Talk:Joan Shenton
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joan Shenton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience . The final decision was as follows:
|
![]() | The WP:COIRESPONSE .
|
Requests for editing help
While I have made a couple of edits to give context, this article in it's present state violates policy by presenting a complimentary rather than NPOV version of this woman's furtherance of AIDS denial. As editors, it's not our job to pretend as if absurd views and people forwarding absurd views are somehow plausible, especially when referencing medical content, and especially when RSs are firmly one sided in opposition. I have plenty of specific suggestions for edits here, but I will wait until some more experienced editors show up as my level of experience editing is limited. cheers Supaflyrobby (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think with the new context it's not violently NNPOV as readers are alerted to the frigeiness of the denialism. That said, the article is a mess - it could realy do with a big prune. As the article only gets 4 views/day, it is however not high on my worry list.talk) 20:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)]
This is not neutral:
"For their part, the medical and scientific community robustly defend the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, citing conclusive scientific evidence."
This is not a neutral statement, this is biased nonsense. The HIV/AIDS link is a scientific theory backed by massive amounts of scientific research. To discount and downplay it as a "hypothesis" is biased and ridiculous. MageCrafted (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You are right; good catch! I have attempted to neutralise. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)