Talk:Helen Caldicott

message: I feel that the the "Criticisms of her work" section of this article appears to be extremely biased, however since the criticisms are unsourced I have no way to check their accuracy.  Looking through the history section of this page I find that they were added on July 19, then on July 22 a different person attempted to add an alternate POV to the criticisms, but on July 23 the origional author of the critcisms edited the alternate POV out. 
My concerns are as follows:
[QUOTE]Being a patronising public speaker. 
As a children's doctor, Caldicott has been required to simplify complex technical information. This approach may not be as effective, or even offensive, to adult audiences. [END QUOTE]
If this statement is credible it would follow that kindergarten teachers insult the children's parents by speaking to them in the same manner they speak to a six year old.  Furthermore, the majority of a pediatrician's time is spent speaking with other physicians, the medical staff, and children's parents, not children.
[QUOTE]Using fear tactics. 
Since her address to 1 million people at an anti-nuclear rally in New York in the early 1980s, Caldicott has frequently described the medical effects of radiation, cancer and other worst-case scenarios of nuclear power and weapons as an introduction or even major component of her public addresses.  [END QUOTE]
Yes, I would assume that the major component of her public addresses are about the medical effects of radiation, cancer and other worst-case scenarios of nuclear power and weapons since that is her message. 
To call this "Using fear tactics" would suggest that, for instance, to speak out against the consequences of driving while intoxicated is using "fear tactics", since the result may also be very grim.
[QUOTE] Being factually misleading. 
Caldicott has been known to overstate or misrepresent statistics by quoting them out of context, or even make outrageous claims without any basis in fact. Two notable instances are mentioned above. [END QUOTE]
For all I know, this criticism itself may be "outrageous" and "without any basis in fact" since I tried to google for information to substantiate this claim, but I didn't come up with much other than a letter to the editor of a newspaper of some years ago. Clearly this statement needs to have some evidence to back it up.
[QUOTE]Being politically naive. 
Caldicott's utopian vision of world politics verges on conspiracy theory. She has a deep mistrust of politicians on all sides. [END QUOTE]
In my opinion this "critcism" could well be used as the Wikipedia poster child of what separates POV from factual information suitable for Wikipedia.  I too have a mistrust of politicians on all sides and would like to see the world a better place.  Does that make me politically naive and a believer in conspiracy theories also?
I read the information at this site that offers suggestions for writing articles or editing them and the following quotes suggest that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards:
* Accusations - Use quotes and locate reliable sources.
* When a fact is not common knowledge or the information being related to is a subjective assessment, the information should be attributed and cited.
* Information supression - Ignoring significant sitable information in support of a minority view.
Gandydancer 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section of article on Caldicott 

message: I had hoped for a discussion on the criticism section, but there has been none.  I feel that the criticisms as written were not verifiable, thus one is unable to make an alternate POV.  So I finally deleted them. 
If someone feels they need to be put back in the article, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it first.
Thanks.
Gandydancer 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Considering Caldicott is not without controversy, this page warrants a criticism section by a knowledgeable person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonlighter (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, wikipedia tries not to create "constroversy" or "criticism" sections. It's an encyclopedia, and the good and the bad comes out in the facts, written in prose - not a "naughty" section. Timeshift (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy over some of Dr. Caldicott's statements exists. It's not wrong for Wikipedia to describe that controversy in a separate section — call it what you will. For example, in a recent debate with George Monbiot, she stated, "Up to a million people have already died from Chernobyl..." I know of no evidence to support this huge number. ChrisWinter (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy ideally needs to be integrated into the article and not all lumped into a separate section. The "up to a million" figure comes from Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Johnfos (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I prefer it be without a Criticism section rather than have a castrated one; that way the slightly aware reader is immediately tipped off to a valueless, calorie-free article rather rather than entertaining any hopes it'll be informaive at all. Caldicott has been at the center of a constellation of interconnected old-line communist front-groups since the days the Soviets (rather than George Soros) were writing the checks to fund them.--Froglich (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs criticism section  

message: H. Caldicott gave an interview for Jane Hutcheon (ABC TV).  Caldicott mentioned being invited by the editor to submit an article to NEJM. It was supposedly published the day before the Three-Mile Island accident. An author search on the NEJM site fails to list an author of her name. There is a George Caldicott, circa 1920. Can some one provide a full cite for this paper?203.213.62.224 (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The NEJM didn't publish the day before the incident at TMI. There was a publication the day after, but nothing by Caldicott was in it. Given that it's been over 35 years since then I can see how she might have been a little of with dates (although given how much of her live has been focused on this event it's a bit surprising) but I haven't been able to find any medical articles that she ever published in the NEJM. 49.180.121.226 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it's really well hidden, I can't find any medical research by Caldicott. Other than being elected as a member of the  Australian Paediatric Association in 1972 all of her publications and other mentions in literature relate to her work as an anti-nuclear activist rather than as a doctor. Of these, the closest that I've been able to find was a letter published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1979 - Uranium: health risks from a nuclear power industry, The Medical Journal of Australia (1979, 1(10):454-456). This might have been published around the time of TMI, but I haven't been able to find an electronic copy to check. It's the wrong journal and not an article, but it still might be what she was talking about.  Nuclear balance (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref for New England J. Med. 

