Talk:Vernon Coleman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Secondary sources

We need some secondary sources for this article. It seems to be based entirely on Coleman's website. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We now have. Vernon Coleman gave an interview with The Independent in May 2008. Polsequ95 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Was his column really a 'spoof' as the article suggests? Magic Pickle 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that he's come out as a transvestite now? http://www.vernoncoleman.com/thethreemyths.htm

That definitely sounds worth mentioning to me, I stumbled across this article after recieving a surreal 4 page advertisement for his book "living in a facist state" claiming to know the "truth" behind 9/11 amongst several other curious claims.

This article fails to capture the complete nuttiness of the man. Problem is how to capture that without being too POV or libellous! Pontificake 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On his website he has many frankly side splitting tirades on subjects from the EU & the whole Bush-Blair thing to vivisection. These are the very subjects that are quite frankly the most fertile ground for the nutters of England. Oh yes, and another thing, he keeps using the words "England" and "English" where "Britain" and "British" are required, e.g. "The English Army," "The English taxpayer" etc. It's barely excusable when an American makes this mistake, but for an Englishman it is both annoying and indeed insulting. This article has much of the same style as his website, so I suggest it may be self-written. Anyway, I shall leave it up to more experienced Wikipedians than I to ponder the issue.93.107.145.67 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how the main article refers to him as a satirist, satirising extreme views. Is he intentionally satirising extreme views, does he genuinely believe the stuff he writes, or is he intentionally fanning the flames of controversy? I can't help but wonder if he's doing the literary equivalent of getting into a flamewar... Mittfh (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertising Standards Authority

Vernon doesn't seem to like the ASA (Advertising Watchdog) Rant 1 | Rant 2 And they don't like his adverts! Adjudication 1 | Adjudication2 | Adjudication 3

Worth a (more formal) mention on the main page - something along the lines of the adverts for his books have caused controversy - with two receiving adjudications from the ASA. Mittfh (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit on the ASA adjudications as well as the injunction that Colin Blakemore took out against him.Autarch (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Independent article referenced in Wikipedia entry re Vernon Coleman

The article Doctor on the Make which Independent on Sunday published on 7.4.96 was a wildly inaccurate hatchet job. The paper printed a long letter on 14.4.96 entitled "Portrait of a doctor in the doghouse was unfair" And on 21.4.96 the same paper printed "Apology to Vernon Coleman" relating to the original article The letter and apology were printed to avoid a libel action against the Independent on Sunday

Hope this information helps There are many hundreds of non libellous articles which could have been referenced so it seems a pity that this inaccurate one was referenced ! V C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.61.199 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A similar message was sent to the OTRS team in which copies of the retraction and apology story from The Independent were provided as photographs. Based upon my initial review, the articles appear genuine and name specifically the article for retraction. As per our policies around the usage of reliable sources, I have removed the subsequently retracted source from usage in this Wikipedia article and replaced it with a {{cn}} template and a note to not use The Independent story "DOCTOR ON THE MAKE". Mkdw^talk 18:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vernon Coleman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515014400/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/people/the-doctor-will-see-you-now-who-does-vernon-coleman-think-he-is-827603.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/the-doctor-will-see-you-now-who-does-vernon-coleman-think-he-is-827603.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible COI issue

Emhusbandm might have a WP:COI issues related to editing this article and The Young Country Doctor. Editor warned at their Talk page. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC) I have no connection with this subject or any other pages I edit or contribute to on here; I merely have an interest in the topic I have contributed to. However, it is interesting to note these instructions for future reference. (Emhusbandm)

Possibly incorrect reference and language issue

The paragraph beginning "According to The Independent:" quotes some phrases which seem not to be in the reference:

• "Vernon Coleman is many things and he has written books about most of them." - the phrase "Vernon Coleman is" does not appear in the article, nor does the variation "Coleman is", neither does the phrase "written books".
• ""He's frank, fearless and prolific. He's outrageous, outspoken and iconoclastic. A Vernon Coleman book will change your life...and may even save your life." - the words "frank", "fearless", "prolific", "outrageous", "outspoken", "iconoclastic", "change", "save" are not in the reference in question.

