Talk:James Heilman/Archive 1

Just saying
Noting the gratuitous tagging of "connected contributor", since James Heilman has not edited this article; the article was created by and to this point, has only been edited by him/her. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does Dr. Heilman's general notability arise from his work as a emergency room doctor, from his controversial additions to a single Wikipedia article, from his "improvement of Wikipedia's health-related content" in general, or from the combination of all three? Does he dress, as pictured, for only one of these important roles ? I think we should be told. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification
This edit did not verify the claim. The part gained recognition also failed verification. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added "gained recognition" in this edit, which was to fix an obvious error. But in hindsight I can see that wasn't the best solution.  Ocaasi beat me to fixing it . Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2009, he was involved in a "controversy"[not in citation given]? The source does not say that. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think you are mistaking Verifiability with requiring an exact semantic match.  I don't mean to sound pedantic here, but I'm just going to cite you the definition of controversy: "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated."  If you examine the sources, CBC and NY Times specifically, you'll see that this series of events involved extensive debate, anger, disagreement, and public discussion.  The very fact that the media covered the debate indicates its controversial nature, but especially in combination with the focus in the sources on anger and disagreement.  So what the sources describe is by definition, a controversy.  We need the text to be backed up by a reliable source, but as writers we sometimes substitute words which summarize what the sources are saying.  In this case, the word controversy, as defined, is consistent with the sources, and thus passes verification.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the sources do not verify the claim. This did not rise to the level of a controversy. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading the sources, basically. Why don't we let some others chime in.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have not provided verification but you have removed the tag. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimediafoundation.org website is also not a reliable source
The are multiple problems with this article. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the Wikimedia Foundation website is not a reliable source. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are not reliable
See this diff. Having to use unreliable sources throughout the article shows the subject is not notable. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm sorry you disagree, but I can't really have a discussion with you if you don't respond to the points I made in each edit summary along with the sources and changes.  You'll have to get some others to weigh in at this point.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not removed the unreliable sources such the Wikimediafoundation.org and translatorswithoutborders.org sources and there is still text in this article that fails verification.
 * Both sources are unreliable. The tags were removed but the sources were kept. There is no reason to keep unreliable sources in a BLP. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Something published by the University of British Columbia is in fact reliable, and I've seen lots of other reliable sources in the article like New York Times, National Post, CBC or The Guardian. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both sources are unreliable. The tags were removed but the sources were kept. There is no reason to keep unreliable sources in a BLP. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Something published by the University of British Columbia is in fact reliable, and I've seen lots of other reliable sources in the article like New York Times, National Post, CBC or The Guardian. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY
The notion that the New York Times is somehow a primary source is risible. I've taken the tags off of those citations until a credible argument is made for their inclusion. Roccodrift (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY: : Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
 * See WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
 * The article along with the other articles were close to the event. Please find secondary sources.
 * QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, no. Ordinary journalistic work in the form of a journalist interviewing people, attending events they report from etc. is not primary sources. This is not what is meant by "close to an event" as long as the journalist is independent of the people he interviews etc. Iselilja (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roccodrift and Iselilja. The New York Times articles are clearly secondary sources.  They draw from primary sources, including quotations from involved parties, but that does not make them primary sources.  An account written by Heilman of his experiences would be a primary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Unless they have a clear consensus, I'd like to call for a moratorium on cleanup templates on this article. I applaud QuackGuru's diligence in seeking to make sure that the sources pass muster, but I think he needs to relax a bit and reread the associated policies and guidelines before applying more cleanup templates. I find his use of cleanup templates to be perplexing and contrary to policy. For example, he called a New York Times article a primary source, has argued that a small paragraph with multiple citations is undue coverage, and has now tagged another New York Times citation as having failed verification when it says almost exactly what we're reporting in the article. Enough cleanup templates for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

