Talk:David Tredinnick (politician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Mid‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Science party and Tredinnick's views.[edit]

I note that Rsloch shares my belief that the Science party is not going anywhere and its coverage is wp:undue. The section removed did have useful references and I intend to briefly rewrite, in the hope of producing a more informative article ..about Tredinnick not the Science party. Please feel free to discuss as per wp:brd. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

‎Support for complementary and alternative medicine: copy edit and make more neutral. I'm no supporter of alternative medicine, but previous version was a little uneven[edit]

Greetings Popcornduff, I note your comments on alternative medicine and the need to make it more neutral. I also note that this is Tredinnick's main 'area of expertise' in Parliament. My answer -on just this occasion is a very friendly & very polite NO!!!!
WP:FLAT applies here, i.e. we have no need to do anything other than explain what the real facts are -and make sure we use reliable sources -mine always are. We shouldn't explain his theories of why Chinese medicine or homeopathy might work as if they are mainstream science -they are not & they don't. Tredinnick was my MP and his views are well known to me -as they are to the long suffering health & science committees. There is a protocol that you check your facts before speaking in parliament -instead of which he has explained to a disbelieving audience that surgeons can't operate at the full moon. Tredinnick won't thank you for removing such obvious nonsense, he'll merely repeat the same stuff at hustings! We shouldn't edit it to make it appear more believable.

You did some useful tidying but I'd like to restore valid cited material including some comments from Professor David Colquhoun who says Chinese medicine was banned as superstitious nonsense in 1822 but reintroduced by Mao as cheap medicine for the peasants. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Before I say anything else, just in case there's any doubt: I think alternative medicine is moronic and harmful, and my edits didn't have any pro-quackery agenda behind them. Tredinnick is a dangerous idiot. I just was trying to make the article more neutral.

I'll explain why I think the previous version was a little biased. I don't think we need to say "despite continued lack of evidence of its effectiveness", for example, because that casts judgement on him. We only need to report that he supports alternative medicine, and that he has been criticised for this.

The separate Wikipedia article on alternative medicine can do the job of explaining factually that alternative medicine isn't taken seriously and that there's no evidence for it. This article shouldn't be about "debunking" Treddinick's views. That's why I don't think we need the Colquhoun comment: this article isn't the place to debunk ancient Chinese medicine.

"We shouldn't explain his theories of why Chinese medicine or homeopathy might work as if they are mainstream science -they are not & they don't."

I don't think the current article does that at all. It just reports his views, followed by a lengthy criticism section in which respected members of the scientific and medicinal community criticise them. Popcornduff (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a quick response. FWIW I feared you wanted to give equal weight to his views. I agree about the despite continued lack of .. sentence, it's poor English, I didn't add it & you were right to remove it.

Many MPs support homeopathy -I suspect more because its not worth a huge fight when dealing with someone who can't be treated -than real belief. Tredinnick may genuinely believe it is the answer to all medical problems and that he is the world authority. His statements about blood curdling under the full moon should be included -with full citation -to allow people to judge his expertise in a simple case & show how he persists with his irrational ideas despite ridicule.

Re Prof Colquhoun, perhaps TCM and complementary/alternative medicine should be in separate sections. You removed, possibly inadvertently this reference -the citation -which explained Jeremy Hunt's support for TCM, Tredinnick's possible role in promoting it & Colquhoun's views. Hunt is an opponent of the NHS -see this and I suspect welcomes Tredinnick's views.

Any thoughts? JRPG (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible I removed some citations I didn't mean to, sorry. Why don't you reinsert the quotes and citations you think are necessary, and then I'll either copy edit it again, or discuss it here? I'm probably more flexible than you think. Popcornduff (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you're feelings are about this atm. Whilst the references are relatively recent & it covers what I regard as the key points, it doesn't exactly flow, probably due to short sentences. Couple of other points which are characteristic of Tredinnick emerge from the new scientist report. He is all but unique in insisting he's right and the scientists are wrong. The only other politician I know who does that is Nigel Lawson who has a financial interest in denying climate changes and argues that no-one knows. Tredinnick caused mocking laughter at the hustings with his comments about scientists racial prejudice. Regards 22:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC) ...(post corrected & signed JRPG (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again Popcornduff. I take your point about not repeating what's already in alternate medicines etc. Re bias, if you can bear to look at the nowadays advert-infested Leicester Merc which JzG kindly supplied you will see that other people complained that he wouldn't discuss anything other than alternate-health & he wasted their time. He also doesn't know that antibiotics can't treat viruses. I'll look at it again in the morning, I won't repeat material already covered elsewhere, but I think Tredinnick would be pleased to see that the article shows he's standing up for himself. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really have to work quite hard to be descried as a lunatic y a scientist of the eminence of Lord Winston. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Tredinnick (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]