Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm considering moving this discussion to form an article content dispute, as per McClellon. Could I have some views on this? JFW | T@lk 15:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User:JFDWOLFF'S CONTINUING INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR

I am most grateful to Jfdwolf for her further comments which further demonstrate that this conduct dispute is one that relates to her conduct and not to Ombudsman's. 81.111.172.198 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think my editing behaviour is inappropriate (and I don't think it is), please consider starting a seperate RFC for me. But don't make a fuss over here just because we happen to disagree on issues. We have only disagreed on Talk:Mumps, yet you feel you should disagree with edits of mine (which ones?) on other pages. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe the acronym you used towards me is DNFTT - 81.111.172.198 21:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to object to JDWOLF's also Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MMR_vaccine posting of my name. The reason I don't use my name is to deflect some of the hostility I get subjected to, and I don't notice anyone else using their real name. The reason he posted my name was to be hostile. Also I object to being called a "spammer" by JDWOLF, and I object to her and Wikipedia posting text calling my sanity into question, and accusing me of stealing copyrighted material, not to mention inferring I was anti-semitic. I did notice it would appear to be OK if Wikipedia posted the Protocols but not my site for some reason. john www.whale.to (86.128.123.119 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

I will remove your name from Talk:MMR vaccine and the copy on this RFC. I did not actually insert your name. It seems to be an online nemesis of yours. I think that with obscuring your name I will have satisfied 81.111.172.198's probably erroneous concerns about the Data Protection Act. JFW | T@lk 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Took your time. Bit late now don't you think? The page could be archived on numerous search engine sites by now and is in at least 5 revisions on Wikipedia. And what about all the abuse and vilification that goes with it? Look at all the time and effort of your fellow Wikipedians you have taken up. Remember you were advised in a very measured way by Ombudsman it might at the least be better to edit the item - but you, as is your wont, took absolutely no notice and now there is this long audit trail evidencing the consequences of your actions. I did not plan things that way but that is the way they turned out courtesy of intransigence a la User:Jfdwolff.
81.111.172.198 11:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
And of course I forgot to mention that anonymity is explicit when people sign on. They are not required to identify themselves. They are also not asked to provide a name or an email address and are promised if an email address is given "We won't reveal your address to anyone."
81.111.172.198 12:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I have taken a look at this edit. Now it is even clearer what we are dealing with. User:Jfdwolff claims to have taken out the name (nothing else, note) and then puts in signposts to it in prior edits. This suggests Wikipedia is in the control of some people who seem to have difficulty with socially responsible behaviour. This regrettably appears to be a facility in the hands of some people who do what they like, regardless of legality and engage in name calling and abuse, as has been seen very clearly on a number of occasions. For those of you perched to leap to attack, this is factual - describing events seen and recorded on Wikipedia.
81.111.172.198 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
wikipedia is controled? I find this claim questionable.Geni 14:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. That seems to be the size of it. Thank you for your perspicuity.
81.111.172.198 15:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Without responding specifically to 81.111.172.198, I have added an URL to John's post because otherwise it is considered poor form on Wikipedia to refactor information from talk pages. But never mind. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Data Protection Act 1998 - Contraventions & Extraterritoriality

User "TenofAllTrades" states "(rv removal of information: UK Data Protection Act doesn't apply in the United States, and identity of whale.to creator isn't protected info anyway)".

The UK Data Protection Act 1998 does apply in the UK and Jfdwolff is in the UK. She was holding and has used and disclosed the data, including an unauthorised transborder dataflow to a state "TenofAllTrades" claims does not afford any protection.

Accordingly, a major internation issue is whether Wikipedia is going to act as an unauthorised data haven and encourage illegal acts by its Users and be actively complicit in them.

Does Wikipedia acknowledge and intend to comply with observe and respect the laws of nations in which Wikipedia is active. This cuts across all Wikipedia databases in all languages.

That is just for starters and it does not even begin to consider all of the other implications of this.

The Data Protection Act 1998 implements the UK government's obligations under the Council of Europe Convention and under EU Directives and Regulations.

EU law, including the UK implementation under the UK Data Protection Act 1998, applies to personal information and operates to protect it.

81.111.172.198 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

John edited the page today and made no attempt to exonerate himself, nor to remove the information, nor protest its presence. This is implicit approval that his real name be mentioned. Also, you forget that the Wikipedia servers are in the USA and do not fall under the UK Data Protection Act's jurisdiction. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If I wanted my real name used I would use it wouldn't I? The use of names is hostile, which is why that person uses names. If you don't use your name it does deflect some of the hostility. john whale.to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.207.121 (talk • contribs).
So the world has to know your views, but you prefer not to be known by name? Anyway, you still haven't asked us to remove your name, John. I'm happy for it to be removed, because your identity is not actually of great importance to this issue. It's whether your views need Wikipedia to reach its audience. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
He does not have to ask for what should have been done in the first place which was for his personal data not to be posted. It is your contravention of the law to put up personal data not the victim's. And that is what you do, isn't it, you victimise people don't you [User:Jfdwolff]. That is what is going on here. It is all over all of your edits and reversions and you spend your life doing this by the looks of things. That is really strange, really strange. 81.111.172.198 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of violating the law or victimizing people. You've had your say. Be civil and refrain from remarks that could be construed as legal threats or personal attacks. If you don't have any further polite or constructive remarks to make, please refrain from further comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a discussion page and [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] has clearly made very personal attacks on another Wikipedian and seems to be contravening the law in doing so. Those attacks appear in the nature of victimisation and the foregoing are commenting on that and asking [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] to answer. Additionally, I am not threatening any legal action against anyone. I am pointing out that there is a seeming breach of the law and it should be investigated and dealt with by Wikipedia.
However, no answer has yet been provided by any Administrator to the question asked regarding Wikipedia complying with the laws of the nations in which Wikipedia operates nor to the question of any existing or proposed stated Wikipedia policy on the matter. 81.111.172.198 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The Data Protection Act 1998 and EU Directives and Regulations require express consent. There is no indication John was asked for consent, nor any that express consent was given, nor that John had any idea that he has a right to have his personal data protected. The fact he has not intervened in this also indicates he approves of the protection of his personal data. The fact that the servers are in the USA does not necessarily exonerate Wikipedia and Wikipedians or excuse them. In all the circumstances it is therefore right and proper that the deleted data should remain deleted until a Wikipedia policy statement has been issued.
81.111.172.198 22:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ignoring for the moment the question of jurisdiction, could you indicate what sections of the remark you have repeatedly removed contain information that would even be covered under the DPA? I don't see any personal data, and I don't see any information that's not readily obtained from a simple Google search. [NAME REMOVED, SEE BELOW] operates a website (incidentally registered in the Tonga TLD—how does the DPA feel about that?) called whale.to. He's in his mid-fifties and lives somewhere in the southwest of England. On their face, those would seem to be factual statements that don't reveal any particular personal details (no exact location, no precise birthdate, etc.)