'United States District Court of California'
The name of the court used in the text is inexact, since there is more than one district in California. The court which did the dismissing was the United States District Court for the Central District of California (not to be confused with the other federal court in California, which is the Northern District). So I suggest that we replace the name of the court in the text with 'a federal court in California', which could if necessary be wikilinked to the full name of the Central District court. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which source says "The suit was dismissed...? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a primary court document here, which was only cited in User:Zad68's draft of this article. I'm hoping that there are other sources to justify the 'dismissed' conclusion. There is a confusing mixture of state and federal venues. I don't have knowledge of what happened to the suit but I'm arguing that we shouldn't attribute whatever action was taken to a nonexistent federal court. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I replaced the text with "In February 2013 the parties settled their litigation.[17]" QuackGuru ( talk ) 07:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that solves the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping Ed. To be clear, in coming up with that version you linked to, I only copyedited what was there and I didn't add any sources.  I don't know how that primary source court document got in there. But looks better now.    13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The translatorswithoutborders.org website is not a reliable source and the additional sources did not verify the claim
The new source did not verify the claim and the addition of another source did not verify the claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source. What is it doing in this article?
 * This ref does not verify the claim at all. The ref does not even mention Heilman. So why was it added to this article?

The NY York Times ref does not verify the claim but the tag was removed without fixing the probems. The who source says "As mentioned, we are working on a collaborative effort with Translators Without Borders to translate 80 priority English-language articles into as many other languages as possible." This does not verify the entire sentence. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the article that does not mention James Heilman at all. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This source does not verify the claim in the article.

This recently added source failed verification. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The current text: "Heilman is part of an initiative through Wiki Project Med Foundation with Translators Without Borders, working to improve and translate the top importance English Wikipedia medical articles into minority languages."

From the source: "The articles are being prepared so they can be translated — with the help of Translators Without Borders — into as many languages as possible, particularly in the developing world."

The current text in the article is not fully supported by the secondary source and there remains a primary source. The word "English" may or may not be true. I was unable to verify that word. Translators Without Borders may be translating articles from other languages other than English. The current text could be wrong when the source does not make this clear. We don't need a primary source. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Trim down of Rorschach thing
Looks like this article will stay. I had trimmed down the Rorschach thing to use summaries instead of big quotes, see the version here. It might be useful, feel free. 03:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A summary is much better than the current version. Thanks for the link to the summarised version. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization that it is undue coverage; the number of citations in that paragraph clearly indicates that he achieved substantial notability from this event. Nonetheless, I have summarized the key points and reduced the word count.  I did not remove the template, as I figure there should be more discussion on the matter before it is removed.  Currently, there are four sentences in that section, and I think that's quite reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zad about the quotes and thanks Ninja for the more summary encyclopedic style. I've removed the tag as the sources indeed cover this incident and Heilman's role in it extensively compared to other subjects.  It's not a WEIGHT violation when the sources cover it more too. Ocaasit &#124; c 13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The part "involved in a controversy" and "extensive debate" is repetitive. I think the section requires further cleanup. That text must also be balanced. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation overkill
[8][9][10][11][12] This is too many sources at the end of one sentence. See WP:OVERCITE. Let's keep the top three sources. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Two Canadian psychologists
"In August 2009, two Canadian psychologists filed complaints about Heilman to his local doctors' organization; Heilman called the complaints "intimidation tactics."[14] "

