Vernon Coleman was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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 sourcedmust 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.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Items up to and including Dr Bullock's Annals were copied and pasted from a previous wikipeda page that was deleted against community standards of transparency and factual accurancy. If any individual book titles are in dispute as to have been written by author Vernon Coleman, they must be highlighted individually not delete the whole section. That is valndalism and against Wikipedia's core values. Vernon is clearly an author, to not have a section on books he has written clouds Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy and Truth when ommission of very obvious facts constitutes lies. I have added 4 titles and their validation URLs to prove he did in fact write these so following Wikipedia's strict protocol of adherance to truth there is no justification for not including them on the grounds that they are not sourced. URLs to Amazon can be removed once the page is restored. I recommend editors to read these last 4 books for accuracy. There are a lot more juicy facts that could enrich the readership of this page as a whole.Dorothea99 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a strict protocol of adherance to truth, it has a strict protocol of adherance to verifiability. See WP:V. One reason for that is that there are different opinions on what constitutes truth. For example, reliable sources may think something is completely bonkers, and eccentric people like Coleman think it is "truth".
Also, according to Wikipedia rules, it is important to restrict articles to the relevant stuff. So this guy writes a lot of crap, and we do not need to list every single turd. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think Wikipedia should only list things you particularly like? Is that healthy and balanced? that's a shed load of personal bias and judgemental opinion you dumped there Hob. "the relevant stuff" you write meaning things you personally agree with and by implication the "irrelevant stuff" being things you don't like or have not researched enough or even read? How many of Vernon's books have you actually read? I guess if you were a WP editor you'd have all the tracks by singers you don't like deleted and just list the songs you like or even delete the artists you don't like from the internet or remove anyone who is eccentric. Define eccentric. List the bonkers VC has written and we'll see how much research you can back it up with. Please stick to empirical data. abusive opinions and trolling don't cut it in 2023. In case you didn't know, Vernon Coleman has sold millions of books Worldwide over half a century. Respectfully Doro. Dorothea99 (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read beyond the first sentence because that one is already dishonest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will have no difficulty in supplying reliable sources, such as reviews in academic journals or major newspapers, for the books. The bonkers Coleman has written has already been described, with reliable sources, in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
today's nut is tomorrow's oak who stood it's ground. Dorothea99 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a variantion of the Galileo gambit. It is not valid reasoning. Most of today's nuts are tomorrow's nuts too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for inclusion in "Anti-vaccination and conspiracy theories" section[edit]
Include Vernon claimed that face masks are ineffective: * source A) Studies on the effectiveness of face masks
So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
Reading through these sources makes it clear that the attached comments are clearly being taken out of context. A number of the studies find the obvious: nonpharmaceutical cloth (homemade) masks are not as effective as medical / (surgical) masks. They don't suggest that 'masks don't work'. Similarly, a number of the studies state that small sample groups resulted in inconclusive results due to missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests with little to no blinding, making the data unreliable, meaning a solid conclusion could not be drawn upon - counter to the comments made above. It's also hardly surprising that many studies suggested the general public struggled with mask fitting, giving millions couldn't even figure out how to wear them over their noses and instead used said masks as a chin warmer, and that repeated use of a single use item wasn't conducive to protection. The studies above make it clear - masks are like condoms - you shouldn't reuse them, and even if used properly there's still a chance of catching or producing something you weren't hoping for. MrEarlGray (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the aids denialism bit because you cannot give a date or year that Vernon Coleman wrote the article in the sun claiming aids is a hoax 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:ED9C:255F:EF3E:1188 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
