Talk:Viera Scheibner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article contradicts itself with regard to how many papers she has had published in peer medical journals, somebody can't count, who is it? Which medical journals have published her work? What credentials do the skeptics have? Did they analyse the data?

Contents 1 Proposal to Merge (or else turn into an actual biographical article) 2 Prometheus Books 3 ISBN 4 spare refernece 5 Time to remove Merge tag?

[edit] Proposal to Merge (or else turn into an actual biographical article)

Merge This is not a biography of a scientist - it is an account of one anti-vaccinationist's activity, and would be better dealt with as part of a long article on anti-vaccinationists. Doing so will reduce repetition and redundancy.

Alternatively, if the consensus is that the article should stay as a separate one ostensibly about somebody with a professional career in micro-paleontology, then it needs a considerable improvement in its content - for instance something about the subject she had a career and presumably some publications of note (unless every paleontologist is going to be biographised here) and a degree in should be added. If the most interesting thing about her is the publications noted to date, and this is about the person rathr than an a fragment of an antivaccination bibliography, then one addition to the text would be something about how her circumstances and history lead her to take up this particualr hobby. Is there a WP biography group that look after standards in bios? Midgley 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Great way to get rid of those articles, which would be your real reason as a vaccinator. First deletion attempt, then it's merge. john 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You have tried it with Robert Mendelsohn the number one anti-vaccine man of the last 60 years, also Beddow Bayly the number one medical anti-vaccine man of the first half of the 20th century. Bit obvious, whatever you say. john 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep This has already been voted on to be kept and not deleted so good indication to be kept not merged. Motivation for merger suspect. This contravenes assume good faith Midgley 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Proponent proposing merger is strident medical activist and part of informal Wikipedia group opposing vaccination critics and any views not in line with theirs. It is extraordinary Scheibner is so controversial that an entire peer reviewed paper has been written about her [UToronto.ca (pdf) - 'Public opponents of vaccination: a case study", Julie Leask, Peter McIntyre, National Centre for Immunization Research & Survellance, University of Sydney, Vaccine, vol 21, p 4700-4703 (2003) PMID 14585678 ] This Wiki article on Scheibner also needs to be expanded to cover the extent of her work lecturing and in education around the world on vaccination issues, and at least some summaries of her articles and controversies. Her work in relation to what was then thought infant apnoea deserves mention. A controversial character as the "Bent Spoon" award shows, for attracting the attention of lobby groups opposed to her perspectives - clearly requires NPOV treatment. 86.10.231.219 22:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to the suggestion I am part of a group - it is untrue and part of yet another ad hominem attack.

the reference given is interesting, in that it is entitled "Public opponents of vaccination: ... " It looks like a good reference to add to the anti-vaccinationists article, and in an ideal world a wiki editor who had it to hand and had tread that article would have added it - even if it did not support their own POV.

However, that very reference reinforces that what is interesting is not the lady, and not her work in paleo-geology, but her as an exmplar of anti-vaccinationists - and hence the proper place for that material is in an article on that subject.

a biography of her on the other hand, might have an independent existence. Midgley 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are an allopathic medical doctor, you are even listed in a group know as Physicians, and for what must have been 100 years it would have been common to have called you a vaccinator, so you can hardly expect anyone to doubt your motives for removing pages to anti-vaccinators, and to laugh at your professed motives. It can't be a coincidence that only allopaths are deleting pages to anti-vaccinators, and suppressing links to anti-vaccine websites. It is a spiritual maxim that there are no coincidences. If vaccination was so above reproach you wouldn't need to go to the trouble. john 21:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What group would John be listed in? I hold a qualification and practice a profession which is of relevance to some pages on WP, and one of my colleagues noted that I am in that set - not AFAIK a group, it is a condition rather than an activity. SOmetimes someone wanting a particualr qualified view on a page asks a physician to give one. Do the engineers, lawyers and architects get labelled in groups? It would seem as sensible.

as to spiritual maxims, there are coincidences, but that people who know what they are talking about contribute to WP sometimes by removing arrant rubbish, is not one. It doesn't need organising though. As a maxim although not spiritual, try this one "Think globally, act locally". Midgley 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Just because the Australian Skeptics are hostile is a rubbish reason to delete mention of the Bent Spoon Award. Bush invaded Iraq. That was hostile and not NPOV (many people said there were no WMDs). So does that mean we delete mention of the Iraq war from Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a NPOV, those quackhunter outfits are run by the medical industry, read Martin Walker book Dirty Medicine and his latest one as well. The most infamous is Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal then The National Council Against Health Fraudand Stephen Barrett etc etc. Their publications are the skeptic outfits like you mentioned. I know you like to maintain a certain level of ignorance on these matters for obvious reasons, but I have to laugh when Australian Skeptics listed allopathy as bogus! It is always a bit obvious when they list alternative medicine such as chiro and homeopathy as quackery, but these shills are enough to fool most of the people most of the time, and most of the allopaths who like to be fooled all the time. They are a pretty revolting bunch by all accounts: "A board member of CSICOP is Professor Paul Kurtz, chairman of Prometheus Books, which publishes books describing pedophile encounters. Its human sexuality editor is CSICOP member Professor Vern Bullough, who is also a board member of Paedika." john 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No ad homs to see here folks, move along InvictaHOG 10:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And you are the expert, so you should know! john 09:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

DNFT. Jfdwolff 09:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"...when Australian Skeptics listed allopathy as bogus!" I'd like to see the reference (URL) to this one. What was the setting? -- Fyslee 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheus Books

This one?

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/

When mentioning books, giving either the title or the ISBN makes it much easier to verify whatever is being said.

So could we see one of those for at least one of the books about pedophile encounters, please?

The firm includes an imprint they describe as scholarly, but since nobody can have any idea what books are being referred to, nobody can look to see if the title is, for instance, related to medical or legal professional work with mad bad or sick people or injured children, which would, as an example, make the mention above look like an attempt to mislead and possibly a risky one. Midgley 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN

ISBN 064615124

ISBNs are usually a 10 character string, the last being a check digit. That one is 9 digits. THe link does not find the book. Midgley 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spare refernece

[1]

[edit] Time to remove Merge tag?

Isn't it about time to remove it? The article has grown and the other article is already too large to tolerate a merge. -- Fyslee 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Ombudsman 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Fyslee 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)