thomas Windley (date?) had adopted a policy of strict notification and quarantine. If someone contracted smallpox, the householder and physician diagnosing had to report it pronto, on pain of penalty, then the smallpox van would come round and cart away all concerned (patient to isolation in hospital, contacts to quarantine) and the house would be disinfected in their absence. [11]

Your answer, however:

No surprise there, vaccine truth is rare on Wiki. I think Lily Loat put it best: "The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether." As William White said: "It would seem that when the human mind acquires a certain set, something like a surgical operation is requisite to reverse it." I can try and remove your vaccination mind set, but I think I'll have to use my chainsaw. john 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

As I said I said in response, there is no call for this cocktail of abuse, preaching and presumption of bias. You've been asked many times previously to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm asking you again to stop this. I hope the above shows that nobody is objecting to the information, merely to the way you express it. Tearlach 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are looking for abuse. That was tongue in cheek cheek. I have been fighting against vaccinators for 10 years so I think I am more aware of the politics than anyone else. It beggards belief that you think they are not biased. It gets a bit ridiculous when we have to pretend they are not biased when any modicum of knowledge on medical politics would tell you they are biased, as a Ford salesman is biased towards Fords, allopaths are biased, by definition, towards vaccines. You only have to see the arms length of examples I have collected of their bias, the main one deciding to suppress ALL links to my vaccine sitte purely on an ad hominem argument. In their own words:
  • Baloney. It's not the criticsm we're suppressing, it's JFW
  • all the articles on whale are not acceptable. Tabeh.JFW
  • Jfdwolff: The link was inserted again. The (un)acceptability of as an external link has been discussed on Talk:MMR vaccine, and I think nothing more needs to be said over here. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

And some of their BIASED editing: [12][13] [14] [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] [26][27] So how come you are not on their talk pages telling them off for THEIR bias? john 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't be arsed to chase all of the attributions at this instant, but most of the above citations refer to links correctly deleted in line with Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works, which specifies not to link to material whose reproduction is a breach of copyright. This is one of the reasons why was specifically a problem. But this is by-the-by: whatever others may or may not have done elsewhere is not justification for breaking guidelines yourself. Tearlach 16:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I know the feeling, I can't be arsed to play the vaccine charade with these vaccinators. The Leicester book completely demolishes smallpox vaccination from 2 directions, one it showed sanitation was the real cause of smallpox not a germ (an opportunist), and two, it showed by comparison that vaccination was not only no protection but a real hazard, ie it killed 2,000 babies under 5 just in Leicester, at the height of compulsory vaccination. If smallpox vaccination is a hoax think about the others. Game over, but you want me to play the vaccine charade. I have better things to do. As to breach of copyright, none of my smallpox books are in copyright, that was just a pseudo-excuse to suppress links to the number one anti-vaccine site. In 12 years I haven't had one copyright issue with anyone, if my memory serves me. One of their complaints was a Nexus article--I have permission from Duncan Rhoades, the editor, to use any article I want. The last one I did showed vitamin C to be the cure for heart disease, known for decades, and that kills 700,000 every year for no reason. Do you now see why these allopaths want to suppress this sort of information? john 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"nobody is objecting to the information". Really? Fully referenced text seemingly spuriously deleted here [[28]] amongst a ton of stuff that remains which has no references of any kind and looks like someone's personal essay. Curious that. Wonder why this kind of thing is happening. Lasted 3 hours and 11 minutes. Completely mystified. The Invisible Anon 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm commenting on this specific incident and posts by this specific user. Tearlach 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


An update - see [[29]]

The Original Invisible Anon at 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Further update - see [[30]]

The Original Invisible Anon at 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

=== Perpetrator identified === as User:Midgley - see [[31]] (this is an historical page - and long so wait for it to load and it will take you to the correct section in the page)

The Original Invisible Anon at 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More to This? Or Nothing More to This?[edit]

[[32]] ???

The Original Invisible Anon at 03:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley - Time for a Block?[edit]

Thought you should take a look at this [[33]] which is referring to Doc Midge's contributions here [[34]].

If you agree something should be done, perhaps you could contact User:Leifern and User:Pansophia.

I will be similarly bringing this to the attention of others also.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at [[35]] Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Further development [[36]]
Talk - The Invisible Anon 09:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to know about this.[edit]

A page you created is up for AfD here: [37]. If you've got something to defend it with, please go ahead and do so. (I personally voted Delete, but the article should still get a fair hearing.) Michael Ralston 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I expect you would not want to be un-notified of this process Midgley 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I have asked you in the past to desist from labeling users or groups of users as "allopaths". This is inflammatory, not contributory to the discussion, and in plain violation of WP:CIVIL. You have now repeatedly done the same on Talk:Measles. I am uninvolved in that discussion but observe that you are making the same basic policy violations as always.