Name removed. Hostility noted. Why don't you use your name then? 86.128.92.75 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

With respect to Ombudsman's observation that some of the remarks constitute personal attacks, I would agree that the last statement–"I have never known of an anti-vaccinationist who didn't have something wrong with them"–would indeed fall into that category. I would say that the remarks reflect more poorly on the writer than on the target of the statement; if someone is very offended by them then they can be struck through, but it's almost never appropriate to remove wholesale someone else's comment from an RFC. The remainder of the quotation, which harsh, seems to be criticism directed at the editorial behaviour of an external website. his editorial judgement would seem to be a legitimate topic of discussion when the quality of his website's content is at issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Being accused of stealing articles and being anti-semitic, as well as being mentally unstable, are the authors responsibility until they get posted on this website, then they are endorsed by the poster and Wikipedia. If you feel it is OK to post slanderous stuff such as that then it calls your judgement into question. In 10 years I have never been asked to take any article down because it was violating copyright. On newspaper 'requested' I remove one name of a vaccine victim as the parents didn't want their child on the internet--they "asked"--that is because of a thing called fair use, I guess. 86.128.92.75 17:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether you can "see" personal data. The issue is a matter of law and you are welcome to educate yourself on the matter. I have already explained the situation several times and explaining it again to you will serve no particular purpose other than to take up cyber-space. You will not accept it from me, so either accept it from someone else or educate yourself.
The bottom line is that it would seem [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] put personal data on Wikipedia without compliance with the requirements of the law, in particular, without seeking consent. It seems a really simple matter, although I am happy if someone wishes to express an alternative view based on the law but so far all we have is hot air from people who spend their spare time (and in the case of [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] sadly it would seem a great deal of spare time) being insulting and picking fights on Wikipedia and paying scant regard to the law. Not much of an advert for Wikipedia really.
As for [User:Jfdwolff|JFW]'s edits on medical topics, it is clear she is not a medical doctor as I cannot imagine any real medical doctor would put such inaccurate information on Wikipedia. So sure was I of this that I checked the medical registers in the UK and Holland and hey presto, there appears to be no doctor of the name Dr J F D Wolff registered. So if [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] really is a doctor there seem to be some inconsistencies and if she was what has she done to lose the registered status? Oh dear, I cannot be contravening the data protection act because it seems there is no such identifiable person, such a shame. And even if I was contravening the data protection act, it does not matter on Wikipedia because the law does not apply in Wikipedian cyber-space now does it?
Now where did I put my Wikipedia passport and driving licence - oh silly me, you can't really drive in cyber-space now can you? 81.111.172.198 20:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
U.S. law still applies to Wikipedia, the servers are in Florida. But you still haven't answered my question—what personal data (that would be protected by the 1998 DPA were we in the UK) is being revealed here? If there is a genuine concern about privacy, I would be willing to seek some reasonable compromise.
I am also confused about where Jfdwolff's medical credentials come into this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You need to come to terms with the fact that it does not matter where the servers are. The law applies to [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] and [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] is also an authorised Administrator of Wikipedia based in the UK (according to her account anyway). That also brings us to the issue of [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]'s claimed medical credentials. She travels all over Wikipedia editing medical type articles. The edits made to mumps are unusual for someone claiming to be medically qualified. And this comment is really unusual also from someone claiming to have medical credentials:-
"Mumps is second to chickenpox as one of the mildest of all routine childhood diseases." Have you ever looked after a child with chickenpox?"
Accordingly, it is extremely relevant to all aspects of [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]'s actions and reflects on them and reflects on the accuracy of all contributions made to Wikipedia.
81.111.172.198 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please, can you answer my question? I'll avoid coming back to the relevance of Jfdwolff's medical credentials, because I don't want to get sidetracked again. What, precisely, is the personal information about which you are concerned, and what specific parts of the Data Protection Act apply? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Regrettably this is becoming circular. I have already addressed this. The offending paragraph is the personal data and that has been abundantly clear from the outset. I have also referred you to other authority because you will not accept this is personal data. I have also raised policy issues which remain unanswered. You can see them above and here [[1]] and here [2].
81.111.172.198 02:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

←back to left margin I agree that this is becoming circular. There is no substantial issue for Wikipedia to address here.

  1. Wikipedia is not responsible for obeying the laws of other nations, only those of the United States and the State of Florida. Period. Off the top of my head, I can think of Wikipedia articles or discussions that would violate or have violated the laws of France, several Middle Eastern countries, Canada, and likely several others.
  2. Individual editors may face prosecution in their own countries if their conduct violates local laws. That's their problem. Wikipedia is not the French, British, Saudi, or Canadian police.
  3. In this specific case, there has not been a release of personal data. The identity of the whale.to webmaster was readily available on public websites outside of the UK; the anonymous editor who added that information to the Wikipedia dicussions (86.134.160.129 (talk • contribs)) was able to draw on those external sources. Jfdwolff did not release the information either; at most s/he has reduplicated the information already supplied by the anonymous 86.134.160.129 and already present on Wikipedia.
  4. I doubt that the information in question constitutes 'personal data' within the meaning of the Data Protectect Act 1998 anyway.
  5. Even if the information were 'personal data' within the Act, its release in this circumstance would be a wholly valid application of section 32(1) [3] of the Act, which exempts public expression for the purposes of journalism and literature from the Act's restrictions.