The frivolous complaint does not belong in an encyclopedia. Adding images to Wikipedia is not relevant to his profession of being a doctor. I don't understand what is the point to including this text. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Saskatchewan is the body that allows him to work in the real-world. The fact that an editorial decision on Wikipedia resulted in a real-world complaint to his professional body creates a chilling effect on anybody else who contributes.  As a professional who enjoys participating on Wikipedia this fact is anything but frivolous. Ian Furst (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As an editor who edits Wikipedia how is this complaint relevant to his job. Editing Wikipedia is not related to being a doctor. So it was indeed a frivolous complaint. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heilman is notable for being a doctor who edits Wikipedia's medical content. It couldn't be more related that he was targeted at his job as a doctor for something he did while editing Wikipedia. Ocaasit &#124; c 20:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The New York Times wrote an article about the event. A brief summary of the article is proper. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue here is if the complaint had any merit or is it related to his job. No evidence has been given that the complaint had any merit. A frivolous complaint is not encyclopedic for an encyclopedia, especially for a BLP page. His job and editing Wikipedia are two separate things. RS does not guarantee it is important to include in an encyclopedia. Editing Wikipedia has no direct relation to his workplace. For a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, if we cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The complaint or incident is really not applicable to his job. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I read it, the article is not about his role as an ER physician, but about a physician that is trying to bring reliable medical knowledge to people who would normally not have access to it. The information channel just happens to be Wikipedia. The issues are; a) was an incident related to the topic of the BLP (yes, imo) and b) was it reported in a reliable source (yes, imo). Also, any complaint to a professional regulatory body is relevant to your job (and no matter how minor or frivolous is nerve-racking). James' ambition appears to be to bring medical knowledge to the marginalized (among others). That's what I read in the article. The fact that health professionals tried to stop it, in any manner, relates directly to that role and therefore the article. Ian Furst (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse this view. As far as I can tell, it's neither undue nor a BLP violation.  If the article slanted coverage of the event, then it might be a BLP violation, but it's all rather neutral.  Consensus here seems to be that this be included.  If you still disagree, QuackGuru, WP:BLPN or an RfC would probably be the next step. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Format of publications
Shouldn't the titles of his publications be in quotes and the names of the journals be in italics? Any objection to converting the articles to the cite journal template? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As you see fit. I'd probably just convert it to use citation templates, personally, but I know some people dislike using them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean to do, convert to the citation template "cite journal" (being a big fan of citation templates, I think they could lead to advanced meta data analysis, increased uniformity and completeness of refs, etc.). Anyone object? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The word Other is vague and possibly original research


The source says" Some psychologists, however, say the test has already lost its popularity and usefulness." This edit was not an improvement. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So you're suggesting that "other" is somehow less vague than "some"? and/or that "other" suggests original research to show that the two groups of psychologists may, in some way, overlap? Surely "some psychologists said the test had previously lost its popularity and usefulness" is too close to the cited source and so ought to be put in quotation marks or re-written to avoid "close paraphrasing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does say "some". We should not replace sourced text with vague text. That is all I am saying. The editor who changed the wording has noted my comment. But I would like an explanation for the change. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * um, so we shouldn't paraphrase, we should copy (as in copyvio)? What did the editor who made the change think he was doing? Shouldn't we ask him? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Opps sorry did not see this tlak before I reverted then fix the copy vio.. All ok with the new wording? -- Moxy (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ...well that's certainly a re-write. I think you've totally changed the meaning! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pls take shoot at it. -- Moxy (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * .. will await a reply here from QG first, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did try to ask him but he reverted my comment from his talk page. Now Moxy restored word "other" which is not found in the source was restored. I would like a quote from the source to verify the word "other". The text has been changed and the whole sentence lost its meanings. The previous version was close paraphrasing and accurate. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted above did not see this talk before editing a clear copy vio. As for meaning the words are just synonyms dont think to much has changed. That said perhaps best we just quote the thing. The New York times reported "quoted statement".-- Moxy (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quotes are usually unencyclopedic in a BLP. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quotes might be the easiest way to resolve this. But that CBC source has no author. Still not sure I fully understand the strong objection to the word "other". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather leave the wording as it is rather than put quotes in a BLP. User:Moxy did say the words are just synonyms. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "lost its popularity and usefulness" means exactly the same as "is no longer relevant or practical", especially when the subject described is a projective psychological test. But I really don't see it's a big issue either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is fine with me if you want to tweak the text. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "In August 2009, two Canadian psychologists filed complaints about Heilman to his local doctors' organization; Heilman called the complaints "intimidation tactics".[12]"
 * I am surprised this is in the article. Only "two Canadian psychologists" is irrelevant and a minority view. What should be done about this? <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, perhaps you could just try and explain to me again why the word "Other" is "vague" and/or WP:OR? As for the complaints by the token two, yes Heilman's reaction does sound totally over-the-top, doesn't it. But if you really want sound-bites, why not go for "teach them routinely in every Psychology 110 class, which probably tens of thousands of people take every year" or "'I think they feel insecure about their profession" - both statements equally adrift from reality, I would suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the word other was vague and some was very specific but it is not a big deal. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Some versus Other
I have moved on from discussing it with Martinevans123, however, I would like to know what others think of "Some" versus "Other". Here is what the source says. See diff for my proposal. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint for editing Wikipedia
Not sure about the "two Canadian" - it may be a minority view but the point is that they filed the complaints. The complaints is what is relevant to the statement even  if a minority view .....it took place and was reported on. -- Moxy (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. I see it's now also been removed over at Rorschach test. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it is a minority view the whole sentence should be deleted from here too. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal. I made this change but reverted for discussion first. Thoughts. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The first change made no grammatical sense. But I was waiting for your fuller explanation about the dreadful "other" word. And I don't accept that because only two Canadian psychologists made that local complaint, it was therefore a "minority view". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A frivolous complaint is irrelevant to a BLP. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it was "frivolous"? Mr Heilman didn't seem to see it as such. I don't think he's objected to its inclusion here. But we seem to be drifting away from where this all started. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Two psychologists filing a complaint to his local doctors' organization for editing Wikipedia is frivolous. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the content of the 2009 archive at Rorschach test? The issue wasn't "for editing Wikipedia" it was the widespread and irreversible release of psychological test materials, and explanations of their interpretation, into the public domain. Your description of that one part of that whole drama as "frivolous" is wholly misleading. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The complaint was frivolous because it had nothing to do with being a doctor. The complaint was made because two people did not agree with Wikipedia policy. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we can agree there that it had nothing whatever to do with him being doctor. But we still have this article here, after the recent RfD. About your objection to the use of the word "other", that started this thread, however.... ? I'm really not sure that I understand what you meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved on from "other" versus "some".
 * When it had nothing to do with him being a doctor and then two people file a complaint to his local doctors' organization for editing Wikipedia it is indeed frivolous. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling us you've "moved on". Did you want to re-title this discussion thread or split for the new topic of discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a subsection. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree over deletion. These weren't just "people", they were professional psychologists. The issue was not just "editing Wikipedia", it was about potentially spoiling psychological test material. Furthermore, and more relevant here, the exchange, and it's reporting in national media, is one of the few things that makes Mr Heilman generally notable and thus deserving of a Wikipedia article. If we keep "chipping away", because individual items seem to be "frivolous" I'm afraid we might have nothing left. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue was for his edits to Wikipedia. What your really saying is that you have no argument for including a frivolous complaint in a WP:BLP. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the complaint was not frivolous. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