You are blocked for 24 hours. Please return to contribute constructively. Specifically, try to adhere to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and consider having a close look at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't want anyone to know you have an professional interest in vaccination, so you suppress use of the word allopath. john 12:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
My professional interest is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that you've returned to make more personal attacks on Talk:Measles. You've been blocked again, now for 48 hours. Your next block will be longer still until you learn to edit collaboratively. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether Jfd should use administrative powers against John, after igniting many disputes with John (and whether or not Jfd has any willingness to abide by the spirit of Wikiquette), seems to be the primary issue that needs to be addressed here. But there are plenty of secondary issues, such as Jfd's tacit, er, enthusiastic endorsement of Midgely's serial AfDs perpetrated against articles created by John, the concerted efforts to push pov approved from the remote heights (or depths) of the intellectually disconnected medical establishment. These collateral issues make this matter much murkier than what the simple but apt conflict of interest charge might infer. Rather than further ratcheting up this type of stemwinding behavior, it is way past time for the offenders to reassess their commitment to the Wiki's ideals and the fundamental precept that the Wiki is a collaborative effort, not one driven by conflict. John should be commended for his relative restraint in the face of ongoing deletionism, page blanking, and unbelievably harsh rhetoric, for which he deserves apologies from both Midgley and Jfd, Ombudsman 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate a view by another admin on this WP:NPA violation by the confusingly named User:Ombudsman. It is remarkable how many articles started by John meet criteria for deletion, but it is entirely outside accepted WP policy and behaviour to interpret that as either an excuse for retaliation by the author, or indeed as a personal attack on the author rather than expressing a view that the article is not one which should be found in an encyclopaedia. That two practicing doctors in the UK should share views on the merits of certain articles is not surprising, the basis on which Whaleto and Ombudsman express similar views and in similar fashion is slightly more deserving of comment. I noted a remark on blocks in the WP documentation recently to the effect that answering a block with an attack on the admin rarely seemed to be effective - I think it should be the case even when the atack is by proxy.Midgley 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman is the master of deafening rhetoric and maker of veiled insults[38]. If there is a conflict of interest, it is his own.

As for Whaleto, the fact that I warred with him in the past does not mean I am disqualified from blocking him for sustained and interminable NPA and CIVIL violations. I'm prepared to do just that until John learns that calling others "allopaths" is WP:NPA and offtopic. JFW | T@lk 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A quote from here: [[39]] to put into context the suppression of the use of the dictionary term "allopath"
"You will of course appreciate the significance of the attempt to gag the use of "allopath". It is a political move. Suppressing the use of such a term to describe this branch of medicine provides little recourse but to use the term "conventional" medicine. That term is not an appropriate term to use for reasons I set out on my now deleted user page. By bringing such a term into common use starts to put that particular kind of medical practice on a level footing with other kinds of medical practice."
A spade is a spade.
Talk - The Invisible Anon

greetings and afd[edit] Midgley 18:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Midgley 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Which bit of Egypt/Sudan did Cruickshank serve in? Was he well clear of the debacle at Khartoum, running meidcal services under seige with Pasha Gordon or what? What rank did he serve at?

RFC on Whaleto as an acceptable site to link from WP to[edit]

Your view as the owner of the Whaleto site has been expressed in many nooks and crannies of WP, clearly that Whaleto is as good a reference as anywhere else, and better than most. I regard it as covered by WP:RS and the specific passages on WP:external links - what to not link to.

CLearly this will just go on and on, unless the community has the opportunity to reach a view and tell you what you may do.

Will you start the RFC by asserting that Whaleto is either permitted as a link by existing concensus policy, or alternatively that policy should be changed, or a specific exception for Whaleto be made policy so that it is acceptable, or shall I start it by proposing the opposite? Reply here or on my talk page as you like. Midgley 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. repeated links in violation of WP policies

Midgley 21:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And while you're about it, Whaleto, please do read WP:RS and WP:EL. Just zis Guy you know? 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Whaleto - the dispute certified and a response now due. =[edit]

John, you have made edits since the first notice above, but have given no indication of having noticed the alert provided about this RFC.

The formalities are now complete and if you were waiting to see whether there was a quorum before responding, that time is now over. Please make some inication eitehr that you will respond, or that you choose not to. repeated links in violation of WP policies Midgley 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making a response at

You may recall that I offered advice earlier - that if you felt was an exception to the WP:RS and other policies you should make a case for it as an exception. This really would be a good time for you to do so, since if you persist in regarding this as a personal attack and responding in such wise, you may not have another convenient time to argue that your conduct was desirable. Midgley 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Whaleto[edit]

