Talk:Helen Caldicott

1913:

answers, and kept quoting from a Readers' Digest article, whilst she claimed his daughter (whom Caldicott described as "highly intelligent" - presumably because she agreed with Caldicott) kept telling Reagan he was "wrong" and that his own reports were telling him what Caldicott was claiming. Amazing that a daughter of the President (unnamed) had apparently read top secret DOD reports about an issue which Caldicott never mentioned! But hey, that's OK for her to say all this about a then sitting President on a television broadcast, but it's not OK to have a section to mention criticisms of HER! In the same program she went barking on about how diseases like AIDS "come and go" (really?) whilst "radiation" is "forever" and "the children" oh the children... Caldicott herself is not a scientist. She's a pediatrician. She clearly knows very little about physics if what she says in interviews really represent her state of knowledge. She got on the anti-nuclear bandwagon because she read Neville Shute's novel "On the Beach" and watched the original film version. In actual fact, the novel doesn't accurately describe the aftermath of a nuclear war at all. But she's still plugging it. Dr Caldicott is NOT a research scientist, but a political campaigner. Essentially a non-elected politician (she's been a member of political parties, founded political groupings, and even run in elections - don't pretend she isn't a politician of a sort), and her campaigns are promoted through highly emotional rhetoric and hysteria. The above mentioned website may not be "proof" that she "lies" but IS a source of the criticisms that are made of her. If anyone quoted physics papers to refute specific claims she's made in interviews or in her books, it would be dismissed as "original research". For the article to be NPOV it should surely make a reasonable mention of the fact that she has her critics, and not be some hagiography mentioning how prominent she is in the anti-nuclear movement, which used to be highly aligned with the peace movement (hence Linus Pauling's support for her). I am not talking about personal attacks, but criticisms of her political position and claims.

2614:

curiosity, does she use precisely the same words and inflection when using that diagram at other lectures? Can you link to videos of those other lectures? It is not clear in the one lecture video produced so far that she is using the chart for anything other than graphic illustration. I'm also unpersuaded that her "came to pass" reference is about anything other than the fact that fallout occurred. In fact, she seems to contradict the statistical aspects of the chart (the 40K number; noting that the easterly winds were for only 2 days, etc.) It is for these very reasons that Knowledge policy directs us to rely on third-party reliable sources to put information from these primary sources (videos) into context. Seeing how she uses the chart in other lectures would be interesting to me, even though it wouldn't help bring your proposed additions into

3571:

does not matter if a person is poorly known if they say that 2 + 2 = 4. It is still true. It states in the following policy that a peer reviewed source is considered to be better than a self published item from a person. Helen's public statements about herself and her books are not peer reviewed (they are examples of self publication or publication by a publishing house which will publish without peer review) while all the articles I cite in which people discuss her work are peer reviewed. Thus the peer reviewed matter should be considered to be more trustworthy. Also keep in mind that no libel is being added to the article, as the statements are true. To be libel a statement must be untrue, in almost all parts of the world the absolute defense against a libel action is to show that the statement which the person objects to is true.

4011:

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.

3185:

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.

2580:

information to BLPs isn't simply a matter of whether something is "factual", it is also governed by the significance and prevalence of that information in reliable sources. Pointing to a video clip from one source which doesn't have the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (neither Mays or the Thorium sources do) as proof she has used that chart, then pointing to another source (Snopes) as proof that ARS denies originating that chart, then synthesizing those together to state "that Caldicott asserts the diagram was an accurate prediction by ARS" when neither of the separate sources convey that, is inappropriate. And if no reliable source produced to date conveys this matter as being of significance, then it isn't proper content for a Knowledge BLP either.

2334:

snippets have Caldicott sourcing the diagram to ARS on March 11, 2011 and also March 2000 (perhaps she misspoke?), and she describes it as "the potential fallout" and notes fallout eventually had come to pass, which doesn't seem controversial — and is a little different than "stated that the events predicted in the 2011 diagram 'had came to pass'". She then goes on to declare that ambient radiation in Seattle went up 40,000 times above normal (something apparently not indicated at all by the chart). Do I understand it is your intent to convey to readers that Caldicott is attributing a diagram to ARS while knowing they deny producing it? Do you have a reliable source that makes that assertion, or are you

3158:

results of scientific experiments, I recall that one of the Knowledge 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.

3212:

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.

645: 624: 2536:

understand how that fact can be made available to Knowledge. Because no single "reliable" source is going to show her presenting that diagram. Reliable sources would not allow anyone to broadcast that diagram as being a confirmed prediction of 2011 events. However, taken together, multiple video accounts of Caldicott presenting that diagram must constitute a reliable record of the contents of her presentation on Fukushima. Non-narrative video accounts... captures of her lectures. I'd have thought a single lecture capture would suffice. Is there a reasonable number of non-narrative captures which can constitute reliability?

519: 2372:"This was released by the Australian Radiation Service on March the 11th in March 2000 and this was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass. So here is Japan and here are you. And this is the airborne radiation. And for the first 2 days the wind was blowing from the west towards the east towards you, and the ambient radiation in Seattle went up 40,000 times above normal. Did you know that? And if you didn't know it why didn't you know it? And if you weren't told by the government why not because you elect the government to represent you, and not the corporations. Huh?" 1401:"The Better Business Bureau recently recommended that the Nuclear Energy Institute pull its advertising that claims atomic reactors are clean and nonpolluting. The NEI is an industry front group. The BBB says that reactors cause thermal pollution in their outtake pipes and cooling towers, and also create substantial amounts of greenhouse gases in uranium production. In short, the Better Business Bureau has punctured the industry's claim the Vermont Yankee and other reactors are any kind of solution for climate chaos. The idea that VY is a "green" facility is utter nonsense." 479: 312: 1354:

science and/or are not factual from the point of view of a physicist. Again, I am not the writer of the criticism, but Helen is known in the industry as being very good at appealing to emotion rather than logic. People are emotional when they hear the word "radiation" or "nuclear" but it is unfair to label an entire industry as "liars" when it is unprovable. I think the writer of the criticism was pointing out references to people who have examined Helen's arguments, point by point, and shown how they are flawed when examined against science.

1412:"The ensuing days were filled with tension, the possibility of an explosion from a hydrogen bubble growing inside the reactor, the visit of President Jimmy Carter and the governor to the plant, the planning for a massive evacuation of the residents of the area in case things got worse, continuing releases of inert radioactive gases from the stack, the hoard of press from all over the world, and finally, the subsequent relaxation of the recommendation for evacuation based upon the knowledge that there was no potential for an explosion. 227: 73: 3853:"This article profiles two important leaders of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in the United States during the early 1980s. Helen Caldicott and Randall Forsberg were visionary, transformational leaders who crossed a variety of boundaries for the common good, and as such are prime exemplars of integrative leadership in action. Caldicott was a charismatic figure who used her status as physician and mother to rally a worldwide movement opposed to the ongoing proliferation of nuclear weapons and talk of “winnable” nuclear war." 1904:), but anti-authoritarian and individualist left wing organizations and individual efforts are kept out of Knowledge as "insignificant", or have small, token entries if any. We are told that one side must accept the "Warts and All" treatment, but not the other. This is not surprising in a country such as the United States - in which opinions are manipulated by those in power through the media and on the Internet through spin or omission, rather than outright force, but I do not believe it was what Knowledge was intended for. 3875:

keep in mind that the abstract is a summary of a paper which is often the authors thoughts on what is in the paper and why people should read it. I also find it shocking that you dismiss academics who have a far greater impact intellectually than Helen. She has a pathetic h index when compared with the academics who have commented on her. Maybe you should go and read what these academics have written about Helen before you pass judgement on them. Some of what they have written is free to the public to read.

2347:

most controversial assertions (40K times normal levels?) don't appear to refer to the chart at all. The diagram you describe as "debunked" (actually, Snopes only says that ARS says the information released under their logo is "information has not originated from ARS") is apparently still being used by a notable lecturer, so one would expect there would be reliable sources which explain why, right? Those are the secondary sources we need here to construct encyclopedic content regarding this matter. Regards,

409: 203: 1539:

I am saying is that if you are going to state in Caldicott's Wiki article that she is incorrect, you have to be able to back up your statement with a source that meets Wiki's standards. I have already asked Starkrm to use quotes, for instance "Stewart Peterson, a data analyst and blogger at the pro-nuclear site NEI...". Of course the problem is obvious since there are an equal number of bloggers at the anti sites that will dispute everything that Peterson has to say.

1780:

focuses on nuclear and sequestration technologies (Vattenfall AB, 2006). The Report relies on Vattenfall's claim that its nuclear plants emit "less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms" including solar, wind and biomass (Sevior et al, 2006c). The website does not reference any other study and thus raises many questions about the authority of such information, particularly given the commercial interests from the company promoting such data.

433: 828: 326: 281: 141: 106: 336: 3883:

topic important. Equally if B is a poorly known but a better advised, smarter person with a better knowledge of the topic then B is still a more trustworthy person. The Late Jade Goody is a household name in the UK, but her thoughts on UK geography are not more valid just because people have heard of her. I say poorly known geography expert who knows that Cambridge is north of London and Aberdeen is in Scotland is more right than Jade.

457: 1195:

Helen directly and factually state the criticisms against her argument. Mention should be made that Helen appeals to emotion and not to science in her criticism about the industry. I shouldn't need to remind you that wikipedia has a written policy of "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." STOP REVERTING IT, improve it.

305: 64: 1896:) on persons or broad labels and subjects are whitewashed, paint a POV that is considerably revisionist (leaving out facts, events, names and pictures of individuals which might paint a critical or even negative yet still factual picture), and support the power structure (the state, those in power, those with a lot of money), while critics of the status quo, and their ideas, contain large "criticism" sections (see 247: 1381:

science, it stands up to scientific peer review, proper scientific method, and experimental test, or it does not. It's straightforward to work out what the truth is, on questions of science, and very hard to get away with saying, oh, but they're a biased such-and-such group, if they've done the science properly, and published the details of their work so they can be subjected to various degrees of peer review.

734: 713: 127: 550: 744: 498: 4202:

article in the same magazine. Foreman is a university academic who has done research on nuclear accidents and has written review articles on nuclear accidents. He concentrates on the chemistry but has considered the reasoning of other people working in the field. The rather long text of the review is free to read as it is open access and has been published in a peer reviewed journal.

1622:"The factual and scientific integrity of Dr. Caldicott's claims and books on nuclear issues are repeatedly challenged, and in some cases, have been demonstrated to be scientifically flawed." The references here are examples of the clear demonstration (whatever other motives the websites quoted may have is irrelevant to this particular case) that the science Helen uses is flawed 4213:

So when dealing with her intellectual output on nuclear matters the secondary sources of Eland and Foreman are important. The one by Foreman was peer reviewed which adds to its weight. I am not sure about the review process for Eland's book review. What do you think of the two sources that I discuss, please have a read of the parts of the Foreman review and then get back to me.

1474:

them back. Re the SR-90, please point me to a credible source since when I deleted the word "wrongly" the only thing I could find after a lengthy search was a letter to the editor from some years ago, and I can't even find that anymore. Your addition for Pauling needs to go also, but I will wait a few days to see if the person I tried to contact for help shows up.