But the New York Times didn't think it was frivolous to report on it. I think the complaint was dumb and ill conceived, but the RS we use should decide if it was frivolous, and the merit of the complaint is not why it's worth reporting. We're not giving merit to the complaint by covering it here. Instead, we are demonstrating that Heilman's actions were part of a controversy that contributes to his notability. The complaint is also quite interesting because it attacked a Wikipedia editor for the sharing of information; that attempt at censor-censure describes a noteworthy development in being a part of this project. We take risks. NY Times found that risk interesting, as do I. That the complaint was frivolous has little to do with it. Ocaasit &#124; c 02:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been following this page from afar. There is  | this potential COI too.  I'm seeing a lot of minimizing the controversies surrounding Heilman by QuackGuru and it seems that it's a continual pattern.  Even though he is an WP ambassador, his BLP musn't fall into half truth that is minimizing the controversies themselves.  I agree with Martine, Ocaasi and Moxy on this one. Neuraxis (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am just going to throw this out there without advocating it until I see what other folks think. How about a topic ban for QuackGuru on the James Heilman page? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was absolutely puzzled as to why Guy Macon would propose this as there has not been a big disruption here..yes some reverts but no real edit wars. However after looking at QuackGuru history I can see why some have reservations about him in general. I dont know QuackGuru so will let others talk about this... but think if hes talking and not editwaring all should be fine. -- Moxy (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not propose it. I brought it up for discussion. I may very well oppose the idea; I am on the fence. The issue -- if there is one -- is one of COI editing. WP:EXTERNALREL says


 * "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest. A judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined by her secondary role as the defendant's wife. A journalist's primary role as a disinterested investigator would be undermined by his secondary role as business partner of the subject of his investigation... Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense."