Well, been to the RfC barbeque[], and if I am butting into something here, just let me know. Let me ask, in terms of articles unnamed & unwritten, and separately, exisiting articles still needing your pov on vax and the most important historical papers from Whale, in each category what would you still like to accomplish- given the current Wiki guidelines and medical editors? If you could gain some linkage to a scaled back papers how much could you bite your tongue, suffer some unfair slings and arrows of contention, and even grin and bear it to advance your participation at Wiki ? I think that the differences in both sides are their assumptions, of course which are so deep that communication and civility have broken down. *If* things can be patched over, can your famed persistence extend to suffering hopelessly delayed learners (ahem) and keep enough of a lid on it to survive even when provoked? Are you in a position to provide scans, 100+ dpi, for linkable pages through Google, WikiSource, Gutenberg, or freebie blogs for some of your historical Whale articles? Hopefully helpful. -- 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) is just vaccination, and what I did to get round their ad hominem re whale. Not sure what you mean by 100+ dpi scans, or freebie blogs. I could provide a site with just the documents/books, I guess, but I already spent £200 doing john 06:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to find a bridge across the chasm between both of you[40]. To answer your 1st question: 100 - 150 dots per inch basic archival text quality, 300 dpi laser printers ~15 years ago, 400 dpi xerox machines ~15 years ago. I figured expense as an issue. I think that if you had scanned images of your books/articles, the other Wiki editors might have a harder time ignoring that source/quote as reliable, or perhaps, if you don't mind, put the *images* in WikiSource if that is possible/ok (I don't know). This brings up the link vs content issue also. The conv'l med eds clearly have not been supportive of *any* links and right now control most of the pieces on the RfC board and seem mostly finished (1 late rook(ie) - me, still moving), I might advocate a set number of links - a dozen to a fairly sanitized mirror site. Although I'm new to the RfC process on Wiki editors, it doesn't look too good and they are apparently even more unhappy now about the comments on a Wiki editor at Whale [41]. Please read my extended discussion[42], partial proposal and answer my questions if you would please. I think that a hanging party at Wiki making more than ugly noises. If I read and understand the situation correctly (I am new to this) some or many definitely will try to expel you and Whale as rogues. I am making the argument that the situation has been in a downward spiral because because you are out numbered and also being provoked, and have a tough position to hold with aggresive skeptics.

If you have most of the articles you really wanted to cover at Wiki and don't want to bother with this any more, and just let it slide, I suspect they are going have a solemn judgement & execution, some quiet(?) self-congratulatory cheers with gradual(?) expungement of Whale bones.

If you really want to make source materials that might be useful to other editors, page images (scans) to WikiSource or perhaps some other site might be "reliable" enough - great. But let it slide well, see above...

If you want to continue to contribute it seems pretty clear they mean for you to play by *their* rules - no linkspammed references to Whale (I argue for a cleaner mirror, they want control with WikiSource - still to be determined, what can you do/want?); pure, sweet reason (referenced arguments, faith, "no names") if it seems a fist fight is brewing and perhaps some other concessions. I will say they are often demanding too much on expensive pharma trial$ and that needs to be dealt with, and it has elsewhere in Wiki.

Within the constraints of the do-able, practical as above - what do YOU want to do? I think some editors will say let's try it this way for several strong reasons, although I think some definitely want to stick a harpoon through the Whale and be done.

