Talk:Robert S. Mendelsohn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Midgley deletion attempt

Dr Mendelsohn was the leading anti-vaccine medical man of the last century. This page was nominated for deletion [1] by Midgley. He has nominated Beddow Bayly and Viera Scheibner for deletion using "meger." They are the other two main anti-vaccine people. Midgley is an allopath aka as a "vaccinator" for over a century of smallpox vaccination. I now expect a deletion effort by "merger." john 09:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

hyer hyear! I have to agree as there is way too much attempted censorship in the name of wiki standards - applied selectively so much it is not funny, by those that tend to appear like trolls rather than editors. Do some work to the article sure, but the guy existed, and had significant effect, quack or not; and cannot be deleted without the appearance of censorship. Was he the "leading man"? A citation for such claim would be in order perhaps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.194.225 (talk • contribs).

[edit] External link on critique of Mendelsohn

I have to agree with Levine on this one. WP:EL #2 notes that an external link should be verifiable with reliable research. This particular piece from quackwatch is pretty much an attack article as well. Need to find something else. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

QuackWatch is a reliable reference. All over Wikipedia I see Quackwatch references. Your arguement is poor. 63.17.56.54 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling an argument poor is not a good argument. Please tell us why you feel it is a reliable link and not an attack site. (Because it is all over Wikipedia, doesn't make it reliable... it makes it spam. Those links should mostly likely be removed as well.) Levine2112 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, am not saying the site is not reliable, some of the articles certainly are well referenced and verifiable with reliable sources. I am saying that particular paper is not appropriate due to WP:EL #2 -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arguement is poor. 63.17.56.54 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you let me know why? -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on Levine's intrepretation of WP:RS (ie/ lets call it the "Kauffman defense" or one that keep dubious "reviews" in as legit critism), the QW link is very, very valid. However using the intrepretation of WP:EL, the other links fail as well. As they do per WP:RS. As such it is odd that one link which is critical (per se) is deleted. I suggest that all links are reviewed with both RS and EL in mind. Shot info 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Those links also fail WP:EL. These type links need to be cleaned up. I deleted them as well. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Shot Info's proposal as well. Thanks for executing it Dematt. Nice work, both of you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)