Jump to content

Talk:L. Stephen Coles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ph.D.

[edit]

According to his deleted MySpace blog, I believe he said he has a Ph.D. in computer information systems, not systems and communication sciences. Same thing different wording? I'd prefer the former. Neal 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC). (Edouard D.: I don't know but several decades later I graduated from the same place at UCLA, cs.ucla.edu, and today it is called Computer Science) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.171.125.148 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current bibliography of L. Stephen Coles is much improved over an earlier version. Because of questions about the accuracy of the earlier version, I sent a copy of a recent version to him on 11/15/07, and asked him if there were any inaccuracies in it. His response was, "It's OK, but two patents and over 100 papers in the scientific literature. -- Steve Coles." I have not attempted to verify his exceptions to the current version. Note that he did not volunteer this information, but that I requested it in order to ensure that there were no serious inaccuracies in the Wikipedia edition. Some personal information has been added since the version I sent him. StanPrimmer (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching scientific databases such as PubMed and Web of Science renders much fewer publications. PubMed lists 36 articles by "Coles_LS" (several of them by a person with an Australian address, almost certainly another person). Web of Science (searching for "cited references", which includes citations to articles/book chapters that themselves are not included in this database and therefore renders the most complete results) lists 50 items (some of them variants due to errors in page numbers and such and others from the above mentioned Australian LS Coles). "Over 100 papers" is either exaggerated or concerns publications in journals that are never cited by other scientific journals. --Crusio (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re lead paragraph

[edit]

That mass of text is really difficult to edit, especially when written by some twerp who thinks that the world disappears when they close their eyes to sleep (non US, and likely some US, readers will not know what UCLA means - and this is supposed to be an reference source...) Is it possible to transfer some of the references elsewhere in the article? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Reading the article, I started wondering what actually makes this person notable. The article looks solid, but the references are in-passing mentions at best (so GNG is problematic) and the academic record is minimal (certainly doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC). Is there anything more substantial here? --Randykitty (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This man won an award: http://www.psr-la.org/alan-p-mintz-award-presented-to-l-stephen-coles-m-d-ph-d/ and was featured on a non-profit website: http://longevityalliance.org/News/TabId/109/ArtMID/500/ArticleID/9/Help-Save-Dr-Stephen-Coles-a-World-Renowned-Aging-Researcher.aspx
Both of these things are signs of notability; you are also welcome to do more research on this man on your own. Futurist110 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this appears to be an Associated Press news report of this man's death: http://www.expressnews.com/news/article/Leading-researcher-of-world-s-oldest-has-died-5933662.php Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the obits, he probably clears the bar of GNG, barely. I have cleaned the article a bit, but perhaps more should be done. His "scientific publications" are a bit silly (just listings ant tables of supercentenarians). It would appear that his notability is not as a scientist (just have a look at his citation record and he also never seems to have occupied a regular academic position), but (given his two books) as a quack peddlpromoting "natural" products for life extension/cancer treatment. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings,

What basis do you have for calling Dr Coles a "quack"? I have never known him to "peddle natural products" for money. That comment is inaccurate and offensive.

This man's death has been widely reported in the worldwide media. Also, here are further examples of his notability:


http://www.psr-la.org/alan-p-mintz-award-presented-to-l-stephen-coles-m-d-ph-d/ (Winning an award) http://grg.org/ (Featured on a magazine)


The GRG is the World's leading authority on supercentenarian validation. Guinness World Records work with them when it comes to the world's oldest people records. It's also a group of scientists leading research in to ageing.

To pass off this man as a mere "quack" is an insult and is uninformed.

Ollie231213 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That award is a decidedly minor award given by an organization that is not, or only borderline notable. Same goes for the GNG. They have some notability because of the Guinness Book of World Records, but nil scientific credibility. As for the "quack": look at the title of the books, which are not very serious sounding but rather sensationalist (and published by a fringe publisher). Also have a look at our article on Mirko Beljanski, who got fired from Pasteur and promoted ineffective cancer "treatments". As for your remark concerning the money, it's not necessary do this on a commercial basis in order to qualify as a quack (and publishing those books is a commercial activity, I'd say, they are definitely not serious scholarly works). In any case, he has some notability, as I already said, probably just enough to satisfy GNG. But give the guy a break: that list of publication is, for anybody who knows even a little about science, absolutely ridiculous and basically serves only to denigrate. --Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy. Discussing notability is definitely not problematic, but your comments are contentious and seem to me, a neutral observer with no dog in this fight, to be hyperbolic and potentially quite defamatory. The content you've added here seems like a fairly straightforward violation of WP:BLPTALK. As you know, such material should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Blacksun1942 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, as I understand WP:BLP, it would apparently be fine if, say, your comment that Coles was a "quack peddling "natural" products for life extension/cancer treatment" was properly sourced. Otherwise, I don't see how your comments square with the sensitivity mentioned in the guidelines. As far as I know, the burden of evidence lies with you, the editor who's restored the contentious material. Blacksun1942 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody who writes a book promoting the discredited ideas of a convicted quack, that's a quack... I've changed "peddling" in my comment above by "promoting". You're right, I have not seen sources that claim Coles was selling this stuff. He only promoted it. --Randykitty (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of cites of Coles papers and h-index

[edit]

Randykitty, the facts about Coles' papers being cited some number of times and having an h-index of something rely solely on a primary source. Relying on primary sources in this case is a form of original research because it isn't enough that something be true; it has to be verifiable in reliable sources, too. Without a reliable secondary source we have no context for this information and no idea how much weight, if any, to give it in the article. Therefore, unless these facts have been discussed and interpreted by someone else in a reliable secondary source, they don't belong in the article and must be removed.

For the same reason, the sentence about his publishing some number of papers and holding the one patent must be removed. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sounds like a good compromise. Coles' notability derives from the obits, not from his scientific work (the little that there is). I suggest to pare down the section on his articles even more. An article titled "Table of" obviously is not a great scientific contribution... --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "Table of" articles can be trimmed. I've already trimmed the articles section a bit since some of the papers have been used as references in the lead (although I'm not quite certain that they're the best references).
I'm also not sure about the statement "This book propagates the discredited ideas of Mirko Beljanski, who had been convicted of illegally practicing medicine in 1994" in the Books section, which looks a little like WP:OR to me since the reference is only to this doctor being convicted. Ca2james (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be more sources in our article on Mirko Beljanski. He was convicted for propagating the "therapy" that Coles describes in that book... I agree that ideally we should source this to a book review of Coles' book, but that may be hard to find, if it even exists (given that it was published by a minor publisher and doesn't seem to have had much impact). --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Coles journal articles/published materials

[edit]

Dr Coles had more than 130 published scientific publications.

The current article on him does a disservice to his legacy by minimizing his accomplishments. Where's the November 14 journal article on the DNA testing of 17 supercentenarians? Where's the material on the amyloidosis autopsies of supercentenarians? Dr. Coles also had published papers in other fields, such as robotics and artificial intelligence, and he held a patent as well. But I see that some wish to focus on side issues.

Time will tell but in the long run, naysaying critics such as "Randykitty" will be shown to be uneducated on the subject of Dr. L. Stephen Coles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A902:C200:253D:E1FD:491F:49FE (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on L. Stephen Coles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 death hoax

[edit]

The user who did this was not Robert Young back then it was me under another username. But I have matured significantly since then. Timothy McGuire (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertyoung122 was the account im referring to. Timothy McGuire (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert and I have been talking about this. We both request that account be deleted. Timothy McGuire (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Stephen_Coles&oldid=1196410198"