I have nothing further to say to you. As I have explained on your talk page, if you take issue with the actions of myself or any administrator on Wikipedia, you may bring the matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard for further discussion. If you require clarifications on the meaning of Wikipedia policies, visit the help desk. If you believe that Wikipedia policy requires modification, see the Village Pump. Further attacks on other editors are likely to be met with sanctions, up to and including a suspension of your editing privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. It would seem the answer to my queries is that:-
  • there is no Wikipedia policy on dealing with seeming contraventions of the law
  • Wikipedia has no policy of endeavouring to comply with the laws of the states in which it operates outside of the US and in fact is happy to continue to facilitate law breaking by its Users and Administrators and without implementing any form of self-regulation
Thank you for confirming this on behalf of Wikipedia. I have no further need to correspond on this topic now that it is officially established by you as an authorised Administrator on behalf of Wikipedia. If I am wrong in this understanding, please do not hesitate to let me know as it has taken a goodly deal of time and numerous requests to get the position established.
Your unsubstantiated assertions that my comments on the conduct of others are "attacks" are offensive. May I suggest it could assist if you try to distinguish valid criticism from the ad hominem remarks and gratuitous unjustified comments which some of your fellow editors seem to indulge in with impunity. As previously noted, I see no comment from you in that regard which is indicative in itself.
81.111.172.198 06:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Official policy regarding Wikipedia and the application of local and international law is ultimately the bailiwick of the Wikimedia Foundation and its Board of Trustees. Contact them for further information, and stop accusing other Wikipedia editors of facilitating criminal acts. This talk page is not the place to try to extract formal statements of legal positions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you but there seems to be no need to contact them. No policies exist and that is the relevant point. If there were any you would have found and quoted them. If I am wrong on that please let me know. Those policies you have cited appear ad hoc rather than formal and they appear to be that anything goes.
Further, please refrain from attributing to me accusations I have not made. I have not accused any Wikipedia editor of facilitating criminal acts. You seem to be trying really hard to pin on me something I have not done. Now why might that be?
81.111.172.198 07:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
So all your gassing about the UK Data Protection Act was meaningless? Well good, I guess we can put it behind us and move on. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
CLOSURE: On the contrary, it has established the position that Wikipedia has no policy of observance of the laws of states in which it operates and has no policy relating to nor any intention of regulating itself in relation to seeming illegal actions of its users, editors and administrators which may contravene the laws of any nation outside of, and up to now it is not clear whether that also includes, the USA.
That is a conclusion from which I am happy to move on, although you or one of your colleagues may feel they want the last word on the matter. If so, there is plenty of cyber-space for the purposes. It also seems that English Courts may claim jurisdiction over Wikipedia in some circumstances irrespective of the location of the Wikipedia servers. That also is useful to know.
It is unfortunate that there seems to be a general lack of civility amongst some of those who associate themselves with User:Jfdwolff. For example, the derogatory use of "all your gassing" and "the goofy pseudo-legal rationale" with respect to my contributions is not only lacking in civility but it indicates a certain irritation. Is that because you and your colleagues have been keenly reading all of this material trying in vain to find something on which to pin an accusation against me, including for things I have not done? This is of course a question and not an accusation.
Many thanks for your time. If you do not want to "feed the Troll" as User:Jfdwolff put it, you may want to consider this closure, but that is up to you and your colleagues.
81.111.172.198 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
We have very firm policies about observance of the laws of states in which we operate. Wikipedia follows the laws that apply in the state of florida. Our understanding of the legal situation is that we cannot be said to operate elsewhere and to be quite honest if a country other than the US finds the wikimedia foundation in breach of it's laws it isn't really a problem. Oh coutries block us from time to time (china for example) but beyond that there isn't much they can do. As for pinning an acusation against you in terms of internal wikipedia policy that isn't diffficult WP:NLT.Geni 12:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Have another read of your own policy. But thanks for the confirmation of what you have in mind. I appreciate it.
81.111.172.198 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Have another read of your own policy. Well, that managed to be both arrogant and completely content-free simultaneously. You might just as well as written "Eat more beets" or "Don't fall into volcanoes" and conveyed the same amount of information. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I am regrettably forced to request of another contributor to kindly keep a civil tone. This comment is out of place and less than appropriate. It is also and regrettably a further example of the ad hominem attacks which seem a little too prevalent. Kindly take a more careful look at your close friend Geni's comment to which it was a reply to see how out of place your personal attack on me is.
It is a shame some folks do not always engage in more appropriate forms of dialogue and debate. It would be nice if dropping into these kinds of personal attacks could be avoided. They do not advance arguments but lower the level of debate from an informed one to something somewhat less.
Take a another look and you will see for example that Geni's comment is another attack, again out of place. Careful examination reveals it is a threat. User Geni's comment is "As for pinning an acusation against you in terms of internal wikipedia policy that isn't diffficult" and inserting a link to a policy without any further comment. Now that is "content-free" but I do not accuse Geni of arrogance as you have done against me. Informed analysis reveals it to be a threat of legal action under the private law applied by Wikipedia under the contract Wikipedia creates directly and by implication with users of its facilities.
Why therefore do you not direct your remarks elsewhere? Those who live in glass-houses should not cast stones. This is all very disappointing. Perhaps you and your friends Geni, User:Jfdwolff, Nunh-huh and Calton might like to reflect on this and consider modifying your behaviour. After all, look at what User:Jfdwolff did with gratuitous identification and vilification of another user and done in her own words for "everyone's ... enjoyment". That is there for all to see (as intended by User:Jfdwolff, but not perhaps with the result she originally intended).
So which Wikipedia policy does that comply with? Again, not a very good advertisement for the kinds of people who populate the ranks of Wikipedia Administrators is it? It also reflects directly on those who operate Wikipedia and appoint Administrators that they cannot keep their own house in order. Perhaps they should consider their own policies and do a bit of monitoring of the activities of their Administrators.
This really does make it very clear to others the dangers of relying on what is written in Wikipedia by sometimes gifted amateurs. The value a dispassionate professional brings to a debate is clarity, lack of emotion and lack of personal baggage. It would be well to reflect on that and perhaps try to emulate an improved tone in your postings. If you would draw that to the attention of your confederates Geni, User:Jfdwolff, Nunh-huh and Calton, that might be beneficial.
I do hope there is sufficient content here for your purposes and that you do not think the foregoing is "completely content free". I feel sure the term "arrogant" might also be misplaced, but if you do have any concerns be sure to let me know.
If you have any other comments, please also do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely 81.111.172.198 06:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

This RFC and its talk page are not an examination of my alleged misbehaviour. This RFC specifically concerns Ombudsman and his defense of highly inappropriate external links. If 81.111.172.198 has a problem with me, my edits, my credentials or anything else I may have done, there is the possibility of starting a seperate RFC. I have stopped responding to 81.111.172.198 directly, because either way this user will not be satisfied with the answer. John has not requested removal of his name and general location (which are not private details, as summarised by TenOfAllTrades above), and John responded with his usual conspiracy theory but without a request for removal. Hence, I think 81.111.172.198's defence is quite unnecessary, and 81.111.172.198 is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have fed this troll for much too long, and it's time to do something constructive. Further villification of myself or other editors will meet with a request for arbitration. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.111.172.198's comments on Outside view by Nunh-huh

Here we see the same inappropriate approach to name calling and labelling employed by User:Jfdwolff.