Searching for the phrase "Vernon Coleman is many things" or the sentence "Vernon Coleman is many things and he has written books about most of them." brings up what seems to be mainly mirrors of the article. Searching for "A Vernon Coleman book will change your life...and may even save your life." points to this page on his site which attributes the sentence to The Independent, 14 May 2008, which does appear in this article - however the word "save" does not appear in the article and the word "change" only appears in the unrelated phrase "The world you know is going to change dramatically and permanently". (However the sentences "He's frank, fearless and prolific. He's outrageous, outspoken and iconoclastic." do appear there.)

While the last two sentences incorrectly attributed are written by a writer for the Independent, they praise without imparting verifiable information - in other words they look like a case of WP:PEACOCK. At the very least it suggests that references should be checked to see if they support the claim they are used for.

The sentence "Coleman is a militant vegetarian and antivivisectionist." is a case of WP:LABEL as the word "militant" is almost always derogatory in English.Autarch (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Users attacking the page with nominations for deletion or unjustified removal of text.

The sources used on here are for the most part national and regional newspapers or national magazines. As the subject is an author there are many references to these books, which are all legitimately published and have been in the marketplace for decades. The previous proposal for deletion was rightly denied. It is very obvious that this page is being targeted because of the author's views as the deletions followed his video regarding the corona virus. This is simply redundant in comparison to this account of a notable author's life and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.91.66 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

what, credulous book reviews, hosted on his own website? Sure, bro. Guy (help!) 21:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Marked claim as dubious because of citation

The citation "'Bumbledom forced me to leave the NHS', "Pulse" 28 November 1981" is used to support the subjects' claims over why he resigned from the NHS. It's not clear who published it or where a copy could be obtained, so I've marked it as dubious for the time being. It's not clear if it passes WP:RS.Autarch (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he's talking about his own bumbledom? EEng 22:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus video

I don't think I need to list all the reasons that this content is inadequately sourced. The content is pure WP:OR, and stripped of the OR, we have "Vernon Coleman said crazy thing on YouTube" - which he did, but there's no plausible justification for including this or any other crazy statement he's made unless there's independent RS coverage to establish significance. Guy (help!) 19:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• agree, this sort of thing should not be included. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does he scare you so much?

I've tried editing the bad stuff on this site but my edits don't seem to have been accepted. His books have saved countless lives and his campaigning has brought significant change but some people (probably drug company stooges) are only interested in posting half truths and lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart Jones (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"..half truths and lies.", that are backed by independent reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason that he scares people is that there are actually many people stupid enough to believe the nonsense that he writes, so there's a multiplier effect in play. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not related in any way to any pharmaceutical company but it seems to me that Coleman is propounding a lot of very radical opinions recommendations without citing any evidence or factual basis for his beliefs. I therefore agree with Phil Bridger. [maidmarion] 16 May 2020] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.209.142 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am generally quite "scared" of the damage that promoters of fringe medical claims can do to society. Wikipedia has a policy about representation of medical topics, see WP:MEDRS. The mainstream view of Veron Coleman is that his views are quite fringe and Wikipedia has a duty to report them as such. The view that his books have saved "countless" lives is an opinion. And if the number of lives saved has truly not been counted, then it is our duty not to report them as if this is a known fact. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Medical status

Per the source cited in the article, all we can say is "relinquished registration"; source doesn't support "stripped of his medical license" or "having revoked his license". I suggest the lead be changed to and former general practitioner who has been stripped of his medical licence and in career, change He is no longer registered or licensed to practise as a GP principal, having revoked his licence in March 2006. to ...having relinquished his license.... Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That an article subject does not stick to verifiable facts in his statements does not mean that we should sink to the same level. Please let's remember WP:BLP. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I complained to the GMC about a quack selling chelation for autism in England, and after five years he accepted voluntary erasure from the medical register. He no longer practises, and has wound up his companies.

Voluntary erasure is more than simply relinquishing your license to practice. Accepting voluntary erasure in the face of fitness to practice hearings, is recommended only if you have no desire ever to work in medicine again: an application to re-register would basically resurrect the case. It is the equivalent of pleading guilty.