 * James Heilman is User:Jmh649, otherwise known as "Doc James". Jmh649 defends User:QuackGuru (See User talk:QuackGuru and Requests for comment/QuackGuru2). QuackGuru edits the James Heilman page and talk page. in ways that put James Heilman in a good light. Jmh649 gives QuackGuru a barnstar.


 * I am not accusing anyone of misbehaving, but I am questioning whether QuackGuru can be impartial and maintain a neutral point of view while editing the James Heilman page. Note the word "questioning". It was chosen deliberately and is not synonymous with "saying" or claiming". I am raising a question. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt anyone here has an actual conflict of interest, and I'd suggest that insinuations of such take place in the appropriate venue. If there's a problem with a specific edit, this would be place to challenge it. For what it's worth, I think this article is perfectly fine, and I don't like the efforts to chip away at it. If people want to delete masses of unsourced original research, try Babylon 5 influences or Incest in popular culture, both of which need a determined editor to come in and clean up. This article is well-sourced, conforms to all policies and guidelines, and frankly does not need a tl;dr debate on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Post-nominals?
What is with the post nominals? WP:CREDENTIAL seems pretty clear. Shouldn't the degrees and professional designations be discussed in the article and omitted from the lead? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and so have removed them. Everymorning   talk  00:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since they have been removed shouldn't the text reflect them now? Does earned his medical degree adequately state Doctor of Medicine? Shouldn't graduated from U Sas in anatomy specify the degree earned? Shouldn't certification in emergency medicine by the CFPC be mentioned? - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The specific degrees earned should definitely be listed. However, the source used to support the statement about his degrees doesn't list the actual degree received. Although I've looked for sources that have more detail, I haven't found them. Ca2james (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference for his sanitation engagement?
I added something about James' engagement with sanitation. I was told to find a source. Would it be suitable to refer to this forum discussion thread where he has posted a few times and has been engaging with sanitation experts on the topic of Wikipedia: http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/166-definitions-wikis-wikipedia-glossaries-dictionaries-mapping-tools/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others ? Also here: http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/166-definitions-wikis-wikipedia-glossaries-dictionaries-mapping-tools/12204-when-is-susana-going-to-move-to-open-access-for-its-publications and here: http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/166-definitions-wikis-wikipedia-glossaries-dictionaries-mapping-tools/11301-the-difference-between-open-access-and-free-access-explained-open-access-policies-cc-by-licence. Also one could see on the WikiProject Sanitation page (history) how much he has done there. Would that suffice? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like, if James really wrote the stuff in that forum, that it would meet WP:BLPSPS, so it seems reliable. Everymorning   talk  00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will add that in now. And yes, he really did write this stuff. :-) EvM-Susana (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted back again, because BLPSPS doesn't indicate that any independent, secondary source considered this activity about Sanitation to be noteworthy. I'm as much a fan of James as anyone, but this article needs to stick to high-level sourcing all the more so because he's such a great Wikipedian.  Best, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the discrepancy here. This section WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below).". So as he has written on that forum/blog himself it counts as a source, doens't it? In the same vein how do you justify/prove that the first part of this sentence (from the lead) is correct: "He is an active contributor to WikiProject Medicine, was the president of Wikimedia Canada between 2010 and 2013, and has been the president of Wiki Project Med Foundation since 2012.[4][5][6][7]" Note that reference number 4 is the linked-in page of James. So if on his linked-in page he mentioned his involvement with the WikiProject Sanitation would that be an OK source to cite for the statement that "James is involved with the WikiProject Sanitation"? I am just trying to understand. This particular article is not getting so many views yet, so it's probably not worth spending too much time arguing backwards and forwards if it's worth mentioning that he's interested in sanitation topics on Wikipedia or not. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * EvM-Susana, thanks for your engagement here and curiosity. The lead of an article doesn't always have references because it summarizes the body of the text that does.  I don't think there is anything in the lead not cited by an independent reliable source in the body.  BLPSPS is appropriate for claims the subject makes about themself, for example their religious identification.  We shouldn't use it however to describe the scope of interests/activities/accomplishments of the subject.  If those are noteworthy, then we should rely on a secondary source to have written about them.  If that were the case, we could then link to forum posts as support illustration of the secondary source (per WP:BLPPRIMARY).  Forums in particular, however, are especially suspect because there is little to no way to actually determine who wrote them.  That is different than a verified twitter account or an established blog with a clear link to identity.  Finally, forums are almost always considered a very low quality source because of there extremely fleeting and unmoderated nature.  We want more substantive mentions from secondary sources with only BLPSPS to 'illustrate' them, if at all.  Does that help?  Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 23:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, much appreciated (I am still quite new here). Just one last thing, like I asked above: So if on his linked-in page he mentioned his involvement with the WikiProject Sanitation would that be an OK source to cite for the statement that "James is involved with the WikiProject Sanitation"? I am just asking because his Linked-in page is given as citation number 4- EvM-Susana (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the LinkedIn citation is borderline. I have more trust that this is actually James Heilman's profile than a random forum post.  Importantly, I suspect this citation is only being used to reference the "President of Wiki Project Medicine since 2012" fact.  All of the other facts in that statement can be sourced elsewhere.  In this case, I'd let it stand as is because it's a fairly one-dimensional 'date of service'.  It's not ideal, but it's less of a problem than a more extensive description of involvement.  Still, if we could find a secondary source talking about the time in that position, it would be better.  Ocaasit &#124; c 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