What Nunh-huh and User:Jfdwolff do is label people who disagree with them "anti-vaccinator" who are not. We also see attempts at disinformation by referring to me in the same sentence as pages I have nothing to do with such as [ Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics[4]].

(The truth of whether 81.111.172.198 has edited that page can be discerned by checking this diff, in which 81.111.172.198 says many interesting things. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

There are those who wish to ensure that accurate and balanced information is denied to people who come here looking for it. If the history of relevant pages are seen, the same users crop up time and again including Nunh-huh and User:Jfdwolff. They will also be seen cropping up together such as on this page.

We also see further inaccuracy regarding medical information. It is for example well-known that mumps vaccination is not necessary and it is stated clearly and publicly by medical professionals and leading media commentators. Accordingly this "personal view" is no such thing.

No matter how many times any attempt is made to ensure the accurate picture is presented it is prevented. For example the mumps page is a mess. It is such a mess that [User:Jfdwolff] realised she had to tone down the information put into the first paragraph by her and edited it back. The page remains a mess. It has overblown claims of disease risks for a known mild childhood illness. There is no hope of getting it into proper and reliable shape because Nunh-huh and User:Jfdwolff prevent that.

Those who know the facts are prevented from presenting them with perfectly acceptable medical references. [User:Jfdwolff] just reverts. One example is a reversion claiming the inclusion of an overall accurate summary of mumps is "cherry picking". The referenced quote (which was as a direct quote from a medical source) was reverted and replaced with an inaccurate text not based on any accurate source but her own POV. She recanted and toned it down but the very short paragraph concerned remains a mass of inaccuracies and contradictions. But edit at your peril. You may be labelled and abused for your trouble.

81.111.172.198 05:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

81.111.172.198 writes "It is for example well-known that mumps vaccination is not necessary and it is stated clearly and publicly by medical professionals and leading media commentators. " Unfortunately 81.111.172.198 was unable to provide the names of any of medical organizations so advising when asked. - Nunh-huh 09:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, read the Telegraph, the Guardian, the British National Formulary prior to government introducing MMR (vaccination against mumps actively recommended not to be used), medical text books, commentator column "Dr Ali" in the Mail magazine and talk to doctors and pharmacists who were in practice before MMR. Sorry I cannot post private individuals names in Wiki - it would not be fair, especially seeing the hostile treatment they will get.
However, if Nunh-huh actually knew anything about mumps, I would not have to be having this dialogue because s/he would know this was correct. Also, there is absolutely no excuse for Nunh-huh not knowing that mumps is mild in children and that it is far better for them to get mumps as children and get lifelong immunity.
We are now seeing 10,000 cases of mumps each year in adolescents in the UK and that is not because mummy and daddy did not vaccinate them. Many will have been vaccinated but it would have been much safer for them and for many other people's kids to have caught natural mumps which is pretty much harmless in children in comparison. And it is the behaviour of folks like Nunh-huh who deny accurate information on mumps that are directly contributing to putting other people's children at risk when they hit their teen years.
Have you got any kids Nunh-huh? Have you? If you have take careful note of the scares put on the mumps page about sterility, because unlike true love, mumps vaccination does not last forever. Might we be seeing adults getting it next?
81.111.172.198 10:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The Telegraph and Guardian are not medical organizations, and the BNF does not recommend against mumps vaccinations. And yes, you are correct that adults and adolescents will get mumps when children are unvaccinated. Vaccinations are not solely for the benefit of the person vaccinated. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Contributors to the Telegraph, Guardian and other papers include those medically qualified and they are specifically engaged to contribute because of their credentials. Adults and adolescents do not contract mumps when children are unvaccinated because they get lifelong immunity from contracting mumps harmlessly as children. This is one of the main reasons why the BNF recommended against mumps vaccination. It is unnecessary and it puts children at risk of adverse reactions from an invasive medical procedure which cannot in such circumstances be clinically justified individually or on a population basis. In the light of this you really must consider carefully whether it is in the public interest that you refrain from further editing of medical pages on Wikipedia as further misinformation puts the public at risk.
May I also suggest that you also try to put substance over form? The BNF also does recommend against mumps vaccination. It is in numerous editions prior to 1988 and is clearly stated in no uncertain terms. Further, the absence of the recommendation against mumps vaccination post 1988 advertises the political nature of the British Medical Association. The British Medical Association exists to represent the interests of its members. This includes in relation to matters like pay and you will see that British doctors have recently had a very favourable pay rise recently for which they can thank their trade union the BMA. Accordingly, you cannot rely on the pronouncements of the BMA for impartiality. They are very partial and are paid to be so by their members. It really would not do to go around publishing information in the BNF or anywhere else that irritated the very people that pay the BMA's members.
Accordingly, you are in fact wrong to describe the BMA as a medical organisation. It is an association of medical professionals whose primary purpose is to represent the political interests of its members just like any other trade union. Accordingly, its pronouncements are neither necessarily impartial nor to be wholly relied on. They do not exist to make public pronouncements on matters of public health pro bono publico but any pronouncements they do make are made against the backdrop that they must represent the interests of their members first and not necessarily the interests of the public.
In that light, your argument by authority is in fact an appeal to an inappropriate authority where there is potential for conflict between the interests of the members of the BMA and the greater public interest.
If you have any further comments or queries, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely, 81.111.172.198 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
So to support your medical advice you cite newspapers and an organization that used to recommend against vaccination but no longer does so? And you would have us place the advice of a newpaper columnist above that of an organization of physicians? This seems to support my statement that you are unable to provide the names of any of medical organizations advising, as you do, against mumps vaccinations. - Nunh-huh 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (BTW, it is you and not I that cited the BMA; there are certainly other medical organizations and advisory panels that I have elsewhere cited for the recommendation in favor of mumps vaccine. - Nunh-huh 08:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I rest my case and here demonstrate that debate with you is to no avail as it was on the mumps page. You refuse to accept that qualified medical professionals who would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the UK General Medical Council who write in British newspapers on matters of public health are not reliable sources. You dismiss them as "newspaper columnists". You further ignore my earlier invitation to consider other medical sources. You further ignore my invitation to get first-hand knowledge from pediatricians in practice prior to the advent of mumps vaccination in 1998 in the UK. You further refuse to acknowledge that since 1988 nothing has changed to alter the original BNF recommendation not to vaccinate against mumps.
You further seem to overlook the difference between the BMA recommending against mumps vaccination when there was no clash with government policy with the BMA's volte face when there was.
You now further deny relying on the BMA as an authority when it is clearly cited on the mumps page and that you have not removed all reference to them indicates your acceptance of their citation as an authority.
You really need to make up your mind. Which recommendation is the valid one? The one where there was no clash with government policy or the one where there was?
Further, the BMA is cited on the mumps page alongside other governmental organisations which have their own agendas on public health which history shows does not necessarily mirror what is truly in the public and individual patient's interest.
You are also wrong regarding the citation of the BMA. I do not cite them as recommending mumps vaccination. I cited them as not recommending it until that clashed with UK government policy. This further exemplifies the limited utility of debating this with you is save to demonstrate the pointlessness and that what you have to say is not to be relied on and potentially harmful for the public.
I am sure we will be hearing from you very soon, but if you do have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, 81.111.172.198 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Which recommendation? You mean the one made by you, and supported by (as yet uncited) newspaper articles, or the one made by the WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain? I think the latter. - Nunh-huh 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

