Talk:General Medical Council/Archive 1

message: A clearly disgruntled anon has been inserting links to a blog that calls for the abolishment of the GMC. Clearly, there is more notable criticism that should be covered. For this article to be balanced, a recent newspaper article, hopefully also interviewing Sir Graeme Catto, could serve as a more reliable source than an angry blog. The blog can only be inserted if there is reliable proof that this is frequented by a large section on those disaffected by the GMC, e.g. it has been cited as a major influence on anti-GMC opinion in a newspaper or magazine article. Otherwise there are no grounds for its inclusion. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A further problem is a large number of edits reflecting the same POV claiming racism, making ad hominems against Graeme Catto etcetera, citing biased sources and blogs. I have outlined above how an NPOV "criticism" section should be constructed. Witchhunting is not acceptable. JFW | T@lk 11:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This mess has now received some media attention. *Waves to the readers* --Kizor 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanksyou, Kizor. I have deleted the libelous history items and protected the page. WP:POINT is serious, John Seigenthaler Sr. is still fresh in everyone's memory. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have also written to the owner of the blog in question ("abolish the GMC") that his actions have backfired. This person as a massive peeve with the GMC and is doing all sorts of interesting things, but not in any form worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that pivotal document merits its own page. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Single process: conversation - direct statement by GMC member.  (Alex, if it matters, on DNUK.) Midgley 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is a closed forum, and we risk WP:NOR unless a stable source can be found. Is there anything on the GMC website that could be used to support this? JFW | T@lk 12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: There should be a page on regulation of (medical) profession(s) or several pages.  I have not found them on a quick look.  I know WP is not a hierarchical collection but discussion of how to regulate the profession eitehr for UK doctors or others is probably not best done on the GMC page.  How does it differ in other countries, how ideally should it be, should we have an absence of regulation?  People who think they have something to contribute to that might simply start such a page. Midgley 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong page! 

message: The [Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC)]Campaign now has it's very own notable personal space on the Internationally Acclaimed SourceWatch Wiki-Disinfopedia : Please feel free to shift the ethical debate on GMC Abolition directly to that particular discussion zone - under the very watchful eyes of a Highly Qualified (and Duly Salaried) Expert Wiki Editor !
:SourceWatch is aware of this page, and I have asked them whether they should really lend their kilobytes to this, this, this and the mention of the "exceedingly bold group of Mistreated Medical Doctors". JFW | T@lk 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DNFTT. I have reported this behaviour on WP:ANI. JFW | T@lk 12:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could these be the very last words concerning General Medical Council (GMC) Abolition (on Wikipedia) . . . ??? 

message: **8Question to UKDoctor - leaving aside issues re suitable references that might be used to cite as public notability (The Sourcewatch was just a single page description linking to the 'Abolish the GMC' blog), the proposals made to split the current functions of the GMC into 2 separate bodies is worthy of some consideration (indeed I think that was the part of the suggestion from the Shipman enquiry). I have some questions about fairness of any alternative body (a panel of doctors might be accussed by patients of protecting other doctor's interests, that of lawyers might be accused by doctors of not understanding genuine medical uncertainty, representatives from PCTs may be accused by both sides of protecting their own interests rather than patients or doctors). However troubled the current system may be, no change is ever going to happen unless a better alternative has been thought through and can be put forward as an alternative. The 'Abolish the GMC' blog site offers at the bottom of the page for comments, but I am unable to post any questions as blogspot is currently only allowing postings from members of the blog group (of which I am not of course yet recognised). No email address is given, so I fail to see how one can pose queries. Any way around this ? David Ruben  Talk  01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to post a comment on the Abolish the General Medical Council (GMC) Blogsite

message: Anyone want me to semi-protect this? Guy 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The reason I had not done this myself, is because I have been too involved in this question to perform a  on this page.SoothingR 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your blog is not guaranteed if you push it to the limit 

message: *{My Signature / Wikipedia Member Name is : ExpertWitness}
 Let Debate Commence !
:Perhaps "away" would be the best course, since you've signally failed to convince anybody thus far? Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh!  Up to a point.  The membership of the Association of British Counties is unstated, there is zero coverage in any reliable sources, and we still could not get the article deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ahem: doi you mind if we don't abolish Guy just yet? Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Medical Regulation : Where do we go from here ?