New profile of the Dr.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/wikipedia-s-medical-errors-and-one-doctor-s-fight-to-correct-them-1.2990097?cmp=rss

Anything to incorporate?

Ocaasit &#124; c 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks very similar to the story they ran about Heilman last August.  Everymorning   talk  14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at biographies of living persons noticeboard
BLPN discussion is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject medicine
The phrase " is an active contributor to WikiProject Medicine," is not sourced and is, frankly, original research and subjective. Besides, WikiProject Medicine is an internal link so claiming a user is active will need some standard metric. The other problem is Wiki Project Med Foundation is not an external link and doesn't have its own article on wikipedia. It's also a wiki so wouldn't be a WP:reliable source.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The first statement was already sourced in the article. The second statement is also sourced.  There is no original research at all in this article.  The links out of mainspace are courtesy links and are not being used to source any of the statements. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, you've sourced it. I am going to cite WP:EL: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article".  Seeing as Wiki Project Med Foundation is not notable yet for its own article, I disagree that it should still be linked, even for courtesy.96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSTYLE:
 * Balance

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints;


 * (own emphasis). How is including Wikipedia and Wikimedia internal projects (WikiProject Medicine and Wiki Project Med Foundation respectively) in line with WP:BLP?  Note none of the citations for either project discusses James Heilman's involvement as their main topic.96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An uncontroversial wikilink is not a BLP violation, and they do not serve to disproportionally promote anything. They are courtesy links, and the sources clearly discuss Heilman's involvement with them.  The style question of whether they should be included in the body of the article or in a section dedicated to external links is valid.  If these were external websites unassociated with Wikipedia, I'd say they should be moved to an external links section.  Because they are Wikipedia/Wikimedia-associated projects, it seems legit to keep them linked in the body. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A ref here http://www.dailytownsman.com/breaking_news/283351351.html?mobile=true says "He was a founding member of Wikimedia Canada (an NGO that promotes Wikipedia in Canada) and is an active contributor to WikiProject Medicine, which works to broaden the scope and improve the quality of medical articles on Wikipedia."
 * This one says "James Heilman is one of the primary editors of Wikipedia’s health and medical content, who – like all the online encyclopedia’s collaborators – contributes on a voluntary basis." http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/1/13-030113.pdf
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a protocol on "courtesy links". Both these links fail WP:EL, as I quote again the definition of an external link: "... links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links)".96.52.0.249 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look at James Heilman's positions and found that the third party post about James being elected to the Board of Trustees can be vetted due to the fact that it was published by an agent of Wikimedia Foundation. But the following citations about the med foundation have problems:
 * 5 journalist/reporter simply introduces James as a president; news articles are inadequate and unreliable when it comes to official positions of an organization
 * 6 journalist/reporter simply introduces James as a president; news articles are inadequate and unreliable when it comes to official positions of an organization
 * 7 this one doesn't even mention that he is the president of anything
 * 8 journalist/reporter simply introduces James as a president; news articles are inadequate and unreliable when it comes to official positions of an organization
 * This one about wikiproject medicine is problematic because leading a project is not the same as being an active contributor.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting incredibly tedious. Stop blanking the article, or I'll request page protection.  This is well-sourced, and your complaints are baseless.  "News articles are inadequate"?  No.  Read WP:RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@96.52.0.249: Would you declare why you are so interested in hacking bits out of this article? The issue is absurd and attempts to involve WP:EL + WP:BLP + kitchen sink will achieve nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Long read from the Atlantic on Heilman's anti-COI work
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/

