Talk:William Job Collins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Job_Collins for result of discussion of afd in April 2006. Decision was Keep - nomination withdrawn due to research demonstrating notability and rapid improvement. Midgley 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Biased editing by CDN99

William Job Collins, M.S. Lond. 1885, B.S. (Honours) 1881, Certif. Pub. Health (Gold Medallist) 1887, B.Sc. (2nd in Honours in Physiol.) 1880, M.D. 1883, M.B. (Univ. Schol. and Gold Medallist in Obst. Med., 1st Class Honours in For. Med.) 1881 ; F.R.C.S. Eng. (exam.) 1884, M. 1880; (St Bart.) CDN99 Bit of a shock to find he was so well qualified? john 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No article on a person has every single achievement and title listed beside his/her name. I couldn't care less how "qualified" he was. --CDN99 11:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You wouldn't being a vaccinator pushing your POV, but others would. john 22:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

When, precisely, was this man BORN? Michael Ralston 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rather than keeping score ... for/against ...what?

What was his particular view on vaccination? Midgley 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I told you he was notable, medical men who become anti-vaccine activists are, as going against the herd takes courage and intelligence. john 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so the particular point he presented was exactly the same as everyone else against, and who you have told us about? And this made him notable... I tend to think that most people come to the correct conclusion when they consider the data, but there is always someone who gets it wrong, or who considers different data and decides that those lea to a different conclusion. But if you disagree that he had any separate salnt from anyone else ... Midgley 17:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] links, as usual

You are being WP:POV. john 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm being WP:RS. Midgley 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No you are pushing your POV using WP:RS. john 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources for a POV, then presenting that POV (in addition to others) is not NPOV, it is POV. Wikipedia does not view crankery as equal to accepted science. Michael Ralston 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Crankery WP:NPA john 06:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That was not a personal attack. If your POV has reliable sources, my comment does not apply to you. If your POV does not have reliable sources, then it is crankery - but it is the POV that is crankery, not you. Per WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.". Michael Ralston 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends how you define a minority, and it is easy for medical editors to do the defining to suit themselves. And that is a self fulfilling prophesy--you don't allow the minority view to speak (eg on Wiki) so it will always remain a minority for that reason alone. See how it works? Trying to delete one of the main anti-vaccine medical men, Collins, is a case in point, along with all the others, like Robert Mendelsohn, Viera Scheibner etc. "The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong."----George Bernard Shaw. john 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Does it? If we are going to swap quotes, I'm going to have to look up who said "Your logic is far in advance of our Earth logic". I'd be obliged, in order to avoid spraining my brain, if I could be provided with the definition of minority which means that an extremely small or vastly limited one of it is not negligible for encyclopaedic purposes. Again, if the policy doesn't suit you, it is like all of WP, available for you to edit. Please edit the policy until it is correct. Midgley 17:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And the criterion that WP uses for "minority" is "Reliable sources". Can you provide reliable sources? If not, your POV is crankery. If so, your POV is not crankery. This is a very simple distinction. Furthermore, perhaps you should read WP:NOR. Michael Ralston 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus the article was proposed for deletion because it wasn't up to scratch as a biography. Notice how rapidly these supposedly biased editors accepted keeping it once I'd expanded it? That's all it takes. There's nothing stopping John doing the same. Tearlach 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite. Another thing John might note is that if his POV can only survive if supported by encyclopedias, it's doomed to the dustbin of history no matter what. If he wants to advocate his POV, the way to do that would be to try to get things published in reputable journals, not to edit Wikipedia. Michael Ralston 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to get psychological, cold John cope with success? If his POV in any of the Whale contents was accepted and became the mainstream orthodoxy, would he not be impelled to post polemics on the necessity of vaccination to protect children, circulate the secret protocols of the smart young zionists and call for Cetaceans to be used for animal testing and minds to be constrained from ... whatever. Failure as a defence mechanism. Midgley 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Midgley had to play the game once you proved he was notable. I knew he was notable but I don't have the time or interest to do full biogs, writing isn't my skill for one thing. My thing is the truth Midgley, which is very simple unless you have had a medical education (especially an interest in vaccines), or a University education. They say intelligent people are the easiest to hypnotise. I'll compile a page to your comments, as they seem beyond my psychology knowledge so far, but it will come. I have to laugh at the paucity of Edzard Ernst, a complete non-entity but a pharma man, but if I was playing your game I'd be hitting it with deletions, numerous tags etc, as you do to all my pages. john 10:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