151: 3169:) 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. 1595:

to be hurtful to me. I tried to rewrite the criticism section to remove blanket statements. As far as Gandydancer being asked to rewrite the criticism, it was first suggested by them "I will attempt to write a criticism in hopes it will satisfy all but it will take me a few days." I simply suggested leaving it as it was until those few days were up.

1146:

pro-nuclear is not the point. It does not matter. They logically bring up a basis to dispute what Helen has to say. Helen is decidedly anti-nuclear. It is a part of her biography. To disallow a reference from a well documented web site because of it's pro or anti nuclear advocacy is to be overtly POV. The criticism is valid and should remain.

996:

better than ours, designed and deployed this system. Obviously they didn't think it would destroy their command and control systems or kill off large portions of their population. And just for the record: we didn't have 60 warheads aimed at Moscow. We had 400 because we deemed that the required number to overwhelm their defense capability.

3088:, College of Engineering, radiation contaminants that fell on the Pennsylvania grass found their way into the milk of the local dairy cows. 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, 1603:"As a vocal opponent of the nuclear industry in all its forms, with an uncompromising style, Caldicott has faced a degree of criticism." This is an absolutely true statement and does not contain one shred of negativity about Helen. She is an uncompromising vocal opponent of the nuclear industry and has faced criticism. 1004:

Chernobyl did was incredibly stupid. Made all the worse by the reactor's lack of a containment structure. We in the West have learned this lesson - don't build a Soviet era design reactor and don't build a reactor without containment. To suggest this accident could happen in the West is fear mongering at its worst.

4187:

of the work. Helen is reported as reasoning that the purpose of missile defense is to enable US military's interventions against countries which have weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them with long ranged missiles. It is stated in Ivan's review that Helen expresses the view that right-wing

1416:

the accident in our minds. The reactor has now been mothballed with considerable radioactive material still inside. It will stay that way until it’s sister reactor, Three Mile Island I, is shut down. They will be decommissioned together, when the next generation also will learn what happened on March 28, 1979."

3879:

lobby group (people who are in leadership positions). I have to ask the question of "does it matter which peer reviewed journal it was published in ?". If I was to publish in a peer reviewed journal in maths a statement that "2+2=4", does it make it any less true if we are discussing the counting of bees ?

3882:

Also does it matter how well known an author is as a "household name", if A makes a statement which is backed up with sources and gets into a peer reviewed journal it is a more important thing for Knowledge than a well known but deeply deluded / ignorant or stupid person does it make A's opinion on a

2655:

of their old website), although the wording of their disclaimer is a little wishy-washy. No source is automatically deemed reliable 100% of the time by Knowledge. If you wish to get input on whether a particular source is deemed reliable in a particular situation and for particular content, you would

2490:

You didn't declare Snopes reliable or unreliable. I've contacted ARS for clarification on this matter. If they email me back and don't issue a public statement via URL then I don't see how it will help on this matter. So it would help to know if there's a Knowledge-wide consensus on using Snopes as a

2311:

I think you probably understand what I'm trying to accomplish here, and I'd appreciate any guidance. Dr. Caldicott used a diagram in 2014 that had been debunked in 2011... I've shot footage of her using it in 2012, so this is probably part of her typical presentations on Fukushima. It is an important

2059:

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

1849:

I am going to reverse the recent change in the article. To make the blanket statement that Caldicott answers criticism by saying that her critics are all liars is not supported by her statement on one radio show. As a matter of fact, Caldicott supports her opinion with facts and figures, which are,

1422:

Since I have not heard from the "helper" and it has been a week I have requested another helper to look at the article. Since Starkrm has been unwilling to rewrite the criticism section using quotes, I am going to delete it again. I will attempt to write a criticism in hopes it will satisfy all but

1353:

I think input from someone who knows her would be valuable. (Please sign your comments.) It is very difficult to make an article like this non-POV. I think that there is a need for a criticism, not to make it "balanced" or "fair" but simply to point out that some of her points are not supported by

1159:

First, regarding Linus Pauling. A look at the Wiki article on Pauling clearly shows that to introduce him as " unorthodox Nobel Laureate and alternative medicine advocate" is to completely ignore his numerous scientific accomplishments and concentrate only on his work with ascorbic acid. Incidently,

912:

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

4191:

acting on the behalf of corporations control the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and other major international organizations (pp. 25–26). Ivan states at times in the book Helen has bordered on the absurd attempting to consider the psychology of nuclear bomb

4186:

point of view. Ivan states that she has made a series of compelling arguments against the nuclear weapon policies of both the Bush administration and other prior administrations. However he argues that her arguments are undermined by far fetched alarmist arguments, poor research and poor referencing

4077:

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

3874:

It is interesting that the text that you cited from the paper was from the abstract where the author is putting their opinion, the quote / paraphrase from the body of the text is from sources (people) who have had dealings with Helen directly. If you want to use the paper further then feel free, but

3570:

I would like you to read the following wikipedia policy, to make your life a little more easy I am providing a copy below, it seems that you have a perferance for sources which fit your point of view. It does not matter how notable a person is in the general public's mind if they state something. It

3211:

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

2521:

Dr. Helen Caldicott continually delivers "controversial assertions". I am attempting to clarify one "controversial assertion" on Knowledge (that the diagram was an accurate prediction by ARS) not because it is more-or-less controversial than any other of the many she's made... I am updating her page

2346:

requirements for use in a BLP. (2) The Snopes source, which says ARS denies originating the information, never says anything about Caldicott. There is no indication that she even knows about ARS's denial. Further, she appears to only use the chart to illustrate airborne radiation movement, while her

2097:

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,

1989:

Controversy over some of Dr. Caldicott's statements exists. It's not wrong for Knowledge 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

1779:

The study challenges the widely quoted Van Leeuwan and Smith study*** put in reference*** on the energy costs associated with nuclear energy. When dealing with the issue of CO2 emissions, the website relies entirely on the reporting of a Swedish Energy company, Vattenfall (Sevior et al, 2006c) that

1538:

Please understand that I am not calling your research and your opinions wrong--you may be correct in everything you say. And NEI may also be correct in their review of the Caldicott book. And I am not saying that Caldicott is correct about everything in her books, maybe she is and maybe not. What

1393:

Yes I agree, however Starkrm is not using peer reviewed material for his/her references, he/she is using the blog run by The Nuclear Energy Institute which states at their website "is the organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry" and their goal is to "encourage the development of

1223:

Please see the box at the top of this page which states poorly sourced information about a living person must be removed immediately! I did look at the sources you provided and to me they did not appear to meet Knowledge's standards because they are blogs run by groups that support nuclear energy.

1124:

Caldicott provides numerous examples of dishonesty on the part of the nuclear energy industry in her books. Granted we are speaking of her POV here, however it is not for you nor I to decide who is telling the truth and one would have to be pretty naive to state that industry, including the nuclear

1077:

An accident at a US nuclear power plant could kill more people than were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.1 The financial repercussions could also be catastrophic. The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant cost the former Soviet Union more than three times the economical benefits

968:

Back in 1986 I took the time to read Missile Envy, revised edition. The number of factual mistakes, the utter lack of understanding of the underlying issues of the prevention of nuclear conflict, and the clearly pro-Soviet bias made this book an interesting aside but not a serious basis for informed

934:

In my opinion this "critcism" could well be used as the Knowledge poster child of what separates POV from factual information suitable for Knowledge. 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

897:

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

4212:

On page 80 he then considers what Helen has written about plutonium. Again he manages to pick a lot of holes in what Helen has written about plutonium. This does put a dent in Helen's claims to be an expert in the field. I note that wikipedia wants to use secondary sources rather than primary ones.

4078:

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.

3878:

Also you are falling into a trap, you have chosen to exclude or downplay sources because of where they were published. If you think about, the choice of a journal which is devoted to leadership studies is a good one for a paper which does consider interactions of the senior people in an antinuclear

3541:

Please present evidence for calling me a biased editor or strike your edit. I have removed unacceptable bio material either because it was not well-sourced or because the person that offered the opinion of her was not notable. Please review our WP guidelines if you are unsure of what is expected

2155:

Nearly three years later, the article has gotten no better. If the article were about a passionate advocate of nuclear energy, these same Knowledge 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

2075:

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

2038:

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

1912:

Radical Mallard, are you saying Caldicott shouldn't be criticized because she's "left wing" or is "anti-status quo"? Caldicott is quite free with personal attacks herself: I recall her going on about how stupid President Reagan was in an interview in the 1980's: she said he only gave mono-syllabic

1806:

It seems that they've gone off and done the research - keep in mind that this is a group of professional academic physicists - and come back with results that lead them to look favourably towards nuclear power. Their website certainly does discuss the challenges and concerns associated with nuclear

1688:

It is actually not "common sense" or going along with Knowledge's policies to only use sites that are not paid. Some of the best resources are either subscription-based or offline, and both can be used for Knowledge sourcing. Please put the site here so that those who have access to the article can

1594:

I think it is essential to state that Helen uses a certain style that appeals to emotion rather than hard science. You are assuming that because something is a criticism it automatically means it is a negative. People around me could certainly come up with criticisms about my life without wanting

1508:

If the science is done properly, if the analysis is reported properly, and the proper Scientific Method is employed when you're doing the science, and you use decent primary source material, and you submit your work openly to the scientific community - and the public - for peer review, then we find

1432:

I keep telling you I neither wrote it nor sourced it. I am just trying to make it non-POV. NONE of your above points are relevant to this article. The criticism simply states that Helen's scientific method is in question. As far as the three mile island issue - Helen's specific claim that Sr-90

1415:

For us, the NRC, the utility and the public in the vicinity of TMI, the cleanup of the reactor over the next 10 years, the need to vent the remaining radioactive Krypton from the building before anyone could enter, learning that the fuel had melted and the expenditure of over a billion dollars kept

1342:

Just checking in on this. I work with Dr. Caldicott. The statement "uncompromisingly provocative style" is, in my opinion a statement of opinion and not a description of rhetorical style which could be done if someone was interested, but as it is now, I don't this it's a fair statement for a living

999:

Dr. caldicott has mentioned many times the widespread, long-term, genetic harm nuclear weapon use will cause. She notes that Japan has seen this very effect from the 1945 bombings. The fact is there is zero scientific evidence the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan have resulted in any, let alone

980:

To suggest we rid ourselves of all nuclear weapons and systems is akin to suggesting we rid ourselves of all guns and bullets. These suggestions are equally naive. There is factual evidence that the US and Soviet Union did not engage in nuclear conflict because of each other's nuclear capabilities.