Ocaasit &#124; c 13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine
Is it appropriate to link "WikiProject Medicine" to WikiProject Medicine, which is a project page, and not a Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , "WikiProject Medicine" is neither a project page nor a Wikipedia article. How do you intend to link them? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he means the way it's linked now in the lead like this: WikiProject Medicine. Everymorning (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant, yes. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Dude Is Not Noteworthy Enough to Have a Wiki Article
Article nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.100.220 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015‎
 * If you want to nominate this for deletion you should place the AFD template on the article. Everymorning (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal from WMF board
I realize that we probably need to tread carefully around Wikipedia drama, and perhaps potential legal issues for the WMF, but why was he removed from the WMF board? The article says he was removed once, and then again, that it "generated controversy". Why was he dismissed and how did it create controversy? I'm strictly approaching this as a reader. Let's not be weaselly here. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This question is still causing drama at Jimbo's talk page. Once the drama dies down, perhaps we'll be able to answer it better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * NRP is right in that there is little to say here because little has been reported in reliable sources, but I recently added stuff about this subject using an article in the Register as a source, for what that's worth. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hinted or something else
The source says the subject "hinted" that his push for Knowledge Engine transparency was a factor in his dismissal. QuackGuru changed the word as it had been put into this Blp to "suggested" and wishes to push that particular word. There does not appear to be a synonym for "hinted" so I think "hinted" should be kept. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Nocturnalnow, the wording "hinted" is too close to the source. I think "suggested" or "indicated" is better. They are synoyms. Do you prefer "suggested" or "indicated"? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "indicated" is good, thanks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still prefer "suggested". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still prefer "mused"...that is actually the perfect word..."speculated" would also be good. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of the words are inaccurate. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When you think about it, anything said within the concept of "hinting" probably does not even belong in an encyclopedia; I mean, think about it, QuackGuru, is an encyclopedia the place for curating and reporting what someone, anyone, is hinting? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard with the title "Maybe the Heilman info should be in his BLP?" It is because of you it is in here. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Maybe that was a mistake by me. What I'm trying to say is that "hinted at" info maybe is not good enough to be anywhere in an encyclopedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He did not hint at. He asserted it. Other sources make much stronger claims. The word "asserted" can work too. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not notable, that's for sure. This subject's life has a lot more important stuff to it than to include some vague reference to a "factor" in why he was removed from a volunteer position. Its only insiders who think that is important. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence because after our discussion, I am sure it is not notable enough to be in his Blp. If you are sure it belongs, you may put it back and I will not revert. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Text that is not notable would be to say the Board tried to replace Heilman with Geshuri. What is your argument that it is not notable that Heilman was forced off the Board because he pushed for transparency when at the same time Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikov pushed to keep the KE project a secret. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, what is your argument that this insider stuff is notable? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been repeated in multiple sources, including other languages. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So your opinion is repetition =s notability? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, when sources continue to repeat it. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest we leave it out until other editors provide a consensus for including it. You and I can agree to disagree. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't going to comment, but... I don't see a problem with including it.  For one thing, notability does not apply to article content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ok, I see what you mean; I did not know that. So, go ahead QuackGuru if you wish. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

For discussion: Include Wales response?
Should Jimbo's response, cited by motherboard in the same article, to this subject's "indication", be included for NPOV purposes? I have no opinion, maybe because I embrace free speech so much that the language does not bother me at all, but what do others think? And would it be too abrasive toward the subject? And if we decide not to use it, then for NPOV purposes, perhaps we should also exclude James's "hint"/indication? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not an official response from the WMF. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not get your point. James's "hint" is directed towards the other trustees. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no official response from the WMF's Board of Trustees. Other sources indicate it was a factor in his dismissal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Update
Article says "Heilman is a clinical instructor at the department of emergency medicine at the University of British Columbia"