I believe that some med eds definitely recognize the unique resource of your library. They clearly have no real background in altmed/orthomed and so it is painfully slow to reason it out even one-on-one but I have done it 2x now[43], even after a howling start with a prematurely blanked page & AfD[44], and this in fact is an area where reasoned, persistence pays. Although I think they need to come up with your promise of "good behavior" and volume control, they probably want some act of contrition too. Me? I think you have covered and held an incredible amount of ground for one person but they have you cornered and are implacably trying to reform or kill the Whale at Wiki. In detail, what do you want to do, within their limits? I see no other way to go forward at Wiki, before I showed up at the last minute, ~6 days into the RfC, it was 12-0, not exactly a winning hand. I am willing to help mediate with my meagre credibility with the conventional medical crowd but you are the one to decide yea, nay or how. -- 11:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a free for all for including external links. One has to justify the inclusion of a link, and when there are good alternative links out there, it's hard to justify the inclusion of a site that also includes references to alien implant removers, etc. Of course, the owner of this site contends that this is ad hominem, more "allopathic" conspiracy, and how this is under the mind control of "big pharma," but the content on the site speaks for itself. Andrew73 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I have not read the entire site but rather a fraction. Some of the favored "trigger phrases" that I encountered seemed way overblown when in context, more as hyperbole accompanying minor criticism rather than fruit loop demonology, enough that the word scurrilous comes to mind if people were looking at what I saw. The site has some interesting historical papers that provide a consumer and medical historical view of a period that may be of general interest outside the vaccine food fights. The old papers give a longitutinal view and have really interesting contrast on some historical points secondary to modern vaccines. Let's all take deep breaths, and not panic, ok? I thought it was the "unclean" current day editorials that was the policy issue which I have been trying to address with the reduced "cleaner" mirror idea. -- 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the historical papers have their merits, but when they're mentioned in the same breath as "death towers" and "hoaxes and conspiracies," it's only natural to view these historical papers with skepticism. It would be curious to know if the owner of the site gives the same weight/credibility to the "conspiracy stuff" as to the vaccination-related materials. Andrew73 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't like the hoaxes page as it is about your profession. As to death towers, read the 30 or so documents on cell phone towers, by independent experts and get back to me as to why you think you wouldn't mind one next to your house or your child's playground, as hundreds of them are. And if I can figure out they are dangerous then you can bet your last dollar THEY know too. "CAUTION: STAY CLEAR OF PCS CELL PHONE SITE ANTENNAS The radiation in an operational system is similar to that of a MICROWAVE OVEN! Avoid the main lobe when servicing your tower."----Phillips Microtechnology Inc. is a Consultant & Manufacturer of Custom LNA and Filtering Equipment for Satcom & Terrestrial Microwave Receive Systems. It is similar to the deletion attempt on Alan Cantwell, a half dozen or so people thought he was dire, but I'd bet my collection of 5ps, that none had even read one of his books or one of his articles. Get my drift? john 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess at the end of the day, what is not a hoax? The pictures of the glowing fluorescent tubes though has piqued my interest though. Andrew73 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I looked at that picture and material, and noted it to be another example of why Whale could not be taken as a reliable source for anything of a technical or scientific nature, and if you like yet another indication that if it were to be anything more than one man's pile it could only become that by acquiring a Board of Advisers, some of whom would actually have to be of a sceptical turn of mind.
From memory, it says "at night the fluorescent tubes light up" or was it "come on". Which is of course totally wrong. Midgley 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What's this - the good doctors are now into denial of physics? Need at least dV/dl > 100V/m. 02:31, 22 April 2006 [45]
No, what is completely wrong is the repeated claim in many accounts that they come on specifically at night, like the Power lines spark light show: "Rows of lights are flickering into life each evening". The Pylon Ambient Energy Lights Fluorescent Bulbs account says correctly that they're on all the time, but are (obviously) just more visible at night (suggesting the effect is fairly weak). Tearlach 11:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes you wonder how electric fish reproduce. (Cue Procupine joke). They depend on significant electric fields, and generate them - beasts like the Hammerhead shark don't I thnk generate them, just depend on the Earth's fields. Water conducts a lot better than air. One of the most amusing things I've seen along these lines was the bunch of cellphone mast objectors coordianting their activity with their cellphones. (The field at the cellphone for reception from the mast with the big Tx on it is tiny, but when you let it tell the cell wher eit is, if you have restricted the spread of masts, it'll be lighting up its transmitter at 3 watts in your pocket, frequently - and continuously when you talk on it. With large numbers of masts and cells the power the handset needs to emit to talk to them falls drastically, and you get a situation like Rabbit wanted to produce, and not so different from the emerging wireless LAN in villages. Apropos of which, I didn't see anyone Whaleing at Kingsbridge in Devon, where for years they have run tehir Internet connection as wireless from repeaters with a single wired connection. Cory Doctorow is good on this process of unwiring as was described by Negroponte of MIT and has been called the Negroponte switch. (and now if those links don't work I'll have to write them...) Midgley 11:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, closer study of the image with the BBC story [46] shows the light tubes casting distinct unidirectional shadows from a single light source off-camera, suggesting they had to shine a light on the things to make them look more impressive. Naughty. Tearlach 12:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
well 100 - 120 field reversals per second (50- 60 Hz power) is not part of the earth currents story and I remember how shocked radiologists (re: MRI) were when the magnetite microcrystals in our brains were found ~15(?) yrs ago. Although EPRI (ahem) usually doesn't find a link, I think the Scandanavians are more concerned. John is not whistling alone in the dark here by himself on this insufficiently data populated area. And the cell phone mfg crowd is starting to reconsider/hesitate. -- 12:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
True... The electric fish make their own sharp spikes though, so those throw off herminics at a range of frequencies. Pigeons seem likely to make more use of magnetite than we do don't they. Something that has struck me since they were first introduced is that old science fiction ideas of personal radiophones put the transmitter in a package on the belt (along with the food pill dispenser I expect) and gave a separate microphone with a wire to it to hold. There doesn't seem to be a market for that design though. The field strengths from handsets are a lot higher than from fixed masts. As to the evidence-freeness, there is a paper in last week's BMJ .... [47]

"The biggest danger to our health is using them while driving" and several others going back through 2004 when one was remarking on teh precautionary principle. Midgley 14:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Certainly 65 mph head on will kill you quicker, or a pedestrian sooner, more definitively and probably more frequently - some locales already ban cell use while driving, so that risk is not socially negligible. Insurance actuarial graphs/tables of the 1910s showed a clear difference in mortality. The scoff in the 1930s, yes-no arguments starting 1940s, JAMA was a tobacco shill into the 1950s, industry promised objective research in the 1950s, Marlboro men of the 1960s, hungry grad students still joked about easy research money in the 1970s, til finally we got serious about the lies and health problems in the 80s & 90s. The suspicious, say 1920-1990, did ok on precautionary tobacco avoidance. Guess the survivors bred for more suspicion and caution ;> . --
Bottom line: In the one thread followed through here, John has shown that he has some literature and current controversy basis; not exactly the crazed whacko that the often repeated "death tower" etc quotes are used to imply.-- 10:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

images vs typescripts, image housing problems (cont'd)[edit]