Coleman's subsequent diatribes are... rationally challenged, shall we say. I'm reasonably confident that doctors are not actually using mind control techniques to make us fear COVID-19.

One classic indicator that we should actually not have an article on this quack is that after he was banned from YouTube, not one single reliable source reported it. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't help that none of the 2020 articles on Coleman really address his professional status (tho one tosses in "no longer practices"). Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed what seems like a violation of WP:NPOV

I went ahead and removed the 'discredited' from the introductory paragraph that read: "...is an English discredit self-publisher and blogger of conspiracy theories...". Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nearlyevil665, he's an active antivaxer, so it's appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I know well the man is completely bonkers and talks rubbish instead of science, but are we not supposed to avoid judging someone's character and instead lay out facts what said person has done or said and/or what others have published about said person? I'm genuinely curious as to how describing him as "discredited" is any different from describing Mussolini as "evil" - both points to which we can all obviously agree to. Isn't the prerogative to make such determinations on the reader? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nearlyevil665, to say that he is discredited is not a judgment on his character. It's a statement of his reputation in his chosen field. Frankly I don't think we should even have this article, since it is extraordinarily hard to find a single reality-based source about him. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. Coleman has been described as 'discredited' in legitimate news sources and should be noted as such. For a similar example, see Andrew Wakefield. Secondly, it is important to note this article is subject to frequent requests to censure this page of any sources painting Coleman in a negative light, another of which was made recently (see: OTRS ticket number is 2014122310009221 - removal of content and usage of the story "DOCTOR ON THE MAKE" by The Independent). MrEarlGray (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Books

The books section needs a lot of work. It freely mixes self-published fiction with fiction-masquerading-as-0fact; it contains no publication data, no sources to establish significance of any title, no reviews to identify whether it's one of his anti-science publications, some are published by apparently bogus organisations. Given the status of the author as a self-promoting crank, we need to be careful with this. Guy (help!) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• substantial culling required, possibly to those that are bestsellers, book made into a film, reviewed, of course only those backed up with reliable independent sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we need to list every single book by an author, especially if the majority of his books are self-published (whether crank or not). We only need to list books which have been shown to be noteworthy by coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to be an index of publications by an author since there are many other websites that can do listings of things better than us. I propose that we delete this section and re-add as the sources permit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

. Very concerned that majority of his self-publications make no distinction between fact and fiction and that this may mis-lead people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.209.142 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose to delete this unsourced section. We can re-add a shorter list of his most noteworthy publications when we have sufficient sources. If nobody objects to this proposed change I will implement it tomorrow. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This list serves no purpose other than to act as an advertising platform.MrEarlGray (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who would like to keep this section or who can propose a way to improve sourcing so that I do not have to delete it? --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has defended keeping the books section. Given that the consensus seems to be that this section violates NPoV, I'm going to delete it today. Thank you for feedback everybody. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Advertising Standards Authority rulings

I have updated the section concerning the Advertising Standards Authority rulings against Coleman's work "How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You", as the previous wording had taken numerous liberties with the source material which did not reflect the actual ruling by the ASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray (talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Yes or no? Some say yes, but it is removed by others. Guy (help!) 23:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

And the slow edit-warring is continuing without any discussion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have cited a reliable source that says that Coleman peddled the idea that there is a conspiracy to present AIDS as something that can affect heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I bet that the millions of people, largely in Africa, who have seen their loved ones die of AIDS are comforted by that. I'll leave it up to others whether that's enough to describe him as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree, he's a dangerous voice even if he is a qualified MD (and you have to wonder how that happened) but there are multiple problems with what he says that and his opinions compared to mountains of actual independent evidence. I believe this entire article needs to reflect that or be deleted. I only came here because he was mentioned while I was eing attacked for being a member of some secret society.... Oh I wish I had that much power. 81.97.100.208 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I added categories for British Conspiracy Theorists and Anti-Vaxxers. I think these are appropriate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Dr Coleman is far from a conspiracy theorist. He is has been praised by people at all levels in the government and media.