CLOSURE: I am bringing this to an end. 81.111.172.198 10:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As would I, if I were suggesting that Wikipedia begin advising people to base their medical decisions on an unspecified article in the Telegraph. - Nunh-huh 10:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This page has served its purpose for the time being. It has surpassed the 32K limit I am told by the system and the system has been losing the edits being made, albeit I took precautions to ensure my work has not been lost. Your confederate User:Jfdwolff advised you folks not to feed the trolls and called me a troll. Whilst I am of course not applying your colleague User:Jfdwolff's derogatory term to you, I am following the general advice underlying the suggestion on this occasion. And here you go, after failing to answer the points made and going in further circles citing appeals to authority instead of the facts, with spurious arguments about newspaper articles and off on more wild goose chases. But I guess you will want the final word so there is space below enough for that - it is all yours.
81.111.172.198 12:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll gladly take the final word then. This is Wikipedia. We are here precisely to tell people what the "authorities" say. We are not here to tell people what we, on our own, think. When you find a source that you can actually cite that agrees with you, then is the time to insert your viewpoint as an attributed point of view. Not before. - Nunh-huh 14:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I already have them. How do you think I know about them and can write about them. And I really do love the Hollywood ending.
TTFN 81.111.172.198 14:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Then why have you chosen not to share them, and chosen instead to withold them when asked for citations? - Nunh-huh 15:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
You broke it. You fix it. It is not my responsibility to clean up after you people. You clean up the mess. I am waiting to see if you do.
No one asked you to clean up. We asked you to support your position with actual citations. - Nunh-huh 16:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
You are taking the high ground (as your dramatic Hollywood ending shows) but we have seen what you and your colleagues like User:Jfdwolff do with referenced information. It is deleted and replaced with unreferenced twaddle. I have already pointed that out specifically in relation to the mumps page. You also victimise people like Ombudsman and John. I have followed Ombudsman's traces on Wikipedia and you guys crop up all over the place to give him a hard time. This RfC is another example.
I am most grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to add a few well chosen words.
I am sure we will be hearing from you very soon, but if you do have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, 81.111.172.198 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
You are the one who claims it's broken. It will be easy enough to tidy up if you are going to stop messing it up with unattributed and unreferenced opinions.= Nunh-huh 16:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Tut, tut. I will not feed you further. You are now to the level of making allegations and assertions of an inflammatory nature. This is arguing for argument's sake.
TTFN. 81.111.172.198 17:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
That's all right, I forgive you for calling me a troll. And I thank you for making it evident that you will not cite your sources. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View of 24.55.228.56

Ombudsman has no business using the name "Ombudsman" when he has no official role. I thought at first he was the wikipedia ombudsman until I read the anti-psychiatry nonsense that he was spewing. It's pretty low of him to attempt to gain credibility by using an official sounding name. Wikipedia officials should force him to change his name.--24.55.228.56 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That has been tried without effect. Radiant! (talk • contribs) asked him kindly to consider changing username. An earlier RFC was debated to death, and was refactored[5] and finally removed completely[6]. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"anti-psychiatry nonsense." Sounds like a psychiatrist here. To see the real story of psychiatric medicine see: Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit ----Interview with Robert Whitaker [7] 86.128.205.40 10:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, really? Why are you not assuming good faith? Why are you assuming that anyone who finds the anti-psychiatry crusaders on Wikipedia tiresome and prone to generating nonsense must him-or-herself be a psychiatrist? It's not like the anti-psychiatry rabblerousers are any great shakes you know -- hardly any of them have any argument to make, it seems, besides "the idea of mental illness must be entirely an invention of the drug industry, since they stand to profit financially" (an ad hominem circumstantial) and "if anyone shows the least skepticism of anything I or my fellow anti-psychiatrists cook up, it means they're a psychiatrist themselves" (an ah hominem circumstantial that's not even based on facts in evidence.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mistress Selina Kyle (general discussion)

