Talk:Robert S. Mendelsohn

Midgley deletion attempt

Dr Mendelsohn was the leading anti-vaccine medical man of the last century. This page was nominated for deletion [1] by Midgley. He has nominated Beddow Bayly and Viera Scheibner for deletion using "meger." They are the other two main anti-vaccine people. Midgley is an allopath aka as a "vaccinator" for over a century of smallpox vaccination. I now expect a deletion effort by "merger." john 09:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

hyer hyear! I have to agree as there is way too much attempted censorship in the name of wiki standards - applied selectively so much it is not funny, by those that tend to appear like trolls rather than editors. Do some work to the article sure, but the guy existed, and had significant effect, quack or not; and cannot be deleted without the appearance of censorship. Was he the "leading man"? A citation for such claim would be in order perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.194.225 (talk • contribs)

Seconded. Why would someone want to merge or delete this guy? This guy enjoyed national fame for 30 years. He's known much more generally outside of the anti-vaccine movement. He was America's patron saint of medical heresy. On the other hand, I have seen countless vanity pages on Wiki for absolute unknowns. Zelchenko (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External link on critique of Mendelsohn

I have to agree with Levine on this one. WP:EL #2 notes that an external link should be verifiable with reliable research. This particular piece from quackwatch is pretty much an attack article as well. Need to find something else. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

QuackWatch is a reliable reference. All over Wikipedia I see Quackwatch references. Your arguement is poor. 63.17.56.54 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling an argument poor is not a good argument. Please tell us why you feel it is a reliable link and not an attack site. (Because it is all over Wikipedia, doesn't make it reliable... it makes it spam. Those links should mostly likely be removed as well.) Levine2112 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, am not saying the site is not reliable, some of the articles certainly are well referenced and verifiable with reliable sources. I am saying that particular paper is not appropriate due to WP:EL #2 -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arguement is poor. 63.17.56.54 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you let me know why? -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on Levine's intrepretation of WP:RS (ie/ lets call it the "Kauffman defense" or one that keep dubious "reviews" in as legit critism), the QW link is very, very valid. However using the intrepretation of WP:EL, the other links fail as well. As they do per WP:RS. As such it is odd that one link which is critical (per se) is deleted. I suggest that all links are reviewed with both RS and EL in mind. Shot info 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Those links also fail WP:EL. These type links need to be cleaned up. I deleted them as well. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Shot Info's proposal as well. Thanks for executing it Dematt. Nice work, both of you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Death Date Discrepancy

Under "Death," the article states that He died "April 5, 2011." However, his dates are given as -1988, and the link to his obituary or death notice gives his death date as 1988 too. The 2011 death date seems inaccurate, but I don't want to change it since I have no personal knowledge, just noted the discrepancy. Someone should change it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.137.192 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

- I did change it myself, after looking it up on the NY Times website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.137.192 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Date approprite info

The article reads as if this physician said these things NOW i.e. 2012, when he said them in the 1970s. So it fails to take into account the stte of medical health at tht time. For example it says he opposes "Routine X-rays" - when the truth is he opposed what at that time was considered routine, but now adays would be considered over exposure to a radiation source. In fact this over exposure has been well documented and caused new guidelines for health practitioners in the uk and usa - the countries his research was based upon. This selective article fails to put him in his historical context properly, and so gives a misleading impression that he opposed all x-rays etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.64.52 (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For example this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15671393 supports very much what mendelsohn actually said, and it was published after his death!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.64.52 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Violates NPOV

I'm not comfortable enough with Wikipedia to edit this myself, but I can tell a bad article when I see one. Saying things like "he denounced radical and unnecessary procedures" are subjective and violates NPOV. Saying that his "mild-mannered manner appealed to the public, while his message infuriated his medical colleagues" is an assertion and uses somewhat charged language, framing Mendelsohn as a crusader and anti-establishment character. There are myriad assertions throughout, like calling mastectomies "radical". It also frames his antivax views as just an opinion widely rejected by the medical community, which downplays the science against it, especially contrasted to the detail given of his other views.

Also, there's no mention of his antivax views in the header, which is easily what he's most known for. Woozybydefault (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means that the article fairly represents the reliable sources. If the sources say, for example, that he denounced radical and unnecessary procedures (um, shouldn't everyone be denouncing unnecessary surgical procedures?), then the the article should say that, too.

Radical mastectomy is a term of the art; it is not any sort of inflammatory language. They are also not done very much any more, because they were unnecessarily destructive and extremely disabling. If Mendelsohn denounced those, then every surgeon in the present century agrees with him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)