His work is based on solid evidence and he doesn't deserve to be vilified in this way. Emmagade (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If what you say is true then I'm sure you can find some independent reliable sources that say so, and then we can include content from them in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

1999 article in BMJ

From the BMJ:

The Sunday People has Dr Vernon’s casebook looking into why “I can’t find a lover man enough to satisfy me.” He responds: “By and large women are more highly sexed and more imaginative than men. They have much dirtier minds, are far less prudish and are more willing to be adventurous in bed or in the park.” Is he reporting the findings of his own unpublished, double blind, randomised controlled trial? More dangerously, in the same column is the question: “Does someone’s sex drive disappear if they don’t have sex for a while?” To this he replies: “Yes. Use it or lose it.” I’d like to know on what evidence he bases that statement. Don’t use it but lose it might be a better way to approach Dr Vernon Coleman’s advice.

— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116750/

A rare RS mention of the subject's actual work. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

With all due respect, as I am a new Wikipedia account holder and still have a lot to learn about the process of getting things done behind the scenes, so I am sorry that I do not know how to source the author of the unsourced material on this page, but whoever it is that is responsible for the myriad of loaded, prejudiced, discriminatory, defamatory, and childish slurs masquerading as wiki, should be ashamed.

There are comments which in all of my jurisdictions of practice would be unlawful, and are in contravention of statutory protections in my opinion. I would appreciate someone making 3 small changes until my 4 day cooling off period ends and I can edit this semi protected page.

1. Change the subheading "(English Doctor)" to "British medical doctor - retired & author/publisher) or similar equally accurate language. I discovered this gentlemen after stumbling across a dozen of his 100 publications on amazon kindle.

I am a health and medical lawyer with a med school background and multinational appeals court admissions. The language aggressively or passive aggressively intends to harm the reputation of this man, and such an intention can be used to establish legal liability for defamation regardless of whether the language is technically truthful, at least in the jurisdiction where I am reading this page from. 

2. Change "relinquished his practising certificate in 2016" or words of that effect, to "He retired from the practice of medicine at age 70 in 2016 and continues to write and publish books with contributions from his wife and occasional co-author Antoinette. In 2020 by 1 October he had already released another 2 ebooks on amazon kindle platform which deconstructs the covid19 political response from a medical perspective"

The sources for the above claims in paragraph 2 are the amazon.com Vernon Coleman author page which list his extensive catalogue of publications as well as the bio and dates for the 2 x 2020 titles.

If the original text remains unchanged this page will be in breach of the neutrality policy and also constitutes unlawful discrimination of a protected class, in my assessment. To degrade or mischaracmischaracterise a 74 year old doctor for retiring after some 5 decades of service to the community, by equating retirement with some sort of negative emancipation or abandonment when it is not only an expectation to retire but an entitlement at that age, is again an unnecessary display of prejudice and irrational and emotional regulation dysfunction, with all due respect. It is contributors like that who are stopping my profession from being able to validly reference Wikipedia after some 15 years.

3. There is a line about the subject referring to himself as professor though supposedly not one, according to what looks like the same ignorant rent seeking contributor. Either remove this completely or just the unsourced slurs second part of it. Or someone add a reference that justifies why an instructor to a medical doctor who is also a GP trainee does not a professor make?

A doctor or lawyer or dentist or minister, the 4 original professions since antiquity, bind the holder of that qualification 24 hours per day, whether at work or not, practising cert renewal or holder or retired or emeritus or otherwise. We are accountable at all times even when not working as our oaths to serve are taken separate to the certificate. He will always be a doctor just as I will always be a lawyer regardless of whether we practise because our actions are always subject to audit by the professional body, even for our driving! In USA a title remains in perpetuity so once a professor always designated as professor (teaches above secondary level or post tertiary as in this case). I have provided historical and legal explanation ex gratia. By no means is anyone participating in breaches of Wikipedia policy and unsubstantiated slurs entitled to this effort on the regular. I just wanted to be sure that these changes are honored. If I don't find a user to help I will be back in 4 days to do it myself and permanently.

Thank you Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

can be used to establish legal liability for defamation regardless of whether the language is technically truthful, at least in the jurisdiction where I am reading this page from

Wikipedians love people like you who do not care about truth, and they are especially friendly to them. Did you read WP:NOLEGALTHREATS?