Moved from main page as general debate about autism Tearlach 09:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. It is accepted that autism is at epidemic levels in the USA [Increases in Identified Cases of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Trudy Steuernagel, Kent State University JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL. 16/NO. 3/2005 138]. Genetic epidemics are medically, scientifically and logically impossible. It is impossible for the scale of increase seen in the USA across multiple individuals and especially not in one generation. Accordingly this outside view is abusive and incorrect and is a testament to the vitriolic and POV attacks on those who have researched and attempt to put the facts in the public domain. 86.10.231.219 13:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"It is accepted that autism is at epidemic levels in the USA" -- by whom, exactly?
Please read the peer reviewed paper referenced above. 86.10.231.219 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The Steuernagel paper does not say that autism is at epidemic levels (or that it is "accepted that autism is at epidemic levels"). She actually puts epidemic in quotes, indicating a degree of scepticism, and goes on to say the following: "Although disagreement exists as to whether the increase in the number of children identified as having symptoms of autism is due to increases in the disorder itself, better diagnostic tests, more inclusive classification guidelines, misdiagnosis, or some combination of these, there is no disputing the fact that autism now affects a significant number of people in this country [the US]"(p.138). The following article may be of some use (and I would suspect is the New Scientist Source). Three reasons not to believe in an autism epidemic. Gernsbacher MA, Dawson M, Goldsmith HH. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 14 (2): 55-58 APR 2005. This paper suggests that autism epidemic is a product of lay rather than scientific groups, and goes on to note similar reasons to Steuernagel for the apparent increase. Limegreen 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have only read the abstract on the first page. The Steuernagel paper very early on quotes the AAP "there is no disputing the fact that autism now affects a significant number of people in this country (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001)" and refers throughout to autism as epidemic without using quotes. The paper commences by quoting Time magazine on the issue because it has become so important with so many Americans now seriously affected. Also early on the paper states "The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the development of policies to address the autism epidemic" (again not using quotes for the phrase). This paper is all the more significant because it is sceptical of the autism/vaccines/mercury neuro-toxin connection. In time you will eventually have to accept the reality, as others are coming to around the world steadily. It has always been this way with the medical profession, which can be very conservative, especially when its sacred beliefs are shown not to be the currency they have been held out to the public to be. 86.10.231.219 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem unfamiliar with reading scientific papers. Steurnagel doesn't quote AAP, but attribute's an opinion to them, which are very different things. Secondly, in her first use of the word epidemic she uses quotes (and in the abstract): This article assesses the policy implications of the autism “epidemic.”. She doesn't review any research for or against the existance of an epidemic (and sidesteps that with the AAP opinion). Having established an agnostic position, there is no longer any need to use further quote marks (in fact, a sub-editor would probably remove them), and she goes on to use the phrase "policy response to the autism epidemic", which is convenient shorthand. Ultimately, Steuernagel's paper is policy-oriented. It doesn't attempt to present any evidence for or against an epidemic. I see you have chosen to ignore the other paper which does address this question. Limegreen 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a good argument. This paper says in no uncertain terms "Autism is NOW a big problem. What the hell are we going to do about it?" and sets out to address the policy to be adopted to what it refers throughout as the autism epidemic - without using quotes. And it does so whilst acknowledging what is becoming a rear-guard fight to downplay the problem by the medical profession (the seeming overseers of the epidemic, if, as many believe, it is caused by vaccinations). It is also scholarly, well-read and evidence-based, quoting evidence and other authority for the proposition. Accordingly, whilst I am sure you are no doubt an erudite individual, the argument you adopt must be out of character. It is crass. You can reinterpret this paper as much as you like, but it clearly says what it says. It can also be a mistake to insult and attack your opponent's ability by claiming they are "unfamiliar with reading scientific papers". Whilst certainly scholarly well-read and evidence-based, calling this paper "scientific" is like calling epidemiology "science" and raises a question or two over the familiarity of the party propounding that argument with what is and is not "science". However, the BMJ is on record as confirming that, as with the preponderance of the population, medical doctors are not scientists, which is surprising for some to learn -including it seems some medical doctors. 86.10.231.219 08:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clear. This is a semantic argument. I don't refute the idea that there are a lot of people with autism or that it's a big problem (I'm neutral on this point. I haven't looked at any serious evidence, and this paper doesn't present any, although it does point to other sources which suggest that this *is* the case). The semantic question is 'does this constitute an "epidemic"', and it is a question that she side-steps. It can also be a mistake to insult and attack your opponent's ability by claiming. That wouldn't be anything like suggesting that I'd only read the abstract or first page would it? Generally, it's a good idea to claim the moral high ground from a defensible position. You're most welcome to substitute "scholarly" for "scientific". It's certainly not a primary source (as it doesn't present any data), which is the reason why I question whether it is applicable to the question of whether or not autism is an epidemic. Limegreen 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Fruther, even if she was saying that autism is an epidemic (which I still don't think she does), she doesn't present any evidence to back up the position (I'd expect multiple citations for the view, plus some representation of counter-views with some criticism of them). Her avoidance of the argument seems sensible. Irrespective of cause/epidemic yada, working out helpful policy seems like a positive step, in a way that such arguments mostly aren't.Limegreen 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clear. You dispute that it is accepted there is an "autism epidemic" and I produced a peer reviewed researched paper with cited sources demonstrating that it does seem to be accepted that there is one. You disagree and you are welcome to disagree. There always will be people who disagree. I doubt very much whether there is a single proposition in the history of mankind which everyone agrees with. However, I have justified to a sufficient degree for present purposes. 86.10.231.219 04:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clearer. I have no interest in autism, no affiliation with any sort of medical practice, and am merely here because I'm concerned about the interpretation of this paper. I accept that autism is probably at levels which might be considered epidemic (but I don't know, because I'm not interested). From a brief scan of the literature, this does seem to be the case, but it seems exceedingly disputed whether it is an "epidemic", at epidemic levels, or nothing to write home about. My point is, as I have repeated trying to outline, you are referencing a paper which says nothing of the sort. There are other papers which actually address the topic, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus. Limegreen 05:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you for taking the time to debate the matter. I respect your view and we can agree to disagree, having aired the matter sufficiently now to do so. 86.10.231.219 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually looking at an article from New Scientist .....
Not exactly a peer reviewed publication and a bit of a "tabloid" in the world of serious publication. They do get it wrong from time to time. Sounds like they have this time as well. 86.10.231.219
.... which cites several experts
"citing several experts" Really? - that does sound like a journalist at work. There are plenty of "experts" in the world who can be found to pop up and argue against anything. 86.10.231.219 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
saying that the studies designed to track the increase of autism are actually showing that there is no true increase. What is causing the appearance of an increase is the fact that many individuals who would not have been classified as autistic before now are on the "autistic spectrum"; individuals with PPD-NOS and Asperger's Syndrome, for instance, now count as "autistic" -- and they account for about 75% of modern diagnoses of autism.
inappropriate argument - it ignores these different kinds of Autistic Spectrum Disorders which are new or massively increased. And the "its not really autism" argument does not wash either. If a condition is not a form of autism or part of the autistic spectrum - it would not be formally included in DSM IV etc. 86.10.231.219 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
