Talk:Robert S. Mendelsohn

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Can you let me know why? -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External link on critique of Mendelsohn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death Date Discrepancy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date approprite info