On the latter topic, feel free, actually, if you think an article about a person is misplaced because he is not notable please call an afd on it. I suspect you have other reasons for not doing so. As to university, you have praised the learning of various university-educated doctors in several of your hagiographies. You can of course have it both ways, but an alternative is to attemt to demonstrate consistency and a rational argument. I take it Whale's staff and management is innocent of any such higher education?
On the former, one hypothesis for having many articles listed for review is that there is a conspiracy against you. Another is that the articles are not very good. In my opinion the article when I listed it for review was bad, and gave no indication of notability. I retain the view that the proper place for such single items on even notable people is as items in a list of people who are noted to espouse the particular view, which is actually useful to a researcher following the author. Individuals may then spin off as biographies when a researcher with a wider range of interests and knowledge-resources digs out actual biographical notes. User:Tearlach has demonstrated he is very good at this - I think it is part of his occupation.
Back to the latter, and consistency. We are presented with a series of almost lone individual doctors who are lauded for stepping out of line on a medical opinion. (I suspect that the situation is far less crisp than that, and that discussion of the risk/benefit ratio of new and existing treatments is not an invention of the last three generations of doctors any more than sex was discovered in 1960, and that mostly what is recorded by the mainstream is the conclusion, not the argument, but that is a digression). How odd is it that a complementary (I mean {insert name here} - trained practitioner who steps out of that line, and becomes (correct me if there is another) the only university professor of complementary {blah} medicine {healthcare etc} is said to be not notable? Midgley 10:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to put him up for deletion, for one thing I want to avoid playing your game. You are stuck in the mindset that smallpox vaccine was effective, like the rest of the editors here, eg Tearlach I suspect. The reason for that is the fact these medical doctors views have been kept from the public and medical doctors, so Tearlach and co have never even read one of the 30 books that I have on my site. When I came along to rectify that I came across your antics (and other medical editors) of deleting or attempting to delete their pages, and consequently their books and documents. Ernst isn't even worth thinking about as far as I am concerned. john 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
An apposite quote (or is it a cliche?) then is "put up or shut up". If you are here to write an encyclopaedia, and you beleive it will be improved by removing, or as tends to happen, forcing attention and rapid improvement upon, an article, then do it. If you don't list articles that you declare to fall short of notability (IE should not even be started) then don't expect to be taken seriously when you criticise them, and don't expect to be taken seriously when you criticise other future articles either. It would be hard actually not to have noticed the standard for notability - there is a comparison to the average college professor, and I think US college professors are more in line with our lecturers or senior lecturers. Can anyone really suggest that the first CAM Prof is not notable? Use the time more profitably. Midgley 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the time or interest to do full biogs, writing isn't my skill for one thing
What about using the time you waste on compiling lists of perceived slights against you? This stuff is easy to find. There's Google; and any decent-sized public library usually offers home access to newspaper databases like the Times. Writing isn't a problem; no-one objects to sketchy material - a stub article - as long as it asserts notability. I can't speak for others, but I've told you before - articles won't attract negative attention if you try to include biographical material that is not fixated on the single issue of vaccination. Tearlach 19:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense, all anti-vaccine people attract negative attention here from the allopath editors (who have even banned being called that directly), most have been put up for deletion for that reason, and your comment about whale being "anti-vaccination porn" doesn't exactly give me much confidence in your impartiality. The only reason they are more notable IMO is due to their courage in going against their profession and following the truth regarding vaccination, so their anti-vaccine documents and stance are the only thing noteworthy. Wiki is meant to be a collaboration effort so someone else can do the other bits, like yourself. I just get hammered for copyvio every time I take something off google, so it isn't that easy. john 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That was a pungent phrase, but crystalised meaning beautifully. Did the meme just bounce, or has the meaning been absorbed? Going back to Quackwatch, the reason it is not taken as being "a retired doctor's blog" no matter how many times someone repeats that, is that around 50 people who the world regards as reputable have put their names to being a Board of Advisers, and kept them there. Could Whale find advisers to make a board? Midgley 13:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you too grand to sign your name Midgley? I was asking Tearlach not you, and I find the word "porn" an interesting one to use, to have a charge on the name suggests unresolved issues around sexuality. "Porn" is used to extract money from people who are sexually unsatisfied, and/or have become addicted to lust probably due porn advertising which you can see on display in all newsagents, one even on the bottom shelf, not forgetting the suppression on sexual knowledge. That could be used to describe allopathy, which, 98% of, is used to extract money from the taxpayer using fraud [1]. As to quackwatch, it is still a pharma/allopath shill, one that has been well set up, hence the "board of advisors", so the likes of you can say what you have just said. It promotes Allopathy 100% and slags off non-Allopathic medicine, and any criticism of Allopathy. I am not interested in going through hoops for you. Signed john 11:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a private forum, everything we write is for anyone to read, and should really relate to this article - the proper place for discussing Whale.to is the RFC on Whale.to and its talk page, which I urge John/Whale to revisit for that and other purposes. Tearlach's pungent phrase crystalised meaning beautifully, and in fact has that meaning excellently explained as John/Whale has had the opportunity to see and below which he has responded after a fashion. And the meaning given in the paragraph avbove, by John/Whale is emphatically _not_ the meaning presented. The persisting insults to doctors are presumably not going to change, having been running since 1997 at least, but are not acceptable as part of WP discussions. I note that the reason why Whale.to would gain credibility by having a board appears to hav been absorbed, and that this is not something its owner wishes to do. I see no reason why anyone should accept that WP should hold links to a disreputable ([[WP:RS) source whose sole controller wants to keep it that way. Midgley 13:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Whaleto and links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto

[edit] Graduating as MD

Nowadays you don't, and I suspect that the degree he was admitted to on graduating was MBBS. His MD would be something different. Midgley 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/Talk%7EWilliam_Job_Collins_7431.html"