To correct your misrepresentation: no one said "its [sic] not really autism". There is no argument described here that meets the description "its not really autism". The argument actually made, which you failed to follow but replied to anyways, is that behavior which we now consider to be autistic disorders were not diagnosed as such. They may have been diagnosed as other things, such as mental retardation (the diagnosis rates for which have been going down as diagnosis rates for autistic disorders go up) but they couldn't have been diagnosed for disorders on the low end of the autistic spectrum before those disorders were defined or before the notion that autism might be a spectrum was even in wide consideration. You cannot compare apples to oranges; you cannot say "the number of people who would be diagnosed autistic by 2006 criteria is far higher than the number who would be diagnosed autistic by 1970 criteria; this is absolute proof that the actual incidence of autistic disorders has increased, because there is no other rational explanation." There quite obviously is another explanation; the expansion of diagnostic criteria means that even if the actual rate of incidence was remaining perfectly level over the years, there would still be an increase in the number of diagnosed cases. What you need to be doing is trying to document how the increase in diagnosed cases even larger than could be accounted for by the expansion of diagnostic criteria, which can show an apparent increase of 1100% in the exact same population, not trying to cast aspersions on any data which supports any other theory but your favored one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a flawed argument. The diagnostic criteria have not been adding new categories of autism year on year but autism prevalence has been increasing 10 percent per annum in the USA. The same applies to the "improved diagnosis" argument. Are medical professionals so slow that they take 10-20 years to learn how to diagnose autism cases? And then they improve their ability to diagnose at 10 percent per annum? Sorry, not an argument that works. Not logical nor credible nor borne out by the facts. There are other reasons that can be added to this but that is enough for now. 86.10.231.219 00:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Got a peer-reviewed cite for that? There's one above which rebutts your opinion here. Limegreen 02:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 3 March 2005, pp. e277-e282 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1958)
National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD*, Matthew D. Falb, MHS* and James G. Gurney, PhD - Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland Divisions of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota:-
"The drastic increase in the prevalence of the autism classification presents a major challenge to the nation’s special education service systems and is one that has already triggered responses from federal, state, and local agencies.32"
"It has been suggested that increased substitution of autism for mental retardation3 and/or language impairment27 diagnoses might be accounting for some of the apparent increase in autism prevalence. If this substitution occurred with special education classifications, then increases in autism prevalence with subsequent birth cohorts would be accompanied by decreases in mental retardation and/or speech/language impairment prevalences. As shown in Fig 1, mental retardation prevalence shows no birth cohort effect; in other words, there is no suggestion that prevalence is decreasing (or increasing) among younger cohorts. The cohort curves overlap to reproduce faithfully the shape of a cross-sectional curve of prevalence according to age (curve not shown). Trends with age are as expected for mental retardation, with prevalence increasing steadily through age 8 and then leveling."
"Similarly, the curves for speech/language impairment indicate no cohort differences. The patterns with respect to age are as expected. At young ages, speech/language impairment prevalence is many times higher than that of autism; however, prevalence decreases dramatically from age 7 to age 17 years. The decrease in the prevalence of speech and language impairment is likely a result of children losing this disability category classification, which is expected to occur to a greater extent for this category (ie, in cases of articulation disorders and dysfluency that resolve with time), compared with the other categories."
"The curves for other health impairments are notable for 2 reasons, ie, because this is the disability classification that typically includes children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and because there are strong cohort differences. Prevalence is higher for successive birth cohorts, with the greatest annual increases occurring between the 1980 and 1984 birth cohorts. Within cohorts, the prevalence of other health impairments increases sharply through 11 years of age, with the rate of increase gradually decreasing in successive years."
..... Researchers who went back and examined a 1970 survey of 13,135 British children, of whom just five were diagnosed at the time as autistic, discovered that by today's diagnostic criteria at least 56 more would be classified as autistic.
sure sounds a great way of diagnosing something and a pretty desperate piece of medical research - go and review a piece of paper from 35 years ago and not carry out any clinical examination of the subjects. Bet they did not go and look at any individual subjects. Sounds a crazy way to carry on research. Sounds like that "eminent" medical guy Prof Southall who diagnosed a father murdered his son from his armchair by watching television - didn't they find Southall guilty in the Britsh GMC? You medical people really crack me up sometimes. 86.10.231.219 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
.... An increase of over 1100%, even over 35 years, would certainly count as "an epidemic increase", right? Except that it's the same population in both cases; the appearance of an increase is due to the change of diagnostic criteria. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Argument does not work for above reasons. 86.10.231.219 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, pure nonsense. "At this point, it is believed that about 10% of cases of autism can be accounted for genetically."--B.J. Freeman, Ph.D. Professor of Medical Psychology, Dept. of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences' UCLA School of Medicine. Even the medical boys admit the increase can't be down to genetics, as they stated at one of their meetings reviewed by Dr Blaylock MD--"Several of the participants tried to imply that autism was a genetic disorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr. Weil put that to rest with this comment, "We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." In other words, how can we suddenly see a 300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period?" That meeting was the "Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information." This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers. These included Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur [8]. Also Michael J. Goldberg, M.D., F.A.A.P. explained how it was impossible to have an epidemic based solely on genetics. [9]. So that is your genetic theory out of the window, from your own side. And I'll take the opinion of autism expert Dr Rimland Ph.D. when he says vaccination causes autism (not to mention thousands of parents and other doctors). "Crackpot" is just another term in the ad hominem lexicon along with 'conspiracy theorist', 'conspiracist' 'crank', 'loon', 'paranoia' etc, ie, anyone who isn't following the staus quo beliefs. The dentists are the ones pushing fluoridation, and since it has been disproven endless times, from numerous angles[10], you have to ask if they are just morons, poisoners, or after more work, and morons don't tend to get to the top of the BDA or ADA, so that leaves money or poison, or a combination of the two. john 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"dentists are the ones pushing fluoridation, and since it has been disproven endless times, from numerous angles[11]"
That's your website as you said on the main page of this RfC. With links to OTHER conspiracy theorists with just as unproven theories.
Oh, and people reading this: told you so, I was right, another nutjob conspiracy theorist who thinks everybody is out to kill/poison him --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst the above comments by Mistress Selina are directed to User John, the following clarification might assist. All theories of all kinds are by definition "unproven". If they were proven they would not be theories. Examples of unproven theories include special as well as general relativity (Einstein).
Additionally, the term "conspiracy theorist" as a term of abuse is falling out of favour for the simple reason that the evidence of conspiracies is all around. Conspiracies are taking place all the time. A conspiracy involves people coming together to agree "conspire". That happens constantly. A clear example is the invasion of Iraq. This is an example of a covert agenda being agreed and then followed. It could only be agreed in advance. It was no longer covert when finally and publicly admitted that the invasion was for "regime change" and really had little to do with the cover story of needing to invade to eradicate "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which were claimed falsely to the world by the British Prime Minister to exist and be capable of deployment within 45 minutes.
More common than conspiracy is collusion, where there is no overt agreement but where people work towards a common purpose without needing to agree because they already agree the common purpose, share views and ideals.
Accordingly, "conspiracy theorists" is not synomymous with people being "crackpots" and it can be helpful to theorise as to what kinds of conspiracies might be being pursued, by whom, where and when. 86.10.231.219 05:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Q (above): how can we suddenly see a 300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period? A: easy. If we open our eyes and look around. Unless we believe that our predecessors identified every case of autism, which we don't.