Yes, we know that British law is kind to medical frauds and unkind to scientists who criticize them. Did you read British Chiropractic Association v Singh and Streisand effect? It may be a glimpse into your own future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime, congratulations, that's the first openly SovCit username I think I have seen on Wikipedia. He's not a medical doctor (he accepted voluntary erasure). His history also shows a prior suspension. Your comments represent your personal interpretation of facts, not any reliable third party source. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime, it is not possible for you to make 'permanent' changes on Wikipedia.MrEarlGray (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I should be rather surprised that a lawyer does not know that only a small minority of people who teach at the post-secondary level have the title "professor", but I long ago ceased being surprised by anything I read on Wikipedia talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Coleman's title of "professor" is from the "International Open University", founded in the Soviet Union, moved to Netherlands, then Sri Lanka. As far as I can tell it no longer exists, but there is a similarly named body in Gambia (which appears unrelated though it actively targets Sri Lanka for recruitment).

Just one more reason I think we should not have this article. Virtually nothing about Coleman is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, and the few that do exist (such as "doctor on the make"), he continually complains about us using. Frankly, this is a very minor fringe character who is only really seen these days in crap like What Doctors Don't Tell You. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I disagree. Coleman is especially active on social media platforms and is influential in the spread of anti-vaccine and anti-Covid19 conspiracy theories. I strongly believe it is necessary to keep this page to educate and inform the public of Coleman's nonscientific nonsense. To delete this page would only further his ability to peddle claims which are potentially killing thousands of people.MrEarlGray (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

user:MrEarlGray I'm not quite clear with this: are you suggesting keeping a person with a clear fail of WP:GNG and virtually no reliable secondary sources as to educate people that might be misled by his scientific gibberish on social network? There are all sorts of influential (however one would measure that) nutjobs on the internet and I'm not sure if giving them exposure is the right way to go about it. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Nearlyevil665 Counter to your claim of 'virtually no reliable secondary sources' there are more than ten secondary sources discrediting Coleman here, each published by major international news organisations. Secondly, much like the page dedicated to Andrew Wakefield, a similar peddler of anti-vaccine nonsense, Coleman also is (unfortunately) deserving of note so as to educate and inform people of his dangerous claims. I agree, Wikipedia does not exist to give someone exposure and the removal of blatant advertising material found in previous edits demonstrates this. Finally, this page is often locked due to vandalism from pro-Coleman supporters and is regularly nominated for deletion, both acts Coleman regularly instructs his followers to do via his social media posts. Coleman clearly wants this page removed as it is damaging to his (nonexistent) 'credibility'.MrEarlGray (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has valid opinions, and I thank you for your contribution. When I figure out how to use this darned site and app, I will invariably attempt to respond specifically to comments once I know how. I hope everyone is staying safe and well. Cheers. Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You did a perfect job, in terms of Wikipedia technicalities, of making that response, so just do the same with your response to comments that have been made here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

The entire page misrepresents this person and smacks of the sort of wholesale CENSORSHIP of any dissenting voice in the Covid 19 Pandemic response Worldwide that is going on across "legacy" internet platforms...i would suggest that anyone really interested in Dr Vernon Coleman and what he has to say should visit his own web-site. Chrismorrell66 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020 (2)

DISCREDIT him! it is total BOLLOX Chrismorrell66 (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

British vs English Conspiracy Theorist

I'd strongly suggest keeping Coleman in both the English and British conspiracy theorists sections, because his is British English and often references his 'British-ness' in his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray (talk • contribs) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally have no strong feeling about categorisation, but my understanding is that we don't explicitly put articles in a category when they are already in a sub-category. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