I see what you mean about scans, in jpg. That would be 100 times the memory at a guess. I prefer them in text for obvious reasons. I can't see the point of pictures unless you want to dilute their impact, and have some idea that someone is going to change the text. If you were a historian and wanted to quote you would have to do your own OCR, whereas I have done 3 or 7 days work on each one, about £300 if I had to pay someone. I could give them to a library if they would put them on line, as long as we could link Wiki to them, although with the way Midgley is going with his page deletions there wont be any pages to link from. I can imagine he is upset about my page to him. It is getting to the stage now with the internet where your every action is going to be exposed. Exeter has that absurd Prof of Complementary medicine. The site has no conspiracy stuff on it. Yes, they are well organised here. john 16:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As you know, I began to place some of your articles into WikiSource (which earned me a section on your user page, so I stopped!). One of the problems that I noted in carefully reading the articles that you transcribed was that there were several mistakes - misspellings, etc. A JPG, etc. may be a way to improve on your heroic transcriptions. InvictaHOG 18:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There aren't many, ideally the image scan should be available as well. I have most of the books in my collection, photocopied mostly (about 10 copies of each), with about 6 or so originals. I could look up any mistakes. WikiSource was dire compared to my effort, you need the whole book on one page, with bookmarks, otherwise it is just about impossible to read online. Also a word format to print, with pagenumbers, I have that for one. Just a scanned image is akin to having the book behind a glass door, as an antique. john 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Quite nearby there is the University of Exeter which has a history of medicine (sub) department. It is not impossible that they might regard scans of certain books as a useful thing to place on the web. Books on would be entirely reputable external links.
2. Changing the name of the website they are on without delivering control or oversight of it to a board or institution does not solve the problem which is that if these documents fall within the examples given in WP:EL they are not going to be regarded as acceptable links.
3. The alternative to following policy is to change policy, the method for changing it is to either attempt to edit WP:EL until it reflects a new concensus you like, or to run an RFC on the linking policy and persuade people to change it.
4. The other "alternative" of forming a clique to eliminate from editing WP whoever reminds you when you operate in contravention to established key policies is one which should be abandoned, although it probably does fit very well with the descriptions in those historic documents and may be satisfying. It isn't productive. Midgley 16:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Edzard Ernst - one of _my_ biographical pages on notable people. If I were to call him "the most notable scholar of complementary medicine of the 20th and 21st centuries" would you feel that was overdone? Midgley 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You can say what you like about complementary medicine, a ludicrous term invented by medico Ernst is just what I would expect from a pharma boy in sheeps clothing, and your page to him bears out my analysis. john 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a page on him. He has attracted an interesting reaction from {insert name here} practitioners and supporters who assumed that he would be uncritically repeating their recirculating claims, but found his application of scientific method and insistence that everything the department presents for publishing has references and reliable data from sources that can be inspected - not unconnected to the large output of the department in publications in reputable scientific journals and his uptake by mass media who want to hear something they can present to their editors as commentary on news about {insert name here} practice and claims to go on the _serious_ pages of eg Times, Torygraph and Grauniad. If an echo here is detected of advice given repeatedly elsewhere in and out of WP over at least 10 years visible in archives by a wide range of respectable people who've been insulted before and after their pains by John then thats an improvement. Midgley 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
John, can you see the nature of a set of problems illustrated just here? You are saying above that "Complementary Medicine" isn't a very good term. (Edzard Ernst says the same, actually, and justifies it). But you "support" your statement by a reference to a page which is on your personal website WP:EL, which contains a reproduction of a section of a newspaperWP:CP whose copyright I doubt permits you that, and all that page actually has on it that is relevant is your text saying that the term was made up by doctors. I don't know the etymology of it, I do know that with most people if I say "complementary medicine" they have a clear idea of what sort of thing I mean. What does also stand out is that you are not offering an alternative term that includes ... whatever you want it to include for us to use instead. We risk running into an inverse Humpty Dumpty - "when you don't use a word it doesn't mean whatever you don't want it to mean, who is to be the master, the words or the man?". Midgley 14:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't really relevent anyway, what I think of the term. You can use media articles if they aren't being sold. "Alternative" is fine by me, naturopathy, herbal naturopathy, homeopathy etc are alternatives to allopathy. Not something that allopathy likes to think about, or anyone else to think about, hence the creation of the word "complementary". That is my opinion, you can argue about it's origins etc, as I am sure you will. john 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You can use media articles if they aren't being sold
Wrong. Copyright very much applies to magazine and newspaper articles. Tearlach 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how to convert John's references into documents/images, but I'm willing to help if anyone comes up with a way. The way I did before was to make images out of a screenshot of the parts of his references which were charts, etc. There are problems with misspellings, sentence fragments, etc. from his transcription with that method, though. He didn't seem to like it (as it landed me on his personal page with the intimation that I stole his work) but I would be willing to help out again if asked...InvictaHOG 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

writing style[edit]

