Talk:Richmal Oates-Whitehead

Fraudster?
Hi, the article has been categorised under the category of "Fraudsters." Since a fraudster is someone who cheats for financial and material gain and since Oates-Whitehead's history does not suggest such instances, I was wondering if there may be a more appropriate category than Fraudsters? Gurubrahma 10:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite right, so I removed her from the category. While she may have been somewhat untruthful and perhaps deluded she never defrauded anyone. Lisiate 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there any factual citated sources for her lying about her medical qualifications, was epileptic, stalked an Auckland medical professional, posted a fake report about the miscarriage of twins, lied about having a boyfriend .. etc ...

`Dr Richmal Oates-Whitehead, Epidemiologist / Guideline methodoligist, RCPCH'

http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/doc.aspx?id_Resource=1480

http://www.londonspecialisedcommissioning.nhs.uk/files/documents/41_report%20final.pdf

Viralmeme (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK blurb

 * ...that Richmal Oates-Whitehead who supposedly tended to the victims of London blasts as a doctor was actually an editor? ---Gurubrahma 13:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC) added here at 13:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC) by Gurubrahma

Controlled explosion angle
I've removed the section about her hearing a controlled explosion, as I can't find anything indicating that this is why she came to the media's attention, as the section said; on the contrary, it seems she came to people's attention after e-mailing a newspaper about her experiences. If any knows of a reliable source regarding the controlled explosion aspect, by all means put it back. SlimVirgin 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting
I'm thinking of blanking this article and redirecting the title to the 7/7 article. I recently edited it to try to improve it, but in fact I think it probably should never have been created. She wasn't a major player of any kind, and it seems to serve only to blacken her name and that of her family. Yet it's impossible to write it in a way that is not highly negative.

I know there is a conspiracy theory angle to her initial story, but I haven't seen a reliable source expand on that. That apart, there seems to be no notable issue. Would there be any objections to redirecting it? SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll redirect it for now. If there are objections, it can always be undone. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The inherent problem with conspiracy theories is that they are rarely discussed in circles that would count as reliable sources. Amongst them, Oates-Whitehead is certainly popular, since she said the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists want to hear, and then died in (to them) "suspiscious circumstances." The fact that there is solid evidence that she was a fantasist and/or mentally unstable is seen as nothing more than a retrospective "smear". Despite the fact that The Guardian et al are solid sources, there's always going to be the issue with a page like this of conspiracy theorists elevating its importance, while more sceptical voices seek to put it in its proper context, so it's probably better off not existing as a potential battleground in the first place. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this article merits a Wikipedia entry. It should be simple enough to provide citations as to her lack of medical qualifications and mental state prior to her death. As to her name being blackened, it's a little late for that.

Viralmeme (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Personality disorder
I have deleted that entire section since it cites no sources. It is verging on libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.102.30 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This section cites no sources. Why has it been restored? Either provide valid sources for this 'information' or leave it deleted. I am deleting it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.53.145 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a character-assassination agenda here. Newspapers and other internet links are NOT reliable sources of information unless they too cite sources. The Daily Mail recently claimed that fruit juice causes cancer. Is this now fact? Learn the difference between conjecture and accepted fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.56.5 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)