AIDS Denial

I have elected to create a new section devoted to Coleman's extensive AIDS denial claims published during his time as an editorialist for The Sun newspaper. Coleman has also written for; The Daily Star, The Sunday Express, The Sunday People The Sunday Times, Observer, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror, Punch, Woman, Woman's Own, The Lady and The Spectator, so please feel free to add any other sources you may find making similar claims. Coleman has also written under the pen name Edward Vernon and may have used other titles.MrEarlGray (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A word of caution here. We shouldn't be writing about what Coleman has written about his own opinions, but about what others have written about him in independent reliable sources. Some time ago I added such a source about his claim in The Sun that there was a conspiracy to say that AIDS can affect heterosexuals, but much of his writing in the other publications seems to have passed unnoted by others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I must contest this, as am concerned with the recent edits which have removed information clearly outlined in the source "Eldridge, John (2003). Getting the Message: News, Truth, and Power. Routledge. pp. 198–224" which directly quotes Coleman's AID's denialism via his national newspaper columns. Sadly, the online sample of this work provided by Google omits several pages (particularly 198-220) and I believe the changes to the edits are being made in error. I'd therefore suggest a rollback of edits and future editors should consult the complete volume of which I have used. Furthermore, Coleman has outlined his AID's denial via his blog and in the book "Coleman's Laws".MrEarlGray (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I did consult the complete version, and there were significant errors in the text in the article. These have now been addressed. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, I fully understand your edits are in the best interest of impartiality, but I have made minor changes to them to best match to match the text found on pages 198 - 220 of 'Getting the Message: News, Truth, and Power'. I have also taken to providing a medical journal as a secondary reference. MrEarlGray (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the changes do not match the source.

• "In the 1980's Coleman denied that AIDS was a significant risk to the heterosexual community and claimed that any threat was "homosexual propaganda"." The quote "homosexual propoganda" was not attributed to Coleman.
• "Coleman's claims were reported to the Press Council and an adjudication ruled both The Sun and Coleman's claims were "...misleading in its interpretation and the headline was a gross distortion of the statistical information supplied by the Minister." The text reads "The following year, a Press Council adjudication upheld a complaint against the Sun’s reporting of the Kilbracken controversy", referring to the Sun's article "Straight Sex Cannot Give You AIDS - Official" and the accompanying editorial. It doesn't mention that Coleman was included in the adjudication.
• "Coleman also claimed gay activists were "worried that once it was widely known that AIDS was not a major threat to heterosexuals, then funds for AIDS research would fall" and "our government, like many others, fell for militant gay propaganda."" - The statement "our government, like many others, fell for militant gay propaganda" was by Ann Leslie, not Coleman.
• "On the 10 August, 1989 Coleman’s ‘Health Matters’ column later demanded that all AIDS awareness campaigns be abandoned." Coleman is arguing against the campaign running at the time. He does not state that "all AIDS awareness campaigns should be abandoned".
• The medical journal you added does not discuss Coleman's views about AIDS, but is about Coleman in relation to anti-vaccination.

Bilby (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, I'd appreciate it if you didn't engage in an edit war as your edits are becoming rather tedious, especially when additional sources are included. I have addressed your claims below:

• Coleman was the editorial writer during the Kilbracken Controversy and I've taken to providing a third source denoting how this claim was attributed to him.
• As Coleman was the editorial writer for The Sun during the Kilbraken Controversy and wrote the articles "Straight Sex Cannot Give You AIDS - Official" (along with another column titled "The Shadow of AIDS Has Taken The Fun Out Of Sex For Too Long" found in the third source) one should be easily able to identify how Coleman's writings were the object of complaint outlined by the Press Council adjudication.
• I accept that Ann Leslie made the 'militant gay propaganda' comment and that was a mistake on my behalf. My apologies.
• "On the 10 August, 1989 Coleman’s ‘Health Matters’ column later demanded that all AIDS awareness campaigns be abandoned." Coleman's demands are, once again, made in his column entitled "Kill off the AIDS epidemic" which is outlined on page 201 via "Coleman demanded that the campaign (against AIDS awareness) be abandoned". The previous day he made a similar claim "AIDS STORM is ALL HYPE". I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding this unless you don't have the full source material.
• The medical journal provided does relate Coleman's claims to AIDS denial. MrEarlGray (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP, so accuracy is essential. We can't afford to make inaccurate claims about living people.