John, I think there is observable progress on getting to a linkable status for your vaccine papers and a pause to reconsider the conventional bias about, treatment of, and the status of alternative health advocates. The issue that is still unresolved is your ability and commitment to deal with the civility issue. The outrage that sometimes flows through your writing into your address of other editors is a grave, self-defeating liability - especially if others did start it and you rise to the bait. And angry exchanges makes it harder for sympathetic editors to support you lest they get their credibility splashed or tarred.

"For John I have to suggest that he try his hardest to carefully consider and address the graded distinctions between engaging, pithy, pointed, and harsh comments, to try to surface elemental technical points missed in the counter parties' assertions and address that directly, ... and to carefully consider his own operating policies... when he feels slighted or injured, whether associated with conventional editors zeal or an ongoing misunderstanding." I feel we are making progress but you have to change your writing style, otherwise you are lost. "Pointed" seems to be as much as is going to fly, for cause, and "engaging" remarks or "pithy" sentences probably will gain the most ground, with the least heartburn - for you, too.

I know this may not be easy when you perceive an ongoing, great wrong that violates your every sense of history, truth, honor, justice and peoples lives/well-being. Different people handle it different ways, often with humor. *You* simply have to avoid direct accusations and harsh comments to other editors - especially when you might tag an individual with some group's actions. Kick the sofa, criticize something abstract, dead, inanimate or remote but just not the other editors. Try to find a point of common reference with them and try to find charitable reasons someone might think differently and discuss things. Channel the heat into some kind of humor, irony or even sarcasm. I am looking at the scoreboards, your progress at Wiki absolutely requires some commitment. Can you try to do it? Thanks. -- 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

===John's answer===

Sure I can do it, now you get Midgley to stop harrassing me and the other alt med editors with his posse. Rfcs, page deletions, page tags, text deletions, link deletions. These are the page attacks: Deletions: Assemblage Point [48] Peter Fletcher [49], Lily Loat, Vaccination critics [50] Don Croft [51]; Richard Schulze[52] Deletion attempts: Neil Miller, Alan Cantwell [53] Charles Pearce [54] National Anti-Vaccination League [55] Viera Scheibner [56] Robert Mendelsohn [57], Beddow Bayly, Boyd Haley [58]Martin Walker [59]William Job Collins [60] Delete by merger attempt: See the books vanish from National Anti-Vaccination League, Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, Neil Miller, Charles Pearce, Robert Mendelsohn. Now, these are all either vaccine critics or non-allopathic medicine, so I am sure you can see why Midgley likes to hide behind [61]. It is just amazing he can get away with it. And I have to laugh when antivax gets put down here as a fringe belief--not surprising is it! And I haven't even started on page text. john 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been promoted? The conspiracy was previously called the "Woolfe pack". An alternative view I'd suggest, for what seems like the hundredth time, is that badly written articles of little content used to push a POV are unlikely to survive a proposal they be deleted, whereas when it turns out that a brief period fof research by someone competent such as Tearlach produces an indication of why someone was actually notable, and several other editors, commonly including me, write the article, they get kept and form a part of the encyclopedia writing which is one of the reasons for people being here. A commitment to some objectivity is an essential part of an encyclopaedia writter or scholar's armamentarium, and John should above (in good faith) have noted that one of those AfDs was actually closed by me and the article kept, under exactly the conditions I've described. Nobody has a licence to write crap articles and have them remain in place, and as with one hypothesis on French history, there is no necessity that catching them is done by this particular docotr, it could be anyone and it would be if I was not here. The remedy is to write encyclopaedic articles about notable people and things, not to perpetuate the anti-vaccinationist tradition of heaping obloquy upon the conventional or those who unlike anti-vaccinationists, fellow travellers, and useful idiots will point out the weaknesses of arguments. Note that there are a bunch of articles I've AfD'd that have nothing to do with any of those subjects, some went, some stayed, some were decided to my satisfaction, some I continue to disagree on, but, and here is an importnat point, on which I accept teh decision - I don't whinge on about how it was a conspiracy. Because it wasn't, it was a result of perturbing a complex system which is far more interesting and fruitful to study than conspiracy theoriesMidgley 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You are hardly going to admit it, you have to play the game. I give you credit for skill in that. If you want a POV just view ALL of the vaccine articles and ALL of the vaccine disease articles (no mention of the homeopathic and naturopathic view of measles, and I recall you lot deleting an alt med editors text additions to the mumps page), all written by you know who, and patrolled by you know who, along with cot-death and shaken baby syndrome, two "diseases" mostly caused by vaccination and drugs (as stated by medical doctors and scientists)---you can see no mention of that on either page. You can fool most people most of the time as they are totally clueless about medical politics, willingly so in most cases. It is obvious I touched a nerve when Woolfie banned me labelling anyone an allopath or vaccinator. Your skill is in writing long pieces that send me to sleep. ZZZZZZ. Perhaps you could sell some tapes for insomnia? That is a joke, I assume you have a sense of humour? john 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
My sense of humour is under some strain here. "as stated by medical doctors and scientists". You have been previously told that although that sentence is correct if two doctors and two scientists have said that once each, it is not a good reflection of the general view - where several orders of magnitude more doctors and scientists state the opposite and another bunch point to holes in what is interpreted as evidence. A newspaper or polemical leaflet may write in such tersm, but an encyclopaedia may not. This is an encyclopaedia. Midgley 11:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"several orders of magnitude more doctors and scientists state the opposite". Anyone with a little ability to think for themselves would know that numbers don't make something true, you are more likely to find truth with the minority, for the minority don't have the power to win at playing the Fascist game called "politics" which was designed to fool the majority. And I'm sure you would agree that GB Shaw was one of the greatest thinkers of the last century."The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong."----George Bernard Shaw. You are the majority as you keep saying. "The art of government is the organisation of idolatry."--George Bernard Shaw. They just don't know they are worshiping corporations. Cheers john 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
GBS was also a fan of Stalin. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean everything they believe is right. Tearlach 12:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
GBS was also a vegetarian, has John adopted that habit for that reason? 17:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think my pet rabbit could see that numbers don't equate with truth. Stalin would agree with that. john 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

