Talk:Vernon Coleman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, has written over 100 books which have sold over two million copies in the UK alone. His UK publishers include: PAN, Penguin, Corgi, Arrow, Star, Mandarin, Macmillan, Century, Thames and Hudson, and Sidgwick and Jackson. His books have been translated into 25 languages and sell in over 50 countries. Vernon Coleman's books have been serialised in newspapers and magazines all over the world, and many have been turned into television and radio series. (His novel, Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War, was turned into a movie starring Pauline Collins, Peter Capaldi and John Alderton). He was the doctor on British television and the first agony uncle on the BBC. Dr Vernon Coleman is a former GP. POLICEMATRIX (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus for any changes before requesting an edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This proposal removes all criticism from the lede and is promotional. Autarch (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Would be helpful to add a new section to try and reach a consensus on the ScottishFinnishRadish draft Lede. Thankyou.Roger logged out as couldn't get a new section to work or add comment to bottom of new lede section. 78.69.176.146 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

...

Proposed New Lede.

Here is a re draft of the lede. with some citations as to suggested good practice in Lede writing.

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues.He was formerly a newspaper columnist , and general practitioner (GP)( British Medical Doctor). Originally coming to prominence as the original TV doctor in the UK. . Dr Coleman again came to prominence during the 2020 Pandemic after publishing a video on youtube which provoked criticism that he was a conspiracy theorist (DIF =>) , anti-vaccination activist, and AIDS denialist.

New proposed lede ends.

I realise that this page is contentious and have read the Archives and studied the difs, The article needs a comprehensive re-write although a good start would be to replace the Lead(Lede) with a properly sourced encyclopedic Lede according to Wikipedia Lede writing guidance.

.The last discussion for article deletion did not result in a consensus , but some cogent points were made pertinent to the current stale mate. .I am a casual editor of Wikipedia but have taken the time to study this process on this page in depth as I am currently coding a collaborative design application which uses semantic and ontological algorithms to mine data and offer consensus solutions to affordable housing community design, as such: I have as much time as is needed to do the grunt work on this. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As the lead is supposed to be a short summary of the salient points in the body text, dont you think you should look at the body first? You should also put refs in the body, rather than your reference bombed lead, which is normally not acceptable. I think that the main point for you to consider is that the need for a change to the lead has certainly not been established. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 07:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Roxy the dog. 1. don't you think you should look at the body first? I have looked at the body of the article and yes it needs attention 2. The referencing approach I have adopted is an attempt to encompass what is a sprawling array of diffs across several archived talk pages and also the deletion discussion. As I am not competent in citing diffs ( I am looking at how to do it properly later) I felt that the Reference magazines I have made for my own use, and which i have published and linked to,allow me to add in the references properly in due course, without duplicating my own efforts or increasing the required effort of editors interested in the improvement of the article. 3. Is the argument for the Lede to be re-written established?. There was no consensus in the deletion discussion, (User:bibliomaniac1515 April 2020 (UTC)) that was some time ago. A properly sourced consensus process would answer that question, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that there is sufficient doubt as to the standard of the Article and of the Lede to approach the matter, as potentially controversial.RogerGLewis (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have posted this notice to the Biography of Living persons Talk page (Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard)

Vernon Coleman This article has been the subject of a deletion discussion in april 2020 and there are several archives of Talk page discussion. I have proposed a rewrite of the lead (Lede) , the main body of the article also requires attention to return it to an encyclopedic standard. I have added a proposed new Lede on the talk page, and I am seeking assistance from the wider editor community to address the current problems in the entry. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know where to post because this talk page is a mess, so I guess I'll just go to the end of the last section. I do see that he's labeled an anti-vaccine activist with no mention of that in the article body, and while it seems pretty likely that is true it should be supported by the body text. I'm not terribly fond of how the lead is written now because it splits up the "conspiracy theorist, activist" stuff from the "His medical claims are widely considered to be crap" line. Maybe something along the