• The reference reads "The Sun did not give Kilbracken the front page but it went further in claiming that this was support for that newspaper’s own argument: 'STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS—OFFICIAL' (Sun, 17 November 1989). This assertion was underlined by an editorial ... The following day, the Sun’s resident doctor, Vernon Coleman, alleged a wider conspiracy". It does not say that Coleman wrote the article or the editorial, but it does say that he wrote a column the next day. The text from the adjudication only references the article and the editorial. If there is another source saying that he wrote either that would be fine, but without it we cannot assume that the adjudication was in regard to Coleman without a source saying that it was. The text that you have now added is also misleading, as the AIDS claims in the Sun were not directed to the Press Council in general, but, as far as the reference is concerned, only the one article and editorial.
• You are correct, it says "Coleman demanded that the campaign (against AIDS awareness) be abandoned". What it does not say is that he demanded that "all AIDS awareness campaigns be abandoned". Your most recent addition, "On the 10 August, 1989 Coleman’s ‘Health Matters’ column later demanded that AIDS awareness campaigns be abandoned" is similarly misleading, given that this is not what the source says.
• I may be incorrect, but the medical journal which I assume you are referenceing is Insight+, [1]. I am unable to find where it claims that Coleman is an AIDS denier. It certainly discusses AIDS denialism, but only seems to cover Coleman in relation to anti-vaccination. However, I might be missing something. Can you provide the quote that referneces Coleman asan AIDS denier?

Coleman's statements about AIDS were dangerous and incorrect. I think we should cover this. But as it is a BLP, we need to be careful to cover it accurately. - Bilby (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

82.132.217.118 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Change Dr Vernon Coleman's details He is a doctor and not a conpiracy theorist.

 Not done: Please provide a reliable source to support your claims. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tickety Tonk (Vernon Coleman's Diaries)

As "Tickety Tonk (Vernon Coleman's Diaries)" was written by Coleman, can we discuss if this is an acceptable source given it serves only to self-promote Coleman's other books? I am currently in favour of removing the source and its referenced information, but I welcome other opinions MrEarlGray (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with this unpleasant article

This article on Vernon is a hatchet job from start to finish. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia in that POV form: either he is notable, or he is not. If he is notable, then we keep it, but lets try to ensure it is a bit more balanced. He is a delightfully idiosyncratic, entertaining, bright, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast, the kind of chap who likes to fling a few rocks into the canal, but not some kind of hard core fanatical conspiracy theorist (whatever that is, presumably someone who disagrees with your own version of the facts). My view is that the whole article is a serious breach of the Wikipedia rules on living persons biographies, in no small part because he is not a criminal or a raving lunatic, and not a threat: but an author who you might even describe as a science fiction writer or story teller, someone who certainly doesn't fit into conventional mainstream science writing, but is stimulating, communicates well to a wide audience and always has something interesting and provocative to add to a debate. I find it petty and unpleasant in tone, and as you all seem to know so much about him, and I am no expert, I'd urge everyone to tone it down a bit.Excalibur (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable secondary sources write about a subject, not anyone's personal opinions or the way in which the subject wants to present himself. If the predominance of such sources say that someone is as described in this article then that is what we say. The reason that this article is unpleasant may well be that Coleman himself is unpleasant. I see no evidence that he is in any way "a delightfully idiosyncratic, entertaining, bright, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast". Please provide some such evidence if he is. There was a deletion discussion about this nearly a year ago that resulted in the article being kept, as there was no consensus for deletion, but if you think it should be deleted then you are welcome to start another one, in which I may support you. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just reverted the article to a good version from yesterday. Apologies to good faith editors whose work has gone, but that nonsense couldn't stand. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Much like similar discussions on Andrew Wakefield, an article is capable of being reflective of the facts regardless of whether you accept them to be true or not. The terms "widely discredited" and "conspiracy theorist" are used on pages of individuals who have made similar debunked medical and conspiratorial claims and is not an insult levied solely at Coleman as you are suggesting. In comparison, claiming "he is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast" would be pushing a biased POV which falls afoul of Peacocking. Coleman has garnered criticism from both the medical community and the mainstream media due to his claims that: vaccines are dangerous, AIDS doesn't exist and Covid-19 is a hoax (among others). The outlining and debunking of Coleman's medical claims is supported by evidence from various widely-respected and impartial sources. Further still, counter to your statement, Coleman was ruled to have made claims which were a threat to public health, twice, by the Advertising Standards Authority. This article has been written by numerous editors over the years and no one person holds sway over its tone; you can observe for yourself how previous edits have been made to best represent the subject. If you have any peer-reviewed medical journals or similar credible evidence supporting any of Coleman's medical claims, please share it with the community. MrEarlGray (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Libellous