4010:

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

3919:

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

3161:

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

3157:

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

2535:

While I'm waiting on ARS, maybe you have a suggestion for me regarding how to take the a fact... that Dr. Helen Caldicott keeps presenting her ARS diagram... and that fact is documented many times on many different videos of her many presentations at many locations and on many dates... and help me

2476:

Ed Mays archive is only a video recording of what took place in the lecture hall. The only edits are those announced with fancy-wipe between the clearly indicated end-of-lecture and beginning of Q&A. It isn't a narrative piece. It is just Caldicott, delivering her talk in as far as I can tell,

2427:

My intent is not to convey to Knowledge readers that Caldicott is attributing a diagram to ARS while knowing they deny producing it, because I can't know that to a Knowledge standard. I'd like to convey that she's using a chart shown to be inaccurate since 2011, still, in 2014. And although I know

2413:

What is inaccurate, is what she's indicating with her pointer... the diagram... while she says "this was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass". I don't see how you can interpret her as only communicating "this diagram predicted there was gong to be fallout, and then Seattle did in

1887:

I believe a very good case that the criticism section should be completely removed can be made, as the criticisms cite blogs and clearly are biased POV, especially by those who wish to silence Caldicott. This has been part of a disturbing trend on Knowledge in which right wing entries (such as the

1179:

Now certainly I do have a POV; I agree with Caldicott that nuclear is not the way to go. And I am well aware that others have a different POV. But I think we'd all have to agree that the Caldicott Wiki article is not the place to debate our views on nuclear power! Our goal is to present factual

1128:

As you know, Knowledge clearly states that criticisms must be well-documented. Pro-industry sites and blogs are certainly not a credible source for documentation. I am going to remove your critcisms. I will not remove the sites you have posted as a reader can refer to them and make up their own

927:

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

908:

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

4205:

On page 58 Foreman considered what Helen writes about radioactive cesium, He takes the five claims that Helen makes about Cs137. He agrees only with one and argues a case that the others are false or misleading over the next few pages (unto 61). He presents evidence that Helen has been misquoting

1473:

Starkrm, you keep asking that I edit the criticisms you have added. If I could I would but they are built using refs that I do not feel are acceptable for Wiki and thus there is no way I can "fix" them. The only reason that I am not going to delete them again is that I figure you would just put

1366:

Starkrm, although you state you are not interested in fairness and balance but just wish to show that science does not support Caldicott's assertions, you are using an industry blog written by a data/statistician person, not a scientist. Also I note that you have also reverted my deletion of the

1296:

No we do not know that Caldicott would agree that she has an uncompromising provotative style or that it would be something that she would be proud of. Remember that others with a different POV than yours would state she is not afraid to stand up to the nuclear energy industry and tell the truth

1051:

Though I do agree the previous entry was biased and unverifiable, I think it would be quite relevant to include a section discussing criticism of Dr. Caldicott, as she indeed is very often criticized and labelled an "alarmist". People who read up about her would probably want to be aware of that.

984:

The topic of nuclear war is complicated and emotionally charged. There is no reason to "spin" one view or another. The facts are sufficient to allow the average Terran to draw their own conclusion. Stating, and restating, outright distortions, misrepresentations, and yes, lies, does not serve the

4201:

Foreman is an interesting set of sources, you made a mistake. You cited as a reason for rejecting his view of Helen based on the fact that he is a student. He did write in a magazine / journal with the word "student" in the title of the publication. But it is interesting that Helen also wrote an

3849:

You don't need to copy the RS info on this page. As you know we expect only the best sources when we criticize a living person. You are using cherry-picked statements written by a reletivly unknown author from a journal that publishes articles about leadership styles. A review of the articles

3676:

materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts,

3566:

As you remove anything which is critical of Helen, I think it is reasonable to assume that you have a bias in favor of her. You have a history on the page about her of removing material which is critical of her. You normally justify it by claiming that the person who was critical of her is not a

2399:

When she says "the ambient radiation in Seattle went up 40,000 times above normal" she stops using the pointer and addresses the audience. I have no idea if she's trying to restate the diagram with different units of measure, or if she's throwing out new numbers without citing a source. It seems

1556:

With regards to the Strontium-90, it's not that it was impossible to say it was not realeased during the Three Mile accident since the measurment devices were not working, it's that only gases and possibly the most volatile fission products - isotopes of Xenon, Krypton and possibly Iodine - were

1194:

On Linus Pauling - saying he is an unorthodox proponent of alternative medicine is not POV, it is factual. Why do you see it as a negative statement? In no way is the reference to criticisms of Helen's method of argument a debate about nuclear power. The references may be blogs but they quote

1044:

I probably would like them put back in. I just saw her on Tavis Smiley and she spit out a bunch of nonsense on that show such as stating that blowing up a nuclear power plant is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb! From that interview, and my physics degrees, I could tell right away that she

995:

Soviet defense plans called for them to detonate multiple high yield nuclear weapons above Moscow in order to stop inbound US warheads. These would certainly have caused massive EMP and other burst effects in the greater Moscow area. Yet the Soviet scientists and engineers, as good and sometimes

988:

Nuclear electrical power generation has the single safest track record of any form of generation. The issue of waste disposal is a political one, not a scientific or engineering one. It is a fact that reprocessing weapon components into MOX makes the world safer from rouge nations/groups gaining

3525:

The article as it stands currently is not NPOV, one particular editor (Gandydancer) has on various occasions removed any criticism of Helen's ideas and claims. It is interesting to note that the persons who have been critical of Helen's ideas tend to be more notable than her when judged using h

2690:

Seeing if ARS is willing to clarify their disclaimer and pull it out of memory-hole. If/how they do that will impact how much time I spend indexing Caldicott's use of the not-ARS diagram. I'll give you a tally and URLs when I do, but indexing is a lower priority until I find reputable mention.

1870:

a "multifaith retreat center". The wording that was inserted was taken directly from the site: "Pacifist, physician, author and founder of the Women for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND) for her dynamic leadership in the worldwide disarmament movement". WAND is mentioned later in the article. I will

1380:

The thing is, when we're talking about questions of pure physical sciences, which is what most of the debate over nuclear issues is rooted in, then it doesn't matter who says what, if they're an environmentalist group, or a pro-nuclear industry group, or whoever. What you say either agrees with

3184:

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

2460:

is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable

2333:

You are on the correct page for discussing this matter. I believe I do understand what you are trying to accomplish, perhaps a little more than described here (after having browsed through other YouTube videos uploaded by "Thorium Remix" or a name resembling your Knowledge username). The video

1766:

I am going to remove the paragraph with the criticism of Storm and Smith since the references provided are problematic. The study sited to refute Storm and Smith actually used their figures for their study. And the other site used, Nuclearinfo by nuclear advocate Martin Sevior, appears to be

1512:

Caldicott cites scientific works, such as the work of Jan Willem Storm van Leewen and Philip Smith in particular, that has been shown by several different groups of scientists to be inaccurate and flawed. Her references in her latest book are not the kind of references you'd expect to see in a

1370:

I did a lot of research when I first noticed how biased this article was, and I can say that I did not find anything that I did not feel may have a bias one way or the other. The person that works with Caldicott and made a post was right about the difficulty of writing the criticisms for this

1120:

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear

1003:

There is no scientific evidence that even one cancer resulted for the TMI accident. To suggest otherwise is to knowingly engage in intellectual dishonesty. And no credible correlation can be drawn between Chernobyl and any Western designed, built, or operated nuclear reactor. What the folks at

3232:

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

1646:

Regarding Pauling: From the Wiki intro to Pauling he was "an American quantum chemist and biochemist. He was also acknowledged as a crystallographer, molecular biologist, and medical researcher. Pauling is widely regarded as the premier chemist of the twentieth century". That you feel it is

1175:

Ref #3 and #4 are from NEI, Nuclear Energy Institure, a group who state they "encourage the development of nuclear energy". The posts you refer to are from their blog/forum. Ref #3 was written by David Bradish a data analyst, and #4 was written by Eric McLain "web content manager for NEI".

1145:

It is more than obvious that you are using your POV, as stated here, to decide how to edit this page. The criticisms were sourced. If you read the sources, you will find them to be a point by point refutation of Helen Caldicott's arguments, and not just babble. Whether or not the sites are

2613:

that with ARS's "distancing" itself from the diagram in order to have this article convey (or even imply) malfeasance on Caldicott's part; that would still need to be done by reliable sources. You mention "multiple video accounts of Caldicott presenting that diagram"; as a matter of personal

1830:

There's some good material in the "Criticism" section at present, but the introduction to it is extremely biased -- it leads off with a rebuttal, essentially warning the reader not to believe anything that follows (she accuses the nuclear industry of *lies*! Of course they lie about her!).

1543:

If you can find some real science somewhere and use quotes that would be great. I would welcome a good criticism section. But it is not for Wiki to say Caldicott is wrong about this or that, or the strontium 90 as far as that goes, since there are several sites on the web that state it was

1325:

Re your efforts to bring balance to the article. I did again look at the sources you have provided and I still feel industry blogs are not suitable sources to prove your point. I can find articles at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace, just to name two, that disagree with the

2579:

This dilemma you describe is at the crux of the objections to your recent edits, but is also self-answering as far as Knowledge policy goes. If high-quality reliable sources haven't conveyed what you wish to convey, then it doesn't belong in a Knowledge Biography of a Living Person. Adding

2226:

The latest revision you rejected did not cite the 2015-04-01 video, but had been updated to cite the 2014-10-18 master of the event in question. I don't know if this qualifies as "Original Work" since it is simply a video capture... there's no commentary contained other than Dr. Caldicott's

2477:

the exact same manner in which she always does. Would 2 different video archives of unbroken lecture that were presented on different dates in which she shows the same diagram and says again that "this was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass" then be considered acceptable?

1660:

I feel I have been waited long enough for help with the criticism section. I have asked for help from Wiki three times and waited 5 days for AWeishaupt to write something as he/she said he/she would. I have rewritten it and hopefully everyone will be happy since I used all of Starkrm's

1504:

Look, if you're talking about a factual scientific claim, for example the claim that 90-Sr did or did not get into Hershey's chocolate after Three Mile Island, and people like Caldicott say that it did, and groups like NEI say that it did not, then clearly one of the two must be wrong.

4081:

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.

976:

Yes, it was and is true that large corporations earn enormous sums by providing defense related goods and services to the nation. But is also true that without these businesses we would still build systems that, if used, would bring us a hell on earth. The Soviets did this very thing.

2428:

she's done it more than once, I'm not personally in the habit of posting Caldicott lectures and would be inclined to turn what I'd have otherwise considered a historical video archive into Original Research by way of including commentary... such as GoddardsJournal did on YouTube.

1647:

appropriate to introduce him as an "unorthodox Nobel Laureate and alternative medicine advocate" would suggest to most people that you are attempting to ignore his major contributions to science and instead concentrate on an aspect of his career that many might question.

1433:

ended up in hersheys chocolate is untenable since it was absolutely clear that Sr-90 was not released into the enviroment. I have tried rewriting the criticism to make it more acceptable. Please do not just delete. Leave it and try to improve when you have the time.

1487:

It is clear to me that you can only see this from your POV. I am trying to promote scientifically sound principles. BUT, I assume you will only see me as being pro-nuclear, so I suggest you put in your request for remediation then be patient, it may take a few weeks.

2317:

Sorry I opted to use re-submit commenting rather than "talk". Clicking "talk" led me very quickly to choice paralysis. In fact I'm not sure if this is even the correct location to be responding at all... maybe I was supposed to respond to this back on your own "talk"

1792:

The University of Sydney ISA group's report discusses in detail how the work of van Leeuwen and Smith is clearly flawed, and it includes a very significant literature review, and extensive references, on the subject. I know it's quite long, but perhaps you'd care to

2098:

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.

2461:

sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

1332:

Again, I do not have a problem with criticisms but they must be used in accordance with Wiki's standards, and I don't feel that your criticisms meet that standard. Since we seem to be deadlocked I have asked one of Wiki's "helpers" to take a look at the article.

