Talk:Robin Cook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] Top
I've removed the section about Robin Cook, the novelist, because I suspect copyright infringement: it's almost identical to the biography at http://www.ncteamericancollection.org/litmap/cook_robin_ma.htm .
To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so.
The posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly illegal and is a violation of our policy. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.
--Paul A 02:27 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
As I put in the other talk page, you can't copyright facts, lists of facts, etc. You can only copyright artistic creations. Therefore, despite claims of copyright, there is nothing enforceable. The article has been rephrased and changed around anyway, and wil probably be even more later, as if it matters. But I'm pissed, so you married it. I won't contribute anything more to that article. --
- Please don't contribute anything more to the Wikipedia, if it's of the same quality. -- Zoe
[edit] Death
Mr. Afmin, you asked in the article for a cource concerning the unknown stranger. Again and again I provide the sources. Always. Just take into account that the official narrative is full of holes and that with your actions to retell the governments story you block the truth. Reliable sources and logic back my viewpoints. But you are eager to wipe them out. Why?84.159.109.97 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Again a good reaction. As soon as I provided the link to the Times which stated that a unknown person was at the place where Cok died the information plus the source were wiped out. This is complete, obvious and fascist censorship.84.159.125.84 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC) ---
Mr. Admin likes to reedit the article every time to the "official version". Which includes false claims, suppression of most important information and blunt ignorance.
- "was pronounced dead on arrival" is defibitevly wrong (and you have no source. I have )
- "he suffered a severe heart attack" is a claim uttered by ONE witness.
- "he then fell down" ONE witness again. In full ignorance of the stranger who handed his cell phone, in full ignorance of the paramedics who did NOT claim "heart attack" as first impression.
- take the BBC as a source and compare the expression "rather than from injuries sustained in his fall". This one is not BBC. It is from the Guardian. [1]
Conclusion: both sources just quote the official version published by the Crown office in Edinborough. This was 4 (four) days after his death. Mr. Admin does not even ASK why a post mortem of a simple heart attack takes FOUR DAYS and if it is adequate or normal. It is defibitively not.84.159.117.254 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a number of attempts from different sources to editorialise this and although different editors are reverting the vandals the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection earlier and latest activity have made me concurr that locking the page is the best option for the moment. --Vamp:Willow 22:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- You are just trying to cencor the content,Thats all is cover up. User:69.199.57.145
Excusez-moi? I'm sorry, but I just added a couple more sentences describing circumstances of his death, as it seems strange to me that no major news outlets seem to be saying anything more than that 'he collapsed'. Surely this is appropriate until more concrete details of the cause of his death have been found out?
13:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) After two weeand another try to post information still no answer here to this : Hello Mr. Admin: it is definitely censorship if you do not allow to introduce the information that he had serious injuries and a broken neck. Secondly: you have a certain understanding WHY he had these injuries. This understanding is the same as the the “official” one, and it is definitely a current and possible one. BUT: as everybody is able to understand there is only ONE person who is the source: Cooks wife. So, to end it up why do you just not introduce a section “Alternative viewpoints” and pack in all the information about the unknown stranger, about the nodiscussion of the broken neck in the public, about the one and only witness. And then - to feel happy – tell the public that you for sure distance from that viewpoint.
Or if you do not know if there are sources: why do not just ask for sources ? Take the very first informations of the “Guardian”, the “Mirror” and the “Sun”. And the logic.
my edit was first censored because (allegedly) missing quotes and sources. Now I added them, and it is censored again.
WHY ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.159.107.123 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 October 2006.
- Presumably because it was written attrociously, and the choice of tone was even worse. How do you justify the use of the word "miraculously" for instance. Nowhere does the cited article assert that anything miraculous happened. There's absolutely nothing miraculous about another walker being on the same path at half-past 2 in the afternoon. It's a hill path frequented by walkers. That's why they were there, after all. Furthermore, the additional text was redundant. All the points you made are both made and addressed in the following paragraph covering "controversy". Wikipedia has a strict policy of neutrality. Try sticking to it (whilst writing proper English, and not badly punctuated pidgin, and your edits will no doubt be considered valuable contributions.
- Oh, and try sticking to the convention of adding your discussion at the bottom of a segment. That way people have some rudimentary chance of following the thread. Thanks. Cain Mosni 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I removed what you added and Cain is right about the reasons. --Guinnog 18:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category?
As it appears that his death was a combination of "ill-health" and "accident" is there a list of "significant figures who died as a result of accidents" to which he could be added? (This would include the Greek philosopher who was killed by a falling tortoise.
[edit] PES
"At his death he was president of the Foreign Policy Centre, and the Party of European Socialists, and a vice-president on the America APPG and the Global Security and Non-Proliferation APPG."
Is this really true, and do we have a source? I know he was president of the PES at one time but I was fairly sure he left that post a year or more ago. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I converted "He is currently ..." which was in the article at the beginning of today, to "At his death he was ...". The APPGs appear to be correct - the America APPG usually has all ex-Foreign Secretaries in senior posts, and he was certainly still President of the FPC. I'll check the PES Presidency as I think this is an biannual changeover post. David | Talk 23:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Now corrected - see PES website for his Presidency dates. David | Talk 23:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't find him on the FPC's web site. (But I can't find any references to a president) Secretlondon 08:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- See Guardian guide to thinktanks. Cook set up the FPC in 1997 shortly after becoming Foreign Secretary, basically to provide him with a loyal think tank. I think 'President' is really an emeritus position which they gave him in order to keep him involved. David | Talk 15:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why has this page been locked?
No major vandalism or edit war seems to have happened why lock it?
Jackliddle 22:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Please unlock page to allow genuine editing. if the Popes weren't locked why is this. Please support my case at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, SqueakBox 22:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
It is fine now, SqueakBox 23:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Albright
The article states that Madeleine Albright attended the funeral, but my recollection is that she was unable to because of illness. Can someone confirm this? Geoff97 21:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
You recollection is confirmed, however Joschka Fischer did attend. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1548291,00.html 82.35.65.147 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyrighted image?
The image of Cook in Commons, linked to from this page, has the tag: "This image is a work of a U.S. military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties."
Was Cook really an employee of the US military?? Suggests this could be a copyrighted image and should be moved to a fair use category. — SteveRwanda 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The tag means that the image was taken by a US government employee in the course of that employee's official duties... WJBscribe 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is quite biased
The person who wrote this article is probably working for the government, and seems like an apologist of the 'official' story. In every single statement he makes regarding the death,he/she attempts to back up the official story – without explanation. Ask yourselves: what do they have to gain? Are they working for someone who wants to believe this? Cook isn't the first person who died when he got on the wrong side of Blair. This article is quite biased.193.6.218.9 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just going back to June 2006, there have been 100 editors of this article. To talk about "the person who wrote this article" is therefore a nonsense. Perhaps anon IP address 193.6.218.9 would like to tabulate exactly where the article is [allegedly] quite biased. The hundreds of editors (since the article's inception) can then have their say.Phase4 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I put in that paragraph because I was sick of the ridiculous assertions being made, usually by unregistered users strangely enough. I have taken care to explain what would seem the logical background to the various outlandish claims made regarding the circumstances of the death. It's very hard to back up something that is a simple fact, such as a 50-something man having a heart attack after physical exertion, these things simply happen. There is a place for conspiracy theories, but not here. If you know that the true facts are different and can back up your assertions, I'd be very pleased for you to insert them into the article. User:lawsonrob 22.12, 9 October 2006