improved commentary style for Whales[edit]

I would like to discuss proposed modifications to John's User:Whale page, where as little damage to his existing format is done in order to make it consisitent with Wiki policies. My first suggestion is some kind of user-name or real name replacement for the afflicted editors i.e. substitute "Midgley" with GPcritical#1 or something snazzier that makes both reasonably happier.-- 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) second suggestion improved desciptions & commentary to index....

Try "A usually reliable source", why don't you? (I don't think it'll fly though, unless you encrypt using a large key) Midgley 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

improved labelling contest[edit]

replace initial label with your favorite version

User id..................conventional proposal.........Whale proposal
InvictaHOG.............. Havid-hog....................Arkansas clipper}
JFW.........................dutch treat..................AloeGP
Andrew73.................Doc oc.................
CDN99.................... Canadian$...................Goldmine
Davidruben............... DRdr.......................... drDR
Midgley.................. #1 ExerterGP ...............lance

any way you get the idea or try another address system

Outside view by Askolnick[edit]

  • John's web site could be the "poster child" for the wisdom of Wiki's policy against editors including their own self-published web sites as external links. Giving this disreputable web site even the slightest credibility by linking it in Wikipedia is almost as bad as falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Linking people to false and misleading "health" information on this self-published web site has the potential of causing people enormous harm.

COMMENT: Ad hominem. Your POV.

  • If I may add another vitally important point: John's comparing his web site of anti-science and anti-public health blather with the Quackwatch web site run by Dr. Stephen Barrett is like comparing the Ku Klux Klan with the Boy Scouts. If anyone thinks this comparison is inaccurate or unfair, he should compare the list of libraries, medical schools, universities, and medical centers that refer readers to Quackwatch, with those that refer readers to John's self-published trash sites, by Googling for web pages linking to them.
COMMENT: 1. WP:NPA 2. Authority ploy, laughable argument, medical/Allopathic outfits linking to medical/Allopathic outfit set up to rubbish alternative medicine. 3. Numbers don't equate to truth. 4. is weeks old.
  • I could find NOT ONE library, university, medical school, or medical center link to John's web sites.
COMMENT: I should hope not. A medical school? How absurd, is that the best argument you can manage?

The Internet has made it easy for kooks, crooks, and crackpots to set themselves up as experts and claim to be equal if not better sources of vital information than are recogized authorities.

COMMENT: 1. WP:NPA 2. Kooks is just an allopathic word for the competition, and it betrays your bias. recogized authorities We all know who they are, don't we.
  • to an encyclopedia that has no real repute.
COMMENT: It is fast loosing its repute on medical matters, as the word get out that is is controlled by allopathic/medical editors. john 21:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by JzG[edit]

  • John states many times above that the material he linked to was valid, and notes that in some cases it can also be found in academic sources.

COMMENT: I am linking to books, so your argument is irrelevant in this case. I am surprised you haven't seen that, since you have offered a view, I would have thought you would know that.