message: This entire article either is or comes very close to being a biased "love-fest" in the respect that it seems to be written in a manner that favors her work or does not show ways in which she is in error or at least contested. 
One example of competing information and/or debate can be seen at:
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaptvhky8IQ&index=7&list=PLKfir74hxWhPsAXSrCy--ORaxxbXdWnXK 
Someone needs to post one of those Written as Biased notices, or something to that effect.
LP-mn (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly three years later, the article has gotten no better.  If the article were about a passionate advocate of nuclear energy, these same Wikipedia editors would go out of their way to paint him or her as a crackpot. Caldicott has made rabidly provocative statements over the years, well documented in audio and video recordings, yet there is no mention of them here.  Once you hear what she has said, there is no way to take her seriously. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ditto re criticisms  -AND-  needs a "Written as Biased" notice. 

message: The novel was not published when Caldicott was 12 years old. According to Wikipedia it was published in 1957.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Beach 

message: Hello - Regarding this edit, if we want to avoid expanding the External links section, how about we remove the link for the In Depth interview, and replace it with the template ((C-SPAN|Helen Caldicott}}, which points to all of Caldicott's C-SPAN appearances. If there is any concern about the quality of this link, it leads to hours and hours of video of interviews with and presentations by Caldicott, and I encourage everyone to explore it.
Any reactions to this? If no concerns, I will make that change. KConWiki (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: C-SPAN in external links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Helen Caldicott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130603161914/http://www.capecodtoday.com/news/event/2012/03/28/anti-nuclear-activist-dr-helen-caldicott to http://www.capecodtoday.com/news/event/2012/03/28/anti-nuclear-activist-dr-helen-caldicott
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Helen Caldicott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/helenswar/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705022413/http://www.fundacionideas.es/en to http://www.fundacionideas.es/en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: OK, I've been working on this article for a few days.  I've tried to get rid of some real spammy sounding stuff and am inclined to cut even more...  I did today cut this:
:Citing confidential memos, Caldicott says that the Hershey Foods Corporation was concerned about radiation levels in milk used in their products because of the proximity of Three Mile Island to its Pennsylvania factory. According to Caldicott, citing a 30 March 1979 study by the Pennsylvania State University, College of Engineering, radiation contaminants that fell on the Pennsylvania grass found their way into the milk of the local dairy cows.http://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf Nuclear Power is Not the Answer Caldicott noted this was contrary to the findings in the government official report released shortly after the Three Mile Island disaster. Caldicott disputes this report in her book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.
All things considered, is this really so important to this bio?  Any feedback appreciated.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hershey stuff... 