985:

public good. Dr. Caldicott has consistently committed these transgressions in her effort's to influence you. It wasn't necessary to do so in order to engender the discussion but she did it anyway. It is necessary to question both her motivations and credibility.

1408:

Ref #1 that Starkrm uses is apparently a paper written by Thomas Gerusky, however as I said earlier it is not available unless one wants to pay for it so I don't know what he has to say about the Three Mile accident. However I did find this from him on the web:

1098:

I really do think it should be included, as Caldicott really is famous for making biased, extremeist claims that really are departed from the laws of Physics in a lot of cases. However, i do understand and respect the need for referencing, verifiability, etc.

2241:

hosted Dr. Caldicott in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Caldicott presented a "Nuclear Fallout Map - Potential Fallout from Fukushima Reactor" she accredited to Australian Radiation Services and also stated that the events predicted in the 2011 diagram "had came to

4192:

designers, she is reported to argue that the inability of men to become pregnant and give birth to a child causes them to wish to destroy the world (page 16 in the book). However not all of the book is infected with this extreme text according to Ivan.

2622:, and while she doesn't attribute it to ARS, their logo is visible, and she makes the same 40K ambient radiation increase assertion. And she does actually reference the 3, 6 & 10 day designations on the diagram back then, but not the "rad" levels. 1674:

I have again removed the word "wrongly". Certainly it is just common sense that one should not use a site that requires a fee to back up a statement. Furthermore, even if the site were available it is NOT for Wiki to decide who is right and who is

1404:

And it goes without saying that the people at NEI don't have anything good to say about Harvey either--or Greenpeace and anyone else associated with any environmental group that does not agree with their stance that nuclear power is cheap and clean.

1499:

Since you continue to insist that a blog from a nuclear industry site meets Wiki's standards for a reliable source and clearly would revert any changes I may make, I have no choice for now but to bow to your decisions Starkrm. (gandydancer June

1718:

What with the criticisms of this article almost as long as the information other than criticism, I have put the comment by the USC back. I have also deleted the word "debunked" which suggests that the work mentioned was "bunk" in the first

77: 1168:

In ref #1 you use a TV appearance to back your claim that Caldicott does not offer "any hard basis for such claims". If she would have been asked if she had evidence and said "no" that would be acceptable, however that is not the case.

3898:

I just read this edit (when the old links popped up below). Generally when an editor waits almost two weeks to post a reply they notify the editor that they are having a conversation with to be sure they are aware of the delay...

1516:

The following document was personally written by myself. It's not complete, and is still being written and edited, so there are incomplete and sloppily written parts, and the references aren't included yet, so please forgive that.

1693:

to provide freely available online resources when they're available, but that's usually up to the newspaper or other publications' decision and business model, and it's not Knowledge's direct concern whether that has been done or

923:

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.

540: 2120:

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.

1810:

The Vattenfall data is taken from independently audited, accredited environmental declarations that are maintained for Vattenfall's operations - they don't just post the figures and expect people to take them at face value.

1450:

What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

4102:

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?

1164:

Now regarding the criticisms that have been added. Again, Wiki clearly states that criticisms, especially criticisms of a living person, must be well documented, and several examples of acceptable sources are mentioned.

981:

I've worked closely with FSU personnel since the end of the Soviet Union and can relate to you that they feel the same way - it was the very persistent focus by both governments on these weapons that prevented their use.

3753:. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an 1608:"Famously, Caldicott repeatedly labels the entire nuclear industry liars, regardless of history or use, without providing any hard basis for such claims." The source referenced here is a repeat of her statment that the 1026:

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.

2650:

re: "You didn't declare Snopes reliable or unreliable." Correct. I did not, because that is not really at issue here. I do know that as of March 15, ARS was distancing themselves from some "information" (see this

2198: 1814:

The criticisms of SLS raised by Sevior et al. are independently backed up in the ISA report, and whilst the ISA report cites NuclearInfo, it is only one webpage from of a vast quantity of credible material cited.

1306:

At your source for your second point, the TV interview, Caldicott states again and again that she backs up her claims in her book, thus it is incorrect to state, as you do, that she provides no hard basis for her

1705:

I have removed the remarks about Pauling. Going with the thought that they were appropriate I could have added " widely regarded as the primier chemist of the twentieth centure", but did not feel it appropriate.

3247:

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.

904:

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.

2660:. (Note: there is also an archive search field there - just enter "Snopes" to review past discussions.) Be prepared to provide not only the Snopes link, but also the context in which it is to be used. Regards, 2385:

Caldicott says "and -this- was the potential fallout which has actually come to pass". Then as the video switches from slide back to her delivering the presentation she's still using a pointer to indicate the

2115: 916:

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.

3574:

I reason that if a household name such as Helen says that 2 + 2 = 5, and a series of less well known people state that 2 + 2 = 4 then the fact that Helen is a "household name" does not make the answer five.

3560:

A bio should not be a page which either attacks a person or praises them blindly, I am sure that a person who claims to be an authority on a subject should have their ideas subject to some reasonable debate.

3854: 4291: 4071:. 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.” 1544:

impossible to say it was not realeased during the Three Mile accident since the measurment devices were not even working. For Wiki it is better to say a "he said/she said" without deciding who is right.

3162:

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.

1612:

nuclear industry is nothing but lies. There is no hard basis for such a claim. The criticism does not claim that there are NO liars in the industry but only that there is no basis for a claim that the

2297:

In 2011, Australian Radiation Services had denied ever issuing such a diagram, saying "We wish to be clear that this information has not originated from ARS and as such distance ourselves from any such

1266:

The factual and scientific integrity of Dr. Caldicott's claims and books on nuclear issues have been repeatedly challenged, and in many cases, demonstrated to be significantly flawed from a scientific

972:

Let me be plain, I am not a fan of nuclear conflict. It would be horrible. But to suggest the end of the world as we know it is a bit of a stretch. Facts don't suggest otherwise. Facts state otherwise.

920:

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.

1371:

article! But I do have a suggestion that would comply with with Wiki's standards. Wiki suggests that direct quotes be used for criticism. Starkrm, could you re-write the criticisms using quotes?

1121:

weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.

2014: 1114:

The references that you have provided to support your additions can hardly be called fair and unbiased since they come from sites that are pro nuclear energy. Greenpeace has a much different POV:

2522:

because this topic was covered by Snopes. I initiated this because I believe Snopes to be NOR... and if Snopes isn't NOR then presumably ARS will be NOR (if they supply a public-facing response).

1089:

I am appalled at this entry. The writer has taken a few facts from the life of a remarkable person, and used them to hang one odd, unattributed criticism after another. Surely this cannot stand?

2730:, 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 1589:"...by unorthodox Nobel Laureate and alternative medicine advocate Linus Pauling." What part of that statement do you have a problem with? It is nearly word for word from his wikipedia page. 969:

discussion. The statement that the Soviet Union did not have a first strike inclination is laughable. This view is reinforced now that we have regular dialog with their former war planners.

4301: 1458:

The factual and scientific integrity of Dr. Caldicott's claims and books on nuclear issues are repeatedly challenged, and in some cases, have been demonstrated to be scientifically flawed.

4311: 4281: 3449: 3339: 2996: 2822: 1971:, 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. 217: 2734:. 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. 1461:

You can say they are challanged by the folks at NEI, but you can NOT use a nuclear energy blog to prove it while knowledgeable people at Greenpeace, for instance, agree with Caldicott.

939:

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 Knowledge's standards:

1066:

I agree that criticism can be informative, but since this was my first Wiki edit I did a lot of reading first and was unable to come up with anything that would meet Wiki's standards.

2913: 3090: 3567:

notable person. The thing is that all three people who I have cited have higher h indexs than Helen. The h index is a good measure of how important a person is as an intellectual.

3757:

in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..." Never use as sources the blog comments that are left by readers. For personal or group blogs that are

1470:

And you use a half hour TV show to prove that statement. Caldicott's books are filled with facts and figures. Just because you don't agree with them does not mean she is wrong.

3467: 3463: 3357: 3353: 3014: 3010: 2840: 2836: 2220: 1011: 4276: 3072:

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:

2103: 4296: 3325: 2788: 2149: 2081: 2065: 2094:

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

1834:

I'm about to go in and edit that material, possibly I'll move it somewhere (someone took the trouble to type in a quote from Caldicott, I hate to just delete it). --

1528:

If groups like NEI are so untrustworthy, can you show us where they are making statements that are misleading or untrue, and conclusively show us how they are untrue?

606: 1007: 3691:

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

3677:

legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing

2702: 1900:, for example). There are even cases where right wing organizations and movements made up of a small number of people are given large sections (such as that about 1818:

The link you posted above is pretty clearly an anti-nuclear politically motivated page, in contrast to the peer-reviewed, credible scientific references I used.

1800:

Sure, the Nuclear Info people tend to be supportive of nuclear, but they don't have any conflict of interest. Or if they do, would someone care to point it out?

212: 116: 3926:

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.

695: 4179: 3149: 2577:"...and help me understand how that fact can be made available to Knowledge. Because no single "reliable" source is going to show her presenting that diagram." 2544: 2323: 1781: 1053: 3801: 2203:

I've re-removed content sourced to a non-reliable source (a YouTube video posted just a couple days ago). Please provide sources compliant with Knowledge's

1477:

BTW, you keep saying these are not your sources and so on--well they are now because you are the one that insists they are acceptable for Wiki's standards.

4286: 1081: 1046: 236: 120: 31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 4376: 2597:

There are a couple other points to consider. You quoted above a guideline about using videos as sources; please note the operative words I've underlined:

931:

Being politically naive. Caldicott's utopian vision of world politics verges on conspiracy theory. She has a deep mistrust of politicians on all sides.

4261: 3945:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I will again remove this information. 3665: 1736: 1467:

Famously, Caldicott repeatedly labels the entire nuclear industry liars, regardless of history or use, without providing any hard basis for such claims.

1248:"As a vocal opponent of the nuclear industry in all its forms, with an uncompromisingly provocative style, Caldicott has faced a degree of criticism. 1224:

Surely you don't believe everything you read in a blog? I will take another look at your sources and get back to this issue but I don't have time today.

762: 43: 3165:

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 (

1735:

I think the criticisms section is reasonably fair and balanced as it stands now, and it's backed up by acceptable references, so I'm satisfied with it.

1276:

These criticisms are not aimed at how she is as a living person, they are aimed at her method in order to bring balance to the science in the article.

399: 4316: 1015: 892: 806: 4306: 766: 596: 4386: 3295: 2287:

Before we continue, can you confirm for me that at this point there is no issue? I'm thinking criteria NPOV, V, NOR and none strike me as a problem.

948:

When a fact is not common knowledge or the information being related to is a subjective assessment, the information should be attributed and cited.

1576:

Is it OK with you and Starkrm if I delete the changes Starkrm has made which I do not feel are properly sourced till you write a new criticism?

2107: 3178: 2156:

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. —

2085: 2012:

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

960: 898:

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.

4396: 3137: 871: 685: 1753:

What was so wrong with Emcerlain's edit? That material looked quite relevant and well-researched to me, even if it's only a work in progress.

1133:

I am going to remove the addition slipped in that attempts to make Linus Pauling appear a little nutty. Go read his page for crying out loud.

1103:

I think is a fair addition with references and does clarify a bit about the emotion she uses for arguing her points, rather than the science.

4426: 4085:

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 ?