  • This is irrelevant. The fact that some items on his site may be peer-reviewed evidence appropriate to Wikipedia is a red herring, because much of it is not, because the dissenting view is never represented (as it would be in an academic journal),
COMMENT: That is a red herring, I think these quotes cover my opinion: They did an investigation about how the pharmaceutical companies are funding all the research and spinning the trial results, so you can no longer really trust what you read in scientific journals. They pointed out that when they tried to get an expert to review the scientific literature related to antidepressants, they basically couldn't find someone who hadn't taken money from the drug companies.-- Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker "I'll give you an example. This is the New England Journal of Medicine......Eighty-three percent of its revenues comes from drug advertising. What do you think this costs? Eighty-three percent of its revenues comes from drug advertising."--Dr Levin MD "For the public ever to break command science it must first understand the basis of its enormous powers. The medical establishment derives these powers from three sources: (1) enforced consensus through peer review ---Peter Deusberg (Inventing The AIDS Virus)
  • because John has a tendency to editorialise around the content, and becaise overall the site is polemical not analytical.
COMMENT: You would say that as it is diametrically opposite to your point of view, which would be what I would expect of an editor of a journal (see above quotes) I have analysed vaccination and the rsult of that analysis is what I point it out to be. "Polemical" is a comment I'd expect from someone who believes, or needs to believe in vaccination. Also, all of the vaccine pages and vaccine disease pages don't have a "balancing" viewpoint from someone opposing vaccination, or from a naturopathic, homeopathic, or nutritional medicine point of view. So you want it both ways.

"Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system." [62]

  • Add to this the dubious copyright status of some of the material, the fact that John is the owner of the website, and the fact that it over-represents a view which goes direcrtly against the balance of informed opinion (so amounts to a POV fork, albeit external to WP) and you have a self-evident problem.
COMMENT: 1. Copyright is just a red herring to find an excuse to block links to books well out of copyright, that expose smallpox vaccination to be a fallacy. 2. Informed opinion is just your opinion, and the opinion of medical people who have a financial and professional interest in vaccination. If it was truly informed it would oppose vaccination, like dozens of medical men over the last 150 years, who looked into the subject with an open mind, men who Midgley and you, by association, are trying to delete from Wiki, so people can't get the full picture to make an informed opinion.
  • The solution is for John to cite the source papers properly using Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

</nowiki> syntax; this is described in WP:CITE and there are templates to help. Addition of verifiable material cited from reliable sources is far less contentious than adding polemical websites. Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have pages of personal attacks on web sites and Yes I misread one passage and misquoted you, and I apologise for that; nonetheless these pages are clearly extensive personal attacks in the meaning of WP policies. I have at least some history of defending the expression of views with which I disagree, so I hope you can take this not as an attempt to suppress information, but as simple advice. I find these attacks distasteful and damaging to your credibility as an objective witness to the facts, and by extension, damaging to the credibility of all the contents of your sites. I am especially disturbed by your posting of comments from Talk pages, things said in heat are best forgotten soonest. Please remove them.bd2412 T 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am prepared to remove my pages, but I expect you not to try and delete my pages in future, I have no interest in people who aren't notable. I'll put up with the suppression of links to books, but I expect Midgley to back off a bit. bd2412 T 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Your Endorsement Requested[edit]

I would appreciate it if, after considering whether you are in a position to assess the facts, you could consider whether to please endorse my holding response to this RfC here:-

I am going to have to get on with some proper work for a few a while but intend to be back to take matters further.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When I start drafting my Response I will replace the Holding Response and it will become an Annex to the draft Response. Accordingly, you will cease to be an endorser of my draft Response unless you so choose to be once it is available to be read. I trust that is satisfactory and thank you for endorsing the Holding Response. It would clearly be inappropriate for me to keep any of the names of the endorsers once the draft Response starts.
Hopefully, the RfC protagonists will see the sense of what I say elsewhere regarding confirming the Statement of Case is complete.
Talk - The Invisible Anon 16:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Diseases and Syndromes[edit]

CHARGE is a syndrome, a collection of things which are found together, rather than a disease. You'll Many people would find this reference informed them on what is known about it. Midgley 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a page in WP - CHARGE_syndrome - if you use the encyclopaedia as a source of information rather than as a billboard, you'll avoid some of the more obvious errors. (for any other observers, this is sparked by seeing a note about "Charge disease" on John's Whale site on the additions page. Midgley 12:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting, I assume you were adressing the journalist in question Good to know you are reading Whale, but I don't hold out much hope that you will embrace the truth on vaccination. I wonder how many doctors know about the dangers of insecticides, as I doubt any pregnant mother gets informed of the dangers. john 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If this is the journalist in question's user talk page then that would be a safe assumption to make. Alternatively, if the journalist in question was publishing on your page, then I would be offering a correction to the editor. Still on that page, which does look quite handsome with its Steve Bell cartoon and other illustrations, have you considered the copyright issues involved? I do recall a previous answer on this, but I would think the Shetland News case from 1996 would be a good place to start in considering whether embedding that cartoon in your page is actually safe. (Shetland Times Ltd v. Dr Jonathan Wills and ZetNews Ltd, 1996) Midgley 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)</ref>

Vaccination and the State by Arnold Lupton MP[edit]

The real reason for rfcs can be gleaned from this book, and why links to this and other books by the National Anti-Vaccination League have been deleted. john 13:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)