I know the self-important admins don't like facts nor anonymous editors, but the article is fictional and libellous. Dr Coleman is a respected former medical practitioner, who left only due to retirement. He is no conspiracy theorist or any of the other false claims you have made. He cites his sources and they're available for anyone to check out. The fact they don't suit your narrative doesn't make them untrue. You are also breaking Wikipedia rules by using weasel words such as 'Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific' - by who? This article needs a giant tag at the top about unverified claims and 'citation needed' on virtually everything in it. You know full well that you should not be trashing the already poor reputation of Wikipedia by making so-called articles based on personal vendettas just because you don't like someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.196.208 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If what you say was true then you would be correct. But it is clearly not true that the claims in the article are unsourced. It is that Coleman is "a respected former medical practitioner" that is unsourced. There are many independent reliable sources in the article showing that "Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific", which answers your "by who [sic]?" question. There's nothing personal in this. We are simply following what is written in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd also note that despite the claims above by the OP of this thread that Coleman cites his sources, there was a whole load of nothing at all to support the Coleman vs Wikipedia video diatribe I watched for the entry above. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Coleman making threats off-site

I was recently informed that Coleman went through this article and named a couple of editors (myself included) in one of his latest videos. As expected, it's insult laden and filled with nonsense as apparently some of you (or even myself) are government agents. This pseudo-doxing can be intimidating, especially when you get intimidations off site as I have, but just ignore it and double-check your account security. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm among the editors named (I use my real name here and it's easy enough for anyone who cares to find out where I live) but I won't allow myself to be intimidated over something as trivial as an encyclopedia article about a barely notable conspiracy theorist. It's news to me if I'm a government agent. Who do I go to to get my payment for being so? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope to use my upcoming government agency paycheck to cover the charges he's planning against me via his "screen shots of the worst libels". MrEarlGray (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. I just sat through the wikipedia diatribe. I suppose it explains why we have been getting all the complaints from supporters. I was hoping for some honesty, and facts. I was disappointed, and bored. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray, the exchange rate from shill bucks to exposure dollars is currently 1.000 Guy (help! - typo?) 17:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You slander him anonymously in this article and then complain because he tries to defend himself. Maybe you should contact the man directly instead of bringing your personal problems here. Take some responsibility.

--Argh (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Activism against benzodiazepine abuse and misuse. In his book "Life Without Tranquillisers" (1985), he wrote:

"The biggest drug-addiction problem in the world doesn't involve heroin, cocaine or marijuana. In fact, it doesn't involve an illegal drug at all. The world's biggest drug-addiction problem is posed by a group of drugs, the benzodiazepines, which are widely prescribed by doctors and taken by countless millions of perfectly ordinary people around the world... Drug-addiction experts claim that getting people off the benzodiazepines is more difficult than getting addicts off heroin... For several years now pressure-groups have been fighting to help addicted individuals break free from their pharmacological chains. But the fight has been a forlorn one. As fast as one individual breaks free from one of the benzodiazepines another patient somewhere else becomes addicted. I believe that the main reason for this is that doctors are addicted to prescribing benzodiazepines just as much as patients are hooked on taking them. I don't think that the problem can ever be solved by gentle persuasion or by trying to wean patients off these drugs. I think that the only genuine long-term solution is to be aware of these drugs and to avoid them like the plague. The uses of the benzodiazepines are modest and relatively insignificant. We can do without them. I don't think that the benzodiazepine problem will be solved until patients around the world unite and make it clear that they are not prepared to accept prescriptions for these dangerous products."

Subsequently, the British government attempted to rein in the subscriptions of benzodiazepines. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/999/2021212.htm

http://www.benzo-case-japan.com/responsible-english.php#dr.-coleman-quote Jamesfish909 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a request for anything. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)