The amount of vaccination material on the Internet is not small - nor even is the amount of _distinct_ vaccination material on the Internet, much of the bulk being multiple copies. I think it is unlikely that whale.to actually is the largest collection - in pages or bytes or words, and it certainly is smaller in concepts than the national health services of the several countries and the pages of the learned journals. Much of their material however is in deep compartments of the web, some of it behind subscription barriers as yet (defoam the Net) and much if it is in PDF and less accessible. anti-vaccinationist websites are also characterised by considerable interlinking, as well as their repeating of the same text, and this generates higher rank in the search engines than the material in my view merits. I expect Google is considering this. Midgley 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Midgley 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by John (Discussion Moved From Project Page)

Discussion moved from project page 86.10.231.219 07:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

John, I'm glad you've responded. At least we can have an open discussion about this problem. 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 m" 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)

Reply: To quote Shaw: the minority are often right, the majority never. If millions believe something it doesn't make it right, and to use that argument suggests poor thinking, if any at all, and an effort to ditract. If you are an MD you are by any definition a vaccinator, as vaccines are a medicine of the medical profession, made up of medical doctors. It is not the medicine of pure homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism etc. This is very simple medical politics. Labels are useful to reveal the truth, that is why we like labelling things, and why you don't want labelling. This encyclopedia contains mostly pro-vaccine text, so that is biased towards vaccination. If you can't accept the views of anti-vaccinators then you are not offereing a balanced viewpoint, you are trying to make out my views are "extreme". This is the well know propaganda ploy called Name Calling or Word Game, which tries to make people not look at the information but reject it because the messenger is "mad", I have dissected that game here http://www.whale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html If you weren't trying to suppress my views but wanted to offer the viewers the real views of "The opposing view of vaccines" then you would let me write that section on the Vaccine Controversy page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy but instead you wouldn't even allow me to put in an external link to whale!! You say "Wikipedia is not going to be a forum for your views." That is suppression of a significant minority, which you are trying to portray as insignificant minority. Nice try.

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)
Actually, if you wanted to "suppress any point of view," you wouldn't be editing articles, because your edits would be subject to editing. What you'd be doing instead would be things like:
  • Writing POV articles that convey a mainstream opinion
  • RFDing articles that you disagree with, and stacking votes
  • Making personal attacks on your opponents and then accusing them of making personal attacks against you
  • Dismissing for any number of reasons sources your opponents brings
  • Making charges of rhetorical fallacies against your opponents, without any basis
  • Issuing RFCs and RFArb's against your opponents
  • Stalking your opponents into subject areas they're interested in, making annoying edits there
  • And then saying that your attack on them is a matter for mediation
...in other words, being so annoying that your opponent just gives up and does something else with his/her life. --Leifern 11:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous editor made some wonderfully revealing contributions on Talk:MMR vaccine[12]. I'm reproducing it here for everyone's enlightenment and enjoyment:
Somebody said who is behind Whale. It's a guy called [REMOVED BY REQUEST, SEE [13]], who is obsessed with collecting any snippet of material that supports the anti-vaccine fringe. A lot of it is selective clippings from young newspaper reporters doing those "jane was a bright, bubbly baby until she had her [insert vaccine of choice]". There's no pretence of balance, or providing a resource. The stuff is all readily available copyright material, essentially stolen, so there's no possible claim of making things available. It's the way stuff is selected and indexed that is how Mr [DELETED] does his damage: making his visitors believe they are being presented with a menu of information. Analysis of his site over some years suggests that he believes the world is run by a secret society, which he sometimes identifies as the "illuminati". There was some web controversy a while back over his republication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious forgery {probably on Wiki, but I haven't checked) intended to promote the idea that the world is in fact run by a Jewish conspiracy. There was quite a lot of anti-semitic stuff at one time. Here is a link to one of his pages on this subject [14]. The illuminati can be enjoyed at [15] Ombudsman can feel free to wallow in this. Speaking for myself, I have never known of an anti-vaccinationist who didn't have something wrong with them. 86.134.160.129


"wonderfully revealing contributions?". This is a classic in ad hominem and Word game, I'll use that on my word game page. This character, David Wright, has been on newgroups for over 10 years attacking anti-vaccinators, and has never managed to provide any argument other than ad hominem. Everyone is your mirror would be my reply to "I have never known of an anti-vaccinationist who didn't have something wrong with them." and I wonder at the mindset. Notice use of buzzwords (anti-vaccinator is one) of PEZ and Illuminati. If he can't provide an argument to refute the anti-vaccine position then how can he know anything about the Illuminati or that the POZ is Jewish or a forgery? "Balance" is just typical propaganda as shown by agnostics---people who can't be bothered to do any research to form an opinion. The PEZ is all over the internet, so do a google Jdfwolff. "I'm by definition a vaccinator! Well well, we love labeling don't we." Yes, have you ever met an MD who wasn't pro-vaccine? I love labels, and vaccinators like you don't like being labelled so that as you can pretend your opinion us unbiased. Nice try. If you think the political system isn't t then you haven't done any thinking on the subject. Mussolini said m should have been called Corporatism as it was a merger of Corporate power and the state. Go figure, I have after 12 years researching medical politics, if you think we don't have a medical monopoly then you are ignorant, but it would be expected from someone in your position. If you think my Alexa ranking is low then you are also ignorant of Alexa rankings and the web. You try and get 1 mill hits a year.---john whale.to

John, could I have my copy of the PEZ please? JFW | T@lk 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One contributor editing as two IP addresses supporting each other

This may be a little late, but the styles are so clearly similar in other edits that it would strain credibility for them not to be the same person, aka The Invisible Anon and Anon the Editor and currently the subject of an RFC [16]. They present two separate outside views, as two separate identities. Since the RFC is active again with the ArbCom request also or alternatively proceeding, this is now relevant again. Midgley 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moved from wrong location on project page by Merecat 04:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for my response to the above "Outside View". It is inaccurate and misleading and is in reality just a response to a prior "Outside View" and not an "Outside View" commenting on this RfC. It also therefore seems more suited to the Talk page. However, its placement here seems to be consistent with what seems to be the pursuit of an agenda.
I note Nunh-huh has chosen to put this response to my "Outside View" before it, even though his/her "Outside View" post dates it and appears to be in answer to it.
According to Administrator [User:Jfdwolff] in her words "I am allowed to respond to allegations made about myself .... JFW | T@lk 18:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)". 81.111.172.198 05:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Ombudsman_7962.html"