2669: 2631: 2556: 2400:

implausible though that the potential fallout shown in the chart had come to pass, as that would have been fatal to a large number of people.

4371: 3892: 3843: 3315: 2039:

interconnected old-line communist front-groups since the days the Soviets (rather than George Soros) were writing the checks to fund them.--

1928: 1784: 4381: 4236: 3996: 2706: 1980: 1316:

It is not accurate to state that Caldicott uses only rhetoric and emotion as her "method". Her books are filled with facts and statistics.

1084: 48: 3954: 3435: 2356: 1739: 1698: 4406: 4251: 2048: 1726: 1712: 1682: 1668: 1654: 1583: 1548: 1481: 1427: 1375: 1337: 1231: 1186: 1061: 572: 3688:

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

1825: 1760: 1748: 1561: 1532: 1387: 311: 4356: 4331: 2652: 447: 389: 4144: 4112: 4035: 3969:

where "Eland is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty."

3908: 3868: 3551: 3515: 3405: 3256: 3242: 3221: 3194: 3062: 2129: 1999: 1635: 1492: 1280: 1214: 1199: 1072: 4416: 4341: 4266: 4246: 4074:

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.

1437: 1107: 1069:

Re the comment that Caldicott knows "zilch" about atomic energy, please see this article at the Union of Concerned Scientist's page:

796: 423: 3987:

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.

3445:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3335:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3326:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123558/http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10315&browse=0

2789:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130603161914/http://www.capecodtoday.com/news/event/2012/03/28/anti-nuclear-activist-dr-helen-caldicott

2160: 2069: 1454:

Clearly this rules out both Greenpeace and an industry blog as a reliable source! This means you can NOT use your source to state:

2027: 1880: 1859: 661: 168:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2727: 1843: 1150: 4421: 4391: 4366: 4361: 4321: 4256: 3780:

This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.

2609:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we can find a copy of that lecture video from a reputable source. We still could not

169: 23: 2906:, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section. 4346: 3817: 3807: 3713: 1959: 563: 524: 1803:

The assumption that any scientist who supports nuclear energy is clearly some sort of shill or something is simply ludicrous.

1650:

AWeishaupt has said that he will write a criticism. Hopefully it will include refs that meet Wiki's standards and be NPOV.

3329: 2886: 2792: 1866:

I have removed mention of an award that someone had inserted as the second paragraph of the article. The award was given by

4195:

Please read the text and tell me what you think, is it a fair and reasonable condensation of Ivan's review of Helen's book,

1257:

Famously, Caldicott repeatedly calls the entire nuclear industry liars, without providing any hard basis for such claims.

2746: 2552: 2238: 2077: 2061: 1920: 1394:

nuclear energy". Furthermore, the writer that he references to, David Bradish, is not even a scientist but a data analyst.

304: 173: 4044:

I do not see a clear commentary on Halen's ideas, now I know that she has a thing about "male reproductive bits", consider

3228:

As I said, I believe that criticism would improve the article since she is controversial. On the other hand, reading the

2920: 1513:

credible factual book, they're largely news articles, discredited scientific reports, anti-nuclear websites and so forth.

1056: 4401: 4351: 4326: 4271: 3981: 3080:

was concerned about radiation levels in milk used in their products because of the proximity of Three Mile Island to its

2054: 1955: 1239:

Again, I did not write the criticism or provide the sources, but I do defend them as fair. Look at them point by point -

771: 652: 629: 3972:

This think tank is not RS for a BLP and considering Eland's involvement in the source it is practically self-published.

4411: 4336: 2698: 2076:

event it's a bit surprising) but I haven't been able to find any medical articles that she ever published in the NEJM.

1520:

But it will serve to illustrate the kind of misleading statements and junk science that Caldicott continually employs.

1039: 571:

and related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

177: 3107: 1419:

So this would suggest that the Three Mile accident was a lot more than just media hype, as one post at NEI suggested.

3410: 3270: 2931: 1939:

Considering Caldicott is not without controversy, this page warrants a criticism section by a knowledgeable person.

4067:“In the ’70s I stopped uranium mining in Australia by telling union members about the effects of radiation on their 3427: 3287: 2948: 2232:

From that presentation she gave, I did note the following... (and apologies for me mangling Knowledge formatting)...

1160:

though beside the point, Vit C actually is now being used as a cancer therapy though Pauling did not live to see it.

2721: 2342:. (1) The two YouTube videos you have used are from Ed Mays and "Thorium Remix", neither of which meet Knowledge's 2187: 1000:

long-term multi generational, genetic malformations among the population of the target cities or their offspring.

4164:

Lets try to agree on a text in which we condense down the academics who have commented on what Helen has written.

4241: 3921: 3820:, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular 3296:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150410172800/http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html

2751: 2599:

However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived

2191: 2095: 1934: 1362:

Well I have seen neither hide nor hair of the "helper" I asked to take a look at this article and our discussion.

846: 442: 365: 352: 295: 286: 164: 111: 3466:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3356:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3013:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2839:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2369: 1567:

That's good news. When I was thinking of trying to rewrite it I did find this fact sheet that I planned to use:

3620: 2171:

The novel was not published when Caldicott was 12 years old. According to Knowledge it was published in 1957.

1030:

If someone feels they need to be put back in the article, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it first.

838: 757: 718: 418: 291: 3935: 3526:

index. While they are not household names they are people who have made various contributions to their fields.

4150:

Thanks, I will go through it again. I think that we should distill down from the review the thoughts of Ivan.

3616: 3305: 3085: 2962: 1571: 1346:

The criticisms section of this has always been quite contested. Writing it with an even hand is a challenge.

881: 4203: 3717: 3510: 3400: 3057: 1617:

industry is a lie. It is a great example of the sort of blanket statment by Helen that appeals to emotion.

1172:

Ref #2 Nuclear is our Future is a blog and the poster, Stewart Peterson is merely a poster, not an expert.

86: 3960: 3316:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225319/http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=30&cat=&a=52%2F

3299: 2603:

may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources

2258: 1423:

it will take me a few days. It would be good to get more input from the person who works with Caldicott

4007:

Gandydancer has made some errors when considering the origin of some of the discussion of Helen's ideas

3485:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3375:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3032:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2858:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

992:

I'll leave you with a few things to consider while you decide for yourself Dr. Caldicott's credibility:

3825: 3811: 3654: 3630: 3436:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071019214546/http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm

3426:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3286:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2947:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2898: 2891: 1968: 263: 3535: 2506:

her most controversial assertions (40K times normal levels?) don't appear to refer to the chart at all

1367:

word "wrongly" and are using a site that charges a fee to see the article to back up your position.

1078:

accrued from the operation of every other Soviet nuclear power plant operated between 1954 and 1990.2

1045:

knows *zilch* about nuclear physics ... not even the most basic concepts. 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

4222: 4159: 4127: 4096: 4020: 3668:, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been 3077: 1021: 126: 42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3203:

Hi Gandydancer. I would like to discuss with you an inconsistency with in Knowledge. If you look at

3067: 2548: 1924: 1349:

I am going to change the last sentence and move it up so that the entry is in chronological order.

1073:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nuclear-plant-risk-studies-failing-the-grade.html

2130:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaptvhky8IQ&index=7&list=PLKfir74hxWhPsAXSrCy--ORaxxbXdWnXK

660:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4134: 3501: 3391: 3319: 3238: 3190: 3048: 2414:

fact receive fallout, just as predicted by this diagram the wind does in fact blow west to east."

1951: 1642:

Regarding the criticisms, you are covering ground we have already covered and have not agreed on.

1557:

released. None of the less volatile, solid fission products could physically have been released.

1553:

Yeah, cool. I'll try and compile some quotes and brief examples of typical scientific criticism.

842: 46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 32: 3470:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3360:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3017:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2843:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

953:

Information supression - Ignoring significant sitable information in support of a minority view.

488: 3992: 3970: 3486: 3439: 3423: 3376: 3033: 2859: 4140: 4108: 4031: 3977: 3966: 3950: 3931: 3904: 3864: 3547: 3473: 3363: 3103: 3020: 2956: 2878: 2846: 2665: 2627: 2352: 2216: 1876: 1855: 1771: 657: 644: 623: 92: 3736: 3098:

All things considered, is this really so important to this bio? Any feedback appreciated.

1289:

Hi Starkrm, Thanks for your opinion, however we are still in disagreement. Point by point:

539: 518: 3672:, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". 3602: 3493: 3383: 3229: 3040: 2987: 2866: 2813: 2694: 2540: 2270: 2183: 2175: 2166: 2099: 1976: 1943: 1916: 1905: 4118:

Sorry I do not know which ref you were commenting on in the comment you made at 11:38 UTC

3595: 2793:

http://www.capecodtoday.com/news/event/2012/03/28/anti-nuclear-activist-dr-helen-caldicott

8: 3330:

http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/index.php?action=detail&video_id=10315&browse=0

2457: 1889: 63: 3924: 3816:

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the

1626:. It isn't a terribly strongly worded criticism by any means and seems very fair to me. 1579:

The other issue re Pauling remains problematic for me. Do you have an opinion on that?

3728: 3587: 3452:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3342:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2999:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2917: 2825:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2742: 2044: 1995: 1947: 361: 3492:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3382:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3039:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2865:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2299: 4218: 4155: 4123: 4092: 4016: 3988: 3888: 3839: 3754: 3746: 3531: 3252: 3217: 3174: 2770: 2023: 875: 3711:

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in

2928:

Last edited at 02:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

851:

Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 12 February 2021 by

4136: 4104: 4027: 3973: 3946: 3927: 3914: 3900: 3860: 3543: 3234: 3186: 3099: 2874: 2661: 2623: 2348: 2212: 2157: 1872: 1851: 1723: 1709: 1695: 1679: 1665: 1651: 1580: 1545: 1478: 1424: 1372: 1334: 1228: 1183: 1137: 1036: 957: 568: 478: 341: 156: 4053: 3578: 1821:

Anyway, this isn't the place to have our own debate for or against nuclear power.

3832:

guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

3682: 3419: 3283: 3279: 2944: 2940: 2778: 2764: 2760: 2610: 2335: 2179: 2145: 1972: 1822: 1757: 1745: 1558: 1529: 1384: 852: 749: 39: 4059: 226: 4175: 3208: 2731: 1839: 1756:

I guess that's just it though, it's a work in progress, and that's fair enough.

555: 4209:

I have yet to write a text which distills Foreman's treatment of Helen's book

4056: 3965:

I have removed the lengthy book review by Ivan Eland. It was published at the

3458:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3348:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3005:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2831:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2619: 1523: 4230: 3942: 3678: 3204: 3124: 2903: 2738: 2657: 2615: 2370:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qX-YU4nq-g&feature=youtu.be&t=22m24s

2339: 2282:...so in the latest edit I offered reference to a video showing exactly that. 2208: 2040: 1991: 837:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

1631:

Why not give it a rest, rewrite it, or wait for the arbitrator to show up?

4214: 4151: 4119: 4088: 4012: 3884: 3835: 3829: 3650: 3527: 3520: 3248: 3213: 3170: 3081: 2343: 2204: 2019: 1897: 1632: 1489: 1434: 1355: 1277: 1211: 1196: 1147: 1104: 408: 3306:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110705022413/http://www.fundacionideas.es/en

2963:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110705022413/http://www.fundacionideas.es/en

2306:...is Snopes, in addressing the diagram, not considered a reliable source? 4188: 4002: 3459: 3349: 3006: 2832: 2015:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

1850:

of course, open to dispute in the same way the ones that she refutes are.

1572:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

3745:

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online

2775:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1398:

Harvey Wasserman, associated with Greenpeace has this to say about NEI:

202: 4171: 3154:(This discussion has been relocated from Gandydancer's user talk page) 2141: 2060:

Caldicott, circa 1920. Can some one provide a full cite for this paper?

4050: 3300:

http://www.psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html

2441:

Fortunately, Ed Mays archived the lecture and posted it to the public.

469: 4183: 3084:

factory. According to Caldicott, citing a 30 March 1979 study by the

1835: 1732:

I apologise for perhaps not living up to my promise, I've been busy.

432: 357: 4292:

Knowledge requested photographs of politicians and government-people

4206:

sources in the literature, this is some ways is Helen's cryptonite.

325: 280: 3790: 1893: 1092:

This article is pretty biased (and I know nothing about the woman)

176:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 140: 105: 3828:(WP:RS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the 3309: 2966: 2783:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

2124:

One example of competing information and/or debate can be seen at:

456: 3579:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

1901: 2737:

Any reactions to this? If no concerns, I will make that change.

2618:

compliance. ADDED: Here is a lecture from April 2012 where she

769:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at 2199:"Australian Radiation Service Chart" Presented by Dr. Caldicott 2116:

Ditto re criticisms -AND- needs a "Written as Biased" notice.

1689:

assess its merits for inclusion in the article. Obviously it's

1095:

I've just put the criticisms section back, but modified a bit.

246: 3320:

http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=30&cat=&a=52%2F

835:

contributor has declared a personal or professional connection

38:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

761:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the 4302:

Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles

3440:

http://heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm

2972:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2798:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2211:

policies before adding information to the article. Regards,

4312:

Knowledge requested photographs of scientists and academics

4282:

Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles

3750: 2312:

fact that she's using that diagram... particularly in 2014.

3430:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3290:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3233:

Caldicott, not me - would you mind moving it to her page?

2957:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/helenswar/index.html

2951:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1772:

http://www.asen.org.au/OpportunitiesToWaste/?p=nuclearinfo

733: 712: 4026:

I have add a short commentary. Let me know if it's OK.

1180:

information and let the reader make up his/her own mind.

3789:

Please do note that any exceptional claim would require

2759:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2338:? Here are the problems with your recent edits to this 1744:

Whoops, last comment was from me, I wasn't logged in.

1767:

supporting a deeply flawed study itself. Please see:

1210:

Also, I am not the writer of the criticism portion.

943:

Accusations - Use quotes and locate reliable sources.

4277:

C-Class biography (politics and government) articles

4178:

administration's policies on both nuclear bombs and

739: 656:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 567:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 545: 331: 146: 3462:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3352:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3166: 3076:Citing confidential memos, Caldicott says that the 3009:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2835:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1509:out who is right and who is wrong pretty quickly. 1446:I don't know how Wiki could make this any clearer: 4297:C-Class biography (science and academia) articles 4228: 3646:The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) 989:nuclear weapons. It is recycling, nothing more. 356:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 4054:http://www.helencaldicott.com/pdf/smh090729.pdf 2902:, and are posted here for posterity. Following 765:and that biomedical information in any article 3698:Books published by respected publishing houses 3448:This message was posted before February 2018. 3338:This message was posted before February 2018. 3150:Discussion about what should be in the article 2995:This message was posted before February 2018. 2821:This message was posted before February 2018. 2300:Snopes - Nuclear Fallout Map not issued by ARS 364:. If you would like to participate, visit the 4060:http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v26n1p31.htm 2912:The article may be improved by following the 2896:The comment(s) below were originally left at 2575:To answer your most relevant question first, 763:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles 3643:The piece of work itself (the article, book) 4287:Politics and government work group articles 4057:https://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf 3762: 2620:briefly uses the image (at time mark 52:40) 2271:Helen Caldicott: Fukushima's Ongoing Impact 1600:Let's break the criticism apart bit by bit. 1524:http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~lweston/nuclear.pdf 4262:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in People 3802:Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline 3783: 3418:I have just modified one external link on 3125:http://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf 2605:must be produced by a reliable third party 2292:Moving on to how accurate that chart is... 893:Criticisms section of article on Caldicott 4317:Knowledge requested photographs of people 3626://===What counts as a reliable source=== 3278:I have just modified 4 external links on 2939:I have just modified 2 external links on 2491:source. I could not find it, if there is. 2261:, September 28, 2014, Seattle, Washington 1990:no evidence to support this huge number. 1871:insert "author" in the first paragraph. 4307:Science and academia work group articles 3649:The publisher of the work (for example, 4377:Mid-importance Women's History articles 61: 4229: 4170:Helen Caldicott has been described by 3808:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 3714:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources 2916:to producing at least a B article. -- 1326:statements made at the blogs you site. 965:A former weapon designer comments.... 213:the politics and government work group 4397:Low-importance Women writers articles 3724://===Newspaper and magazine blogs=== 3138:"NYAS: "New York Academy of Science"" 2984:to let others know (documentation at 2810:to let others know (documentation at 2732:all of Caldicott's C-SPAN appearances 2336:cobbling the pieces together yourself 2139:notices, or something to that effect. 581:Knowledge:WikiProject Women's History 4427:Articles with connected contributors 4387:WikiProject Women's History articles 3664:Articles must be based on reliable, 3619:. For how to reference sources, see 3611:"WP:SOURCE" redirects here. For the 2239:Physicians for Social Responsibility 822: 755:This article is within the scope of 650:This article is within the scope of 584:Template:WikiProject Women's History 561:This article is within the scope of 162:This article is within the scope of 57: 15: 4382:All WikiProject Women-related pages 4237:Biography articles of living people 4051:http://nuclearcrisis.org/interview/ 3130: 2914:WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps 2135:Someone needs to post one of those 1297:about the dangers of nuclear power. 772:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 670:Knowledge:WikiProject Women writers 237:the science and academia work group 91:It is of interest to the following 13: 4407:WikiProject Women writers articles 4252:Knowledge vital articles in People 3661:All three can affect reliability. 3167:https://en.wikipedia.org/Ian_Fells 673:Template:WikiProject Women writers 477: 464:Need help improving this article? 455: 431: 407: 245: 225: 201: 14: 4438: 4357:Mid-importance Melbourne articles 4332:Mid-importance Australia articles 3422:. Please take a moment to review 3282:. Please take a moment to review 2943:. Please take a moment to review 2904:several discussions in past years 2763:. Please take a moment to review 4417:Low-importance medicine articles 4372:C-Class Women's History articles 4342:Low-importance Adelaide articles 4267:C-Class vital articles in People 4247:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 3679:content related to living people 3637:when citing sources on Knowledge 858:Error: Disclosures that use the 826: 767:use high-quality medical sources 742: 732: 711: 643: 622: 548: 538: 517: 496: 334: 324: 310: 303: 279: 254:An editor has requested that an 149: 139: 125: 104: 71: 62: 21:This article must adhere to the 3922:International Studies Quarterly 3542:of us when we write our bios. 3310:http://www.fundacionideas.es/en 3127:Nuclear Power is Not the Answer 3091:Nuclear Power is Not the Answer 2967:http://www.fundacionideas.es/en 2955:Corrected formatting/usage for 801:This article has been rated as 690:This article has been rated as 601:This article has been rated as 394:This article has been rated as 374:Knowledge:WikiProject Australia 186:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 4422:All WikiProject Medicine pages 4392:C-Class Women writers articles 4367:WikiProject Australia articles 4362:WikiProject Melbourne articles 4322:WikiProject Biography articles 4257:C-Class level-5 vital articles 3844:19:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC) 3774: 3621:Help:Referencing for beginners 3552:18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC) 3536:09:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC) 3118: 2264: 2252: 2028:02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 2000:22:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 1908:11:05 PM EST, 16 October, 2008 1881:10:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 1699:22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 1040:21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 961:16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 781:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 492:can be contacted via email to 377:Template:WikiProject Australia 189:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 4347:WikiProject Adelaide articles 3617:Knowledge:Syntax highlighting 3516:18:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC) 3406:22:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC) 3108:16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 3086:Pennsylvania State University 3063:05:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC) 2899:Talk:Helen Caldicott/Comments 2887:17:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 1125:industry, would never lie! 935:in conspiracy theories also? 866:for at least one contributor. 784:Template:WikiProject Medicine 664:and see a list of open tasks. 575:and see a list of open tasks. 504:for non-editorial assistance. 470:National Library of Australia 440:This article is supported by 416:This article is supported by 234:This article is supported by 210:This article is supported by 24:biographies of living persons 3955:00:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 3936:16:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 3909:16:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 3893:08:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC) 3818:reliable sources noticeboard 3718:Knowledge:Search engine test 3639:has three related meanings: 2658:Reliable Sources Noticeboard 2344:High Quality Reliable Source 1929:06:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 1085:22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1057:04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 901:My concerns are as follows: 174:contribute to the discussion 7: 3869:18:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC) 3257:18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC) 3243:17:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC) 3222:14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC) 2656:raise your question at the 2055:Ref for New England J. Med. 2049:05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 1016:20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 564:WikiProject Women's History 489:Wikimedia Australia chapter 36:must be removed immediately 10: 4443: 4402:WikiProject Women articles 4352:C-Class Melbourne articles 4327:C-Class Australia articles 4272:C-Class biography articles 3941:Furthermore, according to 3826:Knowledge:Reliable sources 3812:Knowledge:Reliable sources 3805: 3726: 3695:University-level textbooks 3655:Cambridge University Press 3631:Knowledge:Reliable sources 3628: 3610: 3585: 3479:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3415:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3369:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3275:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3195:15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 3179:18:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC) 3026:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2936:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2921:01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2852:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2781:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2756:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2259:Fukushima’s Ongoing Impact 2209:Biography of Living Person 2192:21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 2108:08:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 2086:03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 2070:07:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 1981:21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 1960:21:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 1789:Well, that's interesting. 1464:Furthermore, you can say: 862:parameter should also use 807:project's importance scale 696:project's importance scale 607:project's importance scale 400:project's importance scale 4412:C-Class medicine articles 4337:C-Class Adelaide articles 4174:as being critical of the 3078:Hershey Foods Corporation 2911: 2707:10:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC) 2670:17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 2632:17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 2557:12:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 2357:07:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 2221:20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC) 2161:18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 2158:Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum) 2150:16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 1826:14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1785:00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 1761:16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1749:16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1740:16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1713:22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1683:22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1669:22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 1655:14:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC) 1636:15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1584:12:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1562:01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1549:21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 1533:15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 1493:20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 1482:19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 1438:18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 1428:17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 1388:14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 1376:22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 1062:Criticism of "Criticisms" 800: 727: 689: 653:WikiProject Women writers 638: 600: 533: 497: 485: 463: 439: 415: 393: 319: 253: 233: 209: 134: 99: 4223:16:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC) 4160:04:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 4145:19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) 4128:18:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC) 4113:11:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) 4097:05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC) 4036:18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 4021:16:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3997:11:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3982:10:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3583://== Reliable sources== 2722:C-SPAN in external links 1860:13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 1844:16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 1727:11:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1338:13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 1281:14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 1232:12:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 1215:15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 1200:15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 1187:02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 1151:14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 1108:18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 928:evidence to back it up. 833:The following Knowledge 587:Women's History articles 362:Australia-related topics 4064:Consider her own words 3411:External links modified 3271:External links modified 2932:External links modified 2752:External links modified 2747:22:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1935:Needs criticism section 909:parents, not children. 350:is within the scope of 117:Politics and Government 4242:C-Class vital articles 3763:Self-published sources 3761:reliable sources, see 2607:and be properly cited. 2326:2015-04-04 21:00 (MST) 676:Women writers articles 482: 460: 436: 412: 250: 230: 206: 3967:Independent Institute 3806:Further information: 3707:Mainstream newspapers 3629:Further information: 847:neutral point of view 481: 459: 443:WikiProject Melbourne 435: 411: 353:WikiProject Australia 249: 229: 205: 165:WikiProject Biography 78:level-5 vital article 4180:antimissile defenses 3460:regular verification 3350:regular verification 3230:Nuclear power debate 3007:regular verification 2833:regular verification 2767:. If necessary, add 2601:by a reputable party 1343:person's biography. 913:public addresses. 839:conflict of interest 758:WikiProject Medicine 419:WikiProject Adelaide 121:Science and Academia 3961:Book review removed 3791:exceptional sources 3450:After February 2018 3340:After February 2018 2997:After February 2018 2976:parameter below to 2823:After February 2018 2802:parameter below to 1969:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1890:Right-wing politics 3671: 3635:The word "source" 3504:InternetArchiveBot 3455:InternetArchiveBot 3394:InternetArchiveBot 3345:InternetArchiveBot 3051:InternetArchiveBot 3002:InternetArchiveBot 2892:Assessment comment 2828:InternetArchiveBot 2726:Hello - Regarding 1018:isletofmisfittoys 1008:Isletof misfittoys 483: 461: 437: 413: 380:Australia articles 251: 231: 207: 192:biography articles 87:content assessment 3850:opens by saying: 3669: 3480: 3370: 3027: 2926: 2925: 2885: 2853: 2709: 2697:comment added by 2560: 2543:comment added by 2195: 2178:comment added by 2137:Written as Biased 1963: 1946:comment added by 1919:comment added by 1022:Criticism section 890: 889: 821: 820: 817: 816: 813: 812: 787:medicine articles 706: 705: 702: 701: 617: 616: 613: 612: 512: 511: 508: 507: 274: 273: 270: 269: 56: 55: 4434: 3824:of sources, see 3794: 3787: 3781: 3778: 3739: 3614: 3605: 3598: 3514: 3505: 3478: 3477: 3456: 3404: 3395: 3368: 3367: 3346: 3142: 3141: 3134: 3128: 3122: 3068:Hershey stuff... 3061: 3052: 3025: 3024: 3003: 2991: 2909: 2908: 2901: 2881: 2880:Talk to my owner 2876: 2851: 2850: 2829: 2817: 2782: 2774: 2692: 2608: 2578: 2559: 2537: 2298:misinformation." 2274: 2268: 2262: 2256: 2205:Reliable Sources 2194: 2172: 1962: 1940: 1931: 868: 867: 865: 861: 830: 829: 823: 789: 788: 785: 782: 779: 752: 747: 746: 745: 736: 729: 728: 723: 715: 708: 707: 678: 677: 674: 671: 668: 647: 640: 639: 634: 626: 619: 618: 589: 588: 585: 582: 579: 558: 553: 552: 551: 542: 535: 534: 529: 521: 514: 513: 503: 502:wikimedia.org.au 501: 500: 499: 382: 381: 378: 375: 372: 344: 342:Australia portal 339: 338: 337: 328: 321: 320: 315: 314: 313: 308: 307: 306: 301: 298: 283: 276: 275: 266:to this article. 