message: (This discussion has been relocated from Gandydancer's user talk page)
Regarding her activist activities, she does make a large number of statements claiming things which are matters of fact within science. The problem is that what she claims is often not the same as a mainstream scientist would claim on the subject. Many of her statements are not compatible with the results of scientific experiments, I recall that one of the Wikipedia principles is that undue weight should not be given to fringe views. I hold the view that if she makes a claim we should consider how it compares with other literature. The other literature being based on real experiments and being peer reviewed should be trusted more than a claim made by Helen (Her claims are not normally ever subject to peer review). So I think we should mention and discuss opposing views. I hold the view that there should be no original work on wikipedia by the editors, so we should not use our own views on subjects, instead if someone else has published a good quality review on a topic we should use it instead.
I have looked at some of what she has written and the vast majority of her statements on radioactivity can be shown within a short time to be wrong. I know that she might be a hero to many people but we should consider her work in a critical and unbiased way rather than either just repeating it or agreeing blindly with it. We can also use the standard methods of established subjects to generate content. Comparing one work with the rest of the scientific literature is a standard method in science.
I also have to ask why you think an book review by Ian Fells in Nature is not significant due to the status of Ian Fells, I have checked and Ian Fells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fells) is a Prof of Energy Conversion at a University. Also the fact that it was published in one of the best scientific journals (Nature) also does add to the weight of the review. I think currently that the article about Helen is not NPOV it is currently an article which seems to praise her too much rather than looking at her work in a neutral and unbiased manner.Cadmium (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cadmium, I agree that it appears that Caldicott does not appear to always use sound science for her claims.  The conversation with Monbiot was, IMO, a good discussion of the problem and it does help to add some criticism to the article.  If you can find similar well-sourced discussions that specifically address Caldicott I think we could include them, however to just add differing opinions would not be appropriate in her bio.  Many bios in WP include opinions that differ with scientific authority, for example the many U.S. politicians that disagree with climate change as a result of human activity which is agreed to by 97% of climate scientists, but we don't explain how and why they are wrong in their articles.  In her bio we need to explain Caldicott's opinion on nuclear energy - if a person wants an unbiased opinion on the use of nuclear energy they can go to that specific article.  But I do think that the Monbiot quotes could be improved, for example, "In a reply Caldicott claimed that tritium is particularly dangerous compared with gamma" seems an odd summary of that source, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gandydancer. I would like to discuss with you an inconsistency with in Wikipedia. If you look at Johan_Galtung and Daniele_Ganser two randomly chosen peace studies experts you will find sections on both people in which they ideas and conduct is subject to some form of discussion / criticism. I feel that if discussion of Helen's ideas and conduct on the page devoted to her is not permitted then the same standard should apply to the other two pages. I have checked and you have not edited the page about D. Ganser (at least in the last 150 edits) so it is clear that in the case of the two peace studies people vs Helen that you could never be accused of having a double standard. But I think that the issue should be considered of why on wikipedia why it is not OK to discuss Helen's views and statements while it is OK for someone to be critical of Gatung and/or Ganser. I would err on the side of allowing some discussion of Helen's ideas as long as the criticism is sourced to someone else's work or is the clear product of standard methods in science / medicine or another academic discipline.Cadmium (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I believe that criticism would improve the article since she is controversial.  On the other hand, reading the Nuclear power debate article it is clear that she would not be considered "fringe".  The articles that you point out use sources that directly address the individual and if you can find similar discussions for Caldicott that would be good.  I've looked and I haven't found anything.  BTW, the conversation is about Caldicott, not me - would you mind moving it to her page? Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the move of venue to the talk page for Helen, I think your request is perfectly reasonable. I will copy the discussion over to the talk page. I will include a comment to state that it has be relocated.Cadmium (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about what should be in the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Helen Caldicott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410172800/http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html to http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705022413/http://www.fundacionideas.es/en to http://www.fundacionideas.es/en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225319/http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=30&cat=&a=52%2F to http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=30&cat=&a=52%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123558/http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10315&browse=0 to http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10315&browse=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Helen Caldicott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019214546/http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm to http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Critical information cherry-picked and based on one journal article has again been placed in this BLP article.  This is NOT acceptable per WP policy.  Furthermore, the same would be true if information would be cherry picked from, for example another peer reviewed article such as this one from the International Studies Quarterly  The only way to use this sort of information would be to find a review of articles and present that finding.  I'm again removing this problematic information.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:BLP "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."  I will again remove this information.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I have removed the lengthy book review by Ivan Eland. It was published at the Independent Institute where "Eland is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty."  This think tank is not RS for a BLP and considering Eland's involvement in the source it is practically self-published. Gandydancer (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for the work you are doing to clean up the entry; I’ll try to keep a bette eye on changes going forward to help out. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book review removed 

message: Gandydancer has made some errors when considering the origin of some of the discussion of Helen's ideas
1. Foreman is not a medical student, he is an associate prof who works on nuclear accident science, the name of the journal did include the words "medical student" however. I would respectfully suggest you read the sources that you choose to remove before you start to blank out content.
2. Much of Helen's work is not peer reviewed and is effectively self published
3. Helen makes a thing about male reproductive organs (testies) in her comments about things like uranium and plutonium, thus when she makes a claim about that part of the body when a peer reviewed paper shows that her claim is unlikely to be true then in the interests of keeping the article NPOC it should be mentioned
4. While a bio should not be used to attack a person, it should not pander to them and accept everything they say without any form of critical thinking. I would like to ask if you would apply the same standards to Helen's bio as you would to Donald Trump. If we were to apply the standards you seem to have for Helen to Donald then we would have to remove any content from his bio which is critical of him and his time in the whitehouse.Cadmium (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have add a short commentary.  Let me know if it's OK.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a clear commentary on Halen's ideas, now I know that she has a thing about "male reproductive bits", consider
http://nuclearcrisis.org/interview/
http://www.helencaldicott.com/pdf/smh090729.pdf
https://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf
http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v26n1p31.htm
Consider her own words
“In the ’70s I stopped uranium mining in Australia by telling union members about the effects of radiation on their testicles. Now in Australia things are grim. The temperature rose to 42 degrees this year, causing fires and dust storms. The country is surrounded by earthquake zones and has 85 million tons of uranium tailings.”
Now if the effects on these bits are a key plank in her argument and can be shown to be a bad argument the it should be pointed out.
For arguments sake if Donald Trump was to claim to be the most educated president of the USA ever and to have a PhD from the "Las Vegas University" (For arguments sake it does not exist), to have been the first person to market the lightbulb in the USA (Thomas Edison did that) and to have invented a water based economic computer. Then I argue that the bio on him should discuss the claim to have a PhD from a university which does not exist, discuss his claim to have brought the lightbulb to market and also point out the water based computer was invented at the LSE by Bill Phillips in the 1950s.
Helen keeps on making ad hominem attacks on people, she never seems to answer the questions of her critics and she has made a large number of statements which can be shown to be false. I strongly think you should restore the discussion of her work by experts and academics to the page.
Please do answer this simple "Yes/No" question, did you read the references which you removed from the page before you removed them or not ?
Cadmium (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I read the ref that I offered.  I'm not sure that it is RS but it seemed fair to me and I note that the reviewer is a respected person with a great deal of knowledge in the field.  Which other refs are you talking about?  Gandydancer (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: This one:    Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV