Talk:Celia Farber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | 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] | ||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
Hmm, not surprised that my version was reverted without discussion -- the usual tactic of the PC crowd trying to slant things their way. So I've reverted back. And will keep doing so until good reasons are given by those who prefer the other version...[AT] 8 May, 2006
Okay - added some language for balance. It's nice that someone took the time to put together an article on Farber, but to totally ignore the fact that her assertions about HIV & AIDS are out of step with almost 100% of the medical professionals in the world is ridiculous.
- Heh..."almost" 100%. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.56.165 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-05 19:02:24 (UTC)
Sure, the medical professionals could be wrong - and Farber goes to great lengths to present her best case in her many articles. But to do a wiki on her, mentioning all her creds as a sceptic, with absolutely zero links or reference to the issue she aims her scepticism at, is beyond bizarre.
--69.214.216.68 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"Intellectual dishonesty is the norm for Farber and other AIDS denialists." Errors in Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's Magazine, Robert Gallo MD, Nathan Geffen, Gregg Gonsalves, Richard Jefferys, Daniel R. Kuritzkes MD, Bruce Mirken, John P. Moore PhD, Jeffrey T. Safrit PhD,"
- Robert Gallo accusing Celia Farber of intellectual dishonesty!! That's a hoot! It's gonna take me a couple hours to get off the floor after laughing. You really outdid yourself this time, Nun-huh (or whatever your name is...) Thank you for putting a quote about Farber in there, and thank you for providing a quote that makes Gallo look so obviously like the enormous, egomaniacal, psychotic, ass he really is. Revolver 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad to have made you so happy. -- Nunh-huh 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I notice you didn't deny my statement about Gallo. You must have read Science Fictions too. Revolver 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to believe that I agree with every statement you make which I haven't denied—if you want me to even entertain the thought that you care what I think on the subject—if that's the kind of logic and rhetorical posturing you choose to practice—and if you want to think you've made a "statement" about Gallo rather than about yourself, well... that's your prerogative<G> . - Nunh-huh 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I take it back, clearly you haven't read Science Fictions. (I'm assuming you even know what book I'm talking about.) And anyone who has read that book or knows even the slightest thing about Gallo as either a scientist or a person would know how incredibly hypocritical it is for HIM, of all people, to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty. There are 2 possibilities — either someone knows who Gallo really is, in which case, my statement merely reaffirms what they already know, or else they're completely ignorant about him, in which case ignorance is bliss. But such is the case in the world of AIDS... Revolver 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, I DO care what you think on the subject — esp. when you insert quotes into articles which are so...I don't know, there's no accurate word, except maybe...Orwellian, yeah that's the right word. Revolver 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- You seemed to be having trouble locating a quotation that illustrated the fact that Farber's writing is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous. That's probably because she's a somewhat obscure figure and irrelevant to serious discussion about AIDS. I'm happy I was able to provide one for you. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hey kids, want to join a research area where you can lie, steal, and commit fraud, and still be considered a "world-renowned" researcher?? You got it. Revolver 11:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to believe that I agree with every statement you make which I haven't denied—if you want me to even entertain the thought that you care what I think on the subject—if that's the kind of logic and rhetorical posturing you choose to practice—and if you want to think you've made a "statement" about Gallo rather than about yourself, well... that's your prerogative<G> . - Nunh-huh 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I notice you didn't deny my statement about Gallo. You must have read Science Fictions too. Revolver 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad to have made you so happy. -- Nunh-huh 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Edited to eliminate POV and give both sides -- the dissenters and the orthodox view. [AT] 2 May 2006
[edit] NPOV
Elaborating on credentials, even if that person's assertions are dismissed by the medical community (which is called "orthodox"), reeks like POV pushing. Further, deleting large parts of the articel without discussions looks a bit unreasonable.
Nomen Nescio 11:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
^^ You should acquaint yourself with the fallacy of "appeal to authority"; you are the one pushing POV by assuming that the authoritative view is the correct one (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and many other scientists would disagree). The mainstream scientific view is widely publicized. The views and credentials of the dissenters are not. Not telling both sides of the story is committing another fallacy called "special pleading". I am not explaining future reversions, since you people are clearly acting in bad faith...[AT] 19 May, 2006
[edit] Note
It may or may not be worth noting in this article that Celia Farber is the daughter of Barry Farber, talk show and, lately, infomercial host. 72.224.249.248 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes section
I'd propose removing the entire "Quotes" section. It's gotten way too long, and I think rather than chip away or quote or two it should just be removed. If a particular quote is especially relevant, it could be cited in the body of the article. MastCell 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