194: 193: 190: 187: 184: 170:join the project 159: 157:Biography portal 154: 153: 152: 143: 136: 135: 130: 129: 128: 123: 108: 101: 100: 84: 75: 74: 67: 66: 58: 44:this noticeboard 16: 4442: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4227: 4226: 4005: 3963: 3917: 3814: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3788: 3784: 3779: 3775: 3743: 3742: 3735: 3731: 3633: 3624: 3613:<source: --> 3612: 3609: 3608: 3601: 3594: 3590: 3523: 3508: 3503: 3471: 3464:have permission 3454: 3428:this simple FaQ 3420:Helen Caldicott 3413: 3398: 3393: 3361: 3354:have permission 3344: 3288:this simple FaQ 3280:Helen Caldicott 3273: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3123: 3119: 3070: 3055: 3050: 3018: 3011:have permission 3001: 2985: 2949:this simple FaQ 2941:Helen Caldicott 2934: 2897: 2894: 2884: 2879: 2844: 2837:have permission 2827: 2811: 2776: 2768: 2761:Helen Caldicott 2754: 2724: 2598: 2576: 2538: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2269: 2265: 2257: 2253: 2201: 2173: 2169: 2118: 2100:Nuclear balance 2057: 1941: 1937: 1914: 1906:Radical_Mallard 1868:The Peace Abby 1064: 1024: 895: 864:|editedhere=yes 863: 859: 857: 856: 827: 786: 783: 780: 777: 776: 750:Medicine portal 748: 743: 741: 721: 675: 672: 669: 666: 665: 632: 586: 583: 580: 578:Women's History 577: 576: 569:Women's history 554: 549: 547: 527: 525:Women's History 495: 493: 466:Ask a Librarian 379: 376: 373: 370: 369: 348:Helen Caldicott 340: 335: 333: 309: 302: 299: 289: 191: 188: 185: 182: 181: 155: 150: 148: 124: 114: 85:on Knowledge's 82: 72: 12: 11: 5: 4440: 4430: 4429: 4424: 4419: 4414: 4409: 4404: 4399: 4394: 4389: 4384: 4379: 4374: 4369: 4364: 4359: 4354: 4349: 4344: 4339: 4334: 4329: 4324: 4319: 4314: 4309: 4304: 4299: 4294: 4289: 4284: 4279: 4274: 4269: 4264: 4259: 4254: 4249: 4244: 4239: 4176:Geroge W. Bush 4148: 4147: 4116: 4115: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4039: 4038: 4004: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3962: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3916: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3872: 3871: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3803: 3800: 3796: 3795: 3782: 3772: 3771: 3767: 3741: 3740: 3732: 3727: 3709: 3708: 3705: 3702: 3699: 3696: 3659: 3658: 3647: 3644: 3607: 3606: 3599: 3591: 3586: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3555: 3554: 3522: 3519: 3498: 3497: 3490: 3443: 3442: 3434:Added archive 3412: 3409: 3388: 3387: 3380: 3333: 3332: 3324:Added archive 3322: 3314:Added archive 3312: 3304:Added archive 3302: 3294:Added archive 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3209:Daniele_Ganser 3198: 3197: 3151: 3148: 3144: 3143: 3129: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3096: 3095: 3069: 3066: 3045: 3044: 3037: 2970: 2969: 2961:Added archive 2959: 2933: 2930: 2924: 2923: 2893: 2890: 2877: 2871: 2870: 2863: 2796: 2795: 2787:Added archive 2753: 2750: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2545:Gordonmcdowell 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2328: 2327: 2324:gordonmcdowell 2320: 2319: 2314: 2313: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2276: 2275: 2263: 2250: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2200: 2197: 2168: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2140: 2133: 2132: 2125: 2117: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2089: 2088: 2078:49.180.121.226 2062:203.213.62.224 2056: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1984: 1983: 1936: 1933: 1921:203.161.78.193 1910: 1909: 1884: 1883: 1863: 1862: 1782:70.105.234.204 1769: 1768: 1731: 1721: 1720: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1677: 1676: 1663: 1662: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1628: 1627: 1619: 1618: 1605: 1604: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1569: 1568: 1541: 1540: 1502: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1457: 1448: 1447: 1442: 1396: 1395: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1226: 1225: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1162: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1135: 1134: 1116: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1063: 1060: 1054:24.222.162.133 1023: 1020: 955: 954: 950: 949: 945: 944: 938: 894: 891: 888: 887: 886: 885: 850: 831: 819: 818: 815: 814: 811: 810: 803:Low-importance 799: 793: 792: 790: 754: 753: 737: 725: 724: 722:Low‑importance 716: 704: 703: 700: 699: 692:Low-importance 688: 682: 681: 679: 662:the discussion 648: 636: 635: 633:Low‑importance 627: 615: 614: 611: 610: 603:Mid-importance 599: 593: 592: 590: 573:the discussion 560: 559: 556:History portal 543: 531: 530: 528:Mid‑importance 522: 510: 509: 506: 505: 484: 474: 473: 462: 452: 451: 448:Mid-importance 438: 428: 427: 424:Low-importance 414: 404: 403: 396:Mid-importance 392: 386: 385: 383: 346: 345: 329: 317: 316: 300:Mid‑importance 284: 272: 271: 268: 267: 252: 242: 241: 232: 222: 221: 218:Low-importance 208: 198: 197: 195: 161: 160: 144: 132: 131: 109: 97: 96: 90: 68: 54: 53: 49:this help page 33:poorly sourced 19: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4439: 4428: 4425: 4423: 4420: 4418: 4415: 4413: 4410: 4408: 4405: 4403: 4400: 4398: 4395: 4393: 4390: 4388: 4385: 4383: 4380: 4378: 4375: 4373: 4370: 4368: 4365: 4363: 4360: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4350: 4348: 4345: 4343: 4340: 4338: 4335: 4333: 4330: 4328: 4325: 4323: 4320: 4318: 4315: 4313: 4310: 4308: 4305: 4303: 4300: 4298: 4295: 4293: 4290: 4288: 4285: 4283: 4280: 4278: 4275: 4273: 4270: 4268: 4265: 4263: 4260: 4258: 4255: 4253: 4250: 4248: 4245: 4243: 4240: 4238: 4235: 4234: 4232: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4199: 4196: 4193: 4190: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4135: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4072: 4070: 4065: 4062: 4061: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4008: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3968: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3943:Knowledge:BLP 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3923: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3880: 3876: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3859: 3855: 3852: 3851: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3813: 3809: 3792: 3786: 3777: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3755:opinion piece 3752: 3748: 3738: 3734: 3733: 3730: 3725: 3722: 3720: 3719: 3715: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3697: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3689: 3686: 3684: 3680: 3675: 3667: 3662: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3645: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3638: 3632: 3627: 3622: 3618: 3604: 3600: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3589: 3584: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3518: 3517: 3512: 3507: 3506: 3495: 3491: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3475: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3451: 3446: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3416: 3408: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3385: 3381: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3365: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3341: 3336: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3276: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3231: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3210: 3206: 3205:Johan_Galtung 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3139: 3133: 3126: 3121: 3117: 3114: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3093: 3092: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3065: 3064: 3059: 3054: 3053: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3022: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2998: 2993: 2989: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2937: 2929: 2922: 2919: 2918:Edofedinburgh 2915: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2900: 2889: 2888: 2882: 2875: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2848: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2824: 2819: 2815: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2772: 2766: 2762: 2757: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2733: 2729: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2606: 2602: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2371: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2321: 2316: 2315: 2310: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2301: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2272: 2267: 2260: 2255: 2251: 2248: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2230: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2196: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2162: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948:Gordonlighter 1945: 1932: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1886: 1885: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1796: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1783: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1711: 1704: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1653: 1648: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1624:in some cases 1621: 1620: 1616: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1582: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1554: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1455: 1452: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1436: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1399: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1368: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1336: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1201: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1158: 1157: 1152: 1149: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1082:64.222.222.39 1079: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1059: 1058: 1055: 1049: 1048: 1047:69.139.238.47 1042: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1031: 1028: 1019: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 963: 962: 959: 952: 951: 947: 946: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 929: 925: 921: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 899: 883: 880: 877: 873: 870: 869: 854: 848: 844: 843:autobiography 840: 836: 832: 825: 824: 808: 804: 798: 795: 794: 791: 774: 773: 768: 764: 760: 759: 751: 740: 738: 735: 731: 730: 726: 720: 717: 714: 710: 709: 697: 693: 687: 684: 683: 680: 667:Women writers 663: 659: 658:women writers 655: 654: 649: 646: 642: 641: 637: 631: 630:Women writers 628: 625: 621: 620: 608: 604: 598: 595: 594: 591: 574: 570: 566: 565: 557: 546: 544: 541: 537: 536: 532: 526: 523: 520: 516: 515: 491: 490: 480: 476: 475: 471: 467: 458: 454: 453: 449: 446:(assessed as 445: 444: 434: 430: 429: 425: 422:(assessed as 421: 420: 410: 406: 405: 401: 397: 391: 388: 387: 384: 367: 363: 359: 355: 354: 349: 343: 332: 330: 327: 323: 322: 318: 297: 293: 288: 285: 282: 278: 277: 265: 261: 257: 248: 244: 243: 239: 238: 228: 224: 223: 219: 216:(assessed as 215: 214: 204: 200: 199: 196: 179: 178:documentation 175: 171: 167: 166: 158: 147: 145: 142: 138: 137: 133: 122: 118: 113: 110: 107: 103: 102: 98: 94: 88: 80: 79: 69: 65: 60: 59: 51: 50: 45: 41: 37: 34: 30: 26: 25: 20: 18: 17: 4211: 4208: 4200: 4198:For Foreman 4197: 4194: 4169: 4166: 4163: 4149: 4117: 4087: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4073: 4068: 4066: 4063: 4049: 4009: 4006: 3989:Innisfree987 3964: 3918: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3834: 3821: 3815: 3785: 3776: 3768: 3758: 3744: 3723: 3712: 3710: 3690: 3687: 3673: 3663: 3660: 3651:Random House 3636: 3634: 3625: 3582: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3524: 3502: 3499: 3474:source check 3453: 3447: 3444: 3417: 3414: 3392: 3389: 3364:source check 3343: 3337: 3334: 3277: 3274: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3153: 3132: 3120: 3112: 3097: 3089: 3082:Pennsylvania 3071: 3049: 3046: 3021:source check 3000: 2994: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2971: 2938: 2935: 2927: 2895: 2872: 2847:source check 2826: 2820: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2797: 2758: 2755: 2736: 2725: 2699:184.64.20.51 2693:— Preceding 2604: 2600: 2539:— Preceding 2266: 2254: 2246: 2202: 2174:— Preceding 2170: 2167:On the Beach 2136: 2134: 2123: 2119: 2058: 2013: 1942:— Preceding 1938: 1915:— Preceding 1911: 1898:Noam Chomsky 1867: 1833: 1829: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1778: 1775: 1770: 1755: 1752: 1743: 1737:59.167.90.74 1734: 1730: 1722: 1708: 1690: 1678: 1664: 1649: 1645: 1623: 1614: 1609: 1578: 1575: 1570: 1555: 1552: 1542: 1527: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1466: 1463: 1460: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1441: 1431: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1400: 1397: 1383: 1379: 1369: 1365: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1331: 1227: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1136: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1117: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1088: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1050: 1043: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 964: 956: 937: 933: 930: 926: 922: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 900: 896: 878: 834: 802: 770: 756: 691: 651: 602: 562: 486: 465: 441: 417: 395: 366:project page 351: 347: 259: 255: 235: 211: 163: 93:WikiProjects 76: 47: 35: 28: 22: 4189:think tanks 4137:Gandydancer 4133:This one: 4105:Gandydancer 4028:Gandydancer 3974:Gandydancer 3947:Gandydancer 3928:Gandydancer 3901:Gandydancer 3861:Gandydancer 3737:WP:NEWSBLOG 3674:Unpublished 3666:independent 3544:Gandydancer 3235:Gandydancer 3187:Gandydancer 3100:Gandydancer 2988:Sourcecheck 2814:Sourcecheck 2662:Xenophrenic 2624:Xenophrenic 2458:"published" 2349:Xenophrenic 2213:Xenophrenic 1992:ChrisWinter 1873:Gandydancer 1852:Gandydancer 1724:Gandydancer 1710:Gandydancer 1696:Gloriamarie 1680:Gandydancer 1666:Gandydancer 1652:Gandydancer 1581:Gandydancer 1546:Gandydancer 1479:Gandydancer 1425:Gandydancer 1373:Gandydancer 1335:Gandydancer 1267:viewpoint." 1229:Gandydancer 1184:Gandydancer 1138:Gandydancer 1037:Gandydancer 958:Gandydancer 4231:Categories 4172:Ivan Eland 4167:For Eland 3769:References 3749:they call 3603:WP:SOURCES 3511:Report bug 3401:Report bug 3113:References 3058:Report bug 2247:References 2180:Dynasteria 1823:AWeishaupt 1758:AWeishaupt 1746:AWeishaupt 1691:preferable 1559:AWeishaupt 1530:AWeishaupt 1385:AWeishaupt 853:kylesenior 260:photograph 4184:left wing 4069:testicles 3701:Magazines 3670:published 3615:tag, see 3596:WP:SOURCE 3588:Shortcuts 3494:this tool 3487:this tool 3384:this tool 3377:this tool 3041:this tool 3034:this tool 2867:this tool 2860:this tool 2728:this edit 2456:The term 2237:In 2014, 1973:Timeshift 1888:entry on 1776:I quote: 860:|checked= 371:Australia 358:Australia 296:Melbourne 287:Australia 183:Biography 112:Biography 81:is rated 40:libellous 3915:Sourcing 3729:Shortcut 3704:Journals 3683:medicine 3500:Cheers.— 3390:Cheers.— 3047:Cheers.— 2873:Cheers.— 2771:cbignore 2739:KConWiki 2695:unsigned 2653:snapshot 2553:contribs 2541:unsigned 2386:diagram. 2188:contribs 2176:unsigned 2041:Froglich 1956:contribs 1944:unsigned 1917:unsigned 1894:Ayn Rand 1807:energy. 1661:sources. 1033:Thanks. 882:contribs 778:Medicine 719:Medicine 292:Adelaide 4215:Cadmium 4182:from a 4152:Cadmium 4120:Cadmium 4089:Cadmium 4013:Cadmium 3885:Cadmium 3836:Cadmium 3765:below. 3747:columns 3528:Cadmium 3424:my edit 3284:my edit 3249:Cadmium 3214:Cadmium 3171:Cadmium 2974:checked 2945:my edit 2883::Online 2800:checked 2765:my edit 2611:combine 2020:Johnfos 1967:Whilst 1902:Agorism 1633:Starkrm 1490:Starkrm 1435:Starkrm 1356:Starkrm 1307:claims. 1278:Starkrm 1212:Starkrm 1197:Starkrm 1148:Starkrm 1105:Starkrm 872:Hcaldic 805:on the 694:on the 605:on the 468:at the 398:on the 83:C-class 2982:failed 2808:failed 2779:nobots 2616:WP:BLP 2340:WP:BLP 2242:pass". 1719:place. 1694:not.-- 1675:wrong. 1615:ENTIRE 1610:entire 1129:mind. 845:, and 89:scale. 3830:WP:RS 3822:types 3751:blogs 2318:page. 2142:LP-mn 1892:, or 1500:2007) 264:added 256:image 70:This 4219:talk 4156:talk 4141:talk 4124:talk 4109:talk 4093:talk 4032:talk 4017:talk 3993:talk 3978:talk 3951:talk 3932:talk 3905:talk 3889:talk 3865:talk 3840:talk 3810:and 3716:and 3548:talk 3532:talk 3521:NPOV 3253:talk 3239:talk 3218:talk 3207:and 3191:talk 3175:talk 3104:talk 2978:true 2804:true 2743:talk 2703:talk 2666:talk 2628:talk 2549:talk 2353:talk 2227:own. 2217:talk 2207:and 2184:talk 2146:talk 2104:talk 2082:talk 2066:talk 2045:talk 2024:talk 1996:talk 1977:talk 1952:talk 1925:talk 1877:talk 1856:talk 1840:talk 1836:Doom 1797:it? 1795:read 1012:talk 876:talk 494:help 487:The 360:and 172:and 4003:POV 3759:not 3681:or 3653:or 3468:RfC 3438:to 3358:RfC 3328:to 3318:to 3308:to 3298:to 3015:RfC 2992:). 2980:or 2965:to 2841:RfC 2818:). 2806:or 2791:to 797:Low 686:Low 597:Mid 390:Mid 262:be 258:or 29:BLP 4233:: 4221:) 4158:) 4143:) 4126:) 4111:) 4095:) 4034:) 4019:) 3995:) 3980:) 3953:) 3934:) 3907:) 3891:) 3867:) 3842:) 3721:. 3685:. 3550:) 3534:) 3481:. 3476:}} 3472:{{ 3371:. 3366:}} 3362:{{ 3255:) 3241:) 3220:) 3193:) 3177:) 3106:) 3028:. 3023:}} 3019:{{ 2990:}} 2986:{{ 2854:. 2849:}} 2845:{{ 2816:}} 2812:{{ 2777:{{ 2773:}} 2769:{{ 2745:) 2705:) 2668:) 2630:) 2555:) 2551:• 2355:) 2219:) 2190:) 2186:• 2148:) 2106:) 2084:) 2068:) 2047:) 2026:) 2018:. 1998:) 1979:) 1958:) 1954:• 1927:) 1879:) 1858:) 1842:) 1014:) 855:. 849:. 841:, 450:). 426:). 294:/ 290:: 220:). 119:/ 115:: 4217:( 4154:( 4139:( 4122:( 4107:( 4091:( 4030:( 4015:( 3991:( 3976:( 3949:( 3930:( 3903:( 3887:( 3863:( 3838:( 3793:. 3657:) 3623:. 3546:( 3530:( 3513:) 3509:( 3496:. 3489:. 3403:) 3399:( 3386:. 3379:. 3251:( 3237:( 3216:( 3189:( 3173:( 3140:. 3102:( 3094:. 3060:) 3056:( 3043:. 3036:. 2869:. 2862:. 2741:( 2701:( 2664:( 2626:( 2547:( 2351:( 2273:; 2215:( 2182:( 2144:( 2102:( 2080:( 2064:( 2043:( 2022:( 1994:( 1975:( 1950:( 1923:( 1875:( 1854:( 1838:( 1010:( 884:) 879:· 874:( 809:. 775:. 698:. 609:. 472:. 402:. 368:. 240:. 180:. 95:: 52:. 27:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index