Ref now says "Clinical Assistant Professor"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect content
See this diff. Then see Featured article candidates/Dengue fever/archive1. The page view stats are up. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Heilman. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=1618&start=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006143925/http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564 to http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Error in the press
User:Everymorning I am not sure were they got this idea from:

"Heilman first discovered Wikipedia during the three years (2000-2003) that he was a medical school student at the University of Saskatchewan. "

This is a mistake in the Vancouver Sun. I cam across Wikipedia in 2007. I had stated that WP did not exist when I was in medical school. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed it. Thanks for alerting me to this. Everymorning (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you any non-WP-related publications to your name? If so, why aren't these here as well? &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  12:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. My academic area of interest is Wikipedia. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Like history, jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, canon law, and vestibular disorders? Coursework, degrees, credentials programs, or academic journals?  (Or is this just navel-gazing...?)  KDS4444 (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh look, a paid editor poking Doc James. What a surprise. Please use another website for that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Misdirect grumble
I assumed erroneously that I could "Search Wikipedia" for WikiProject Med and find the WikiProject for Medicine. Alas, fallacious thinking on my part. I did a similar search for WikiProject Plants (as I know that that is a well established WikiProject) and the extent of my fuzzy thinking became -- well, even more confused -- as that search comes up blank. When it comes to WikiProjects, you can't get there from here.

Simply stated, this redirect is disingenuous and crazy-making. Doc James has done lots of good stuff for WP, don't get me wrong. But I was not trying to break the fourth wall of Wikipedia by this search, would have much preferred to not be distracted by this WP version of a puff piece. A search for a WikiProject is absurdly complicated -- searching WikiProject Med Foundation offers up this unexpected redirect to James Heilman, while a WP search for Wiki Project Med Foundation comes up with the message "There is a page named "Wiki Project Med Foundation" on Wikipedia" -- and there is not, only a redirect to Wikipedia/WikiProject Medicine. (Don't ask how embarrassingly long it took to figure out that internal link). Anyway, after a ludicrous meander away from my target search, I'm adding a message at the top of the good doctor's page to inform other wanderers of options beyond the doc's toothy grin.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree User:GeeBee60. I do not think Wiki Project Med should redirect here nor should WikiProject Med Foundation. The first should go to WP:MED the second should go to meta IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Doc James for your comment and User:QuackGuru for making the redirect changes. GeeBee60 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh now everything makes sense
This article was very informative and helped me to understand better. It all makes perfect sense now! Thank you Urstadt (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Health and Appearance of Michael Jackson
Doc James, can you join us please? I think there's a missunderstanding and I that kind of discussion does not help. Quaffel (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * this is the talk page for discussing Wikipedia's article about James Heilman. You're looking for Doc's personal talk page, at User talk:Doc James. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to user page?
Re: this diff. Do we really link to user pages within Wikipedia articles? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no policy because there are few cases. To not link seems rather coy. Jimmy Wales has a link, albeit to the wrong user page (it is a blocked impersonator). Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I only read this after changing it. Seems an external link for me; it is outside the article space. Encycloon (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Request
It has come to my attention that this person does not meet notability criteria for people. I request that this page be immediately deleted. Psychiatrist MD2020 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've already removed the tag you added. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not add the tag again. The community has already had 3 deletion discussions, with votes to keep the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , There is no limit to deletion discussions or voting. I will continually add the tag as I see fit. Psychiatrist MD2020 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suggest not adding back the deletion template. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See "Ebola (Ebola virus disease)". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 3, 2018. This and other sources do not mention Heilman. If the tag remains on the article for over week it would be deleted. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with the problem on the site
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ilnitsky_Evgeny_Yurievich Hello. I apologize if I interfered. I do not know where to write, no one answers on the discussion page, I decided here. I created a profile, it has authoritative links, I want you to direct the page to the main space. I hope you will respond 2A02:2698:22:55B7:B563:F3E9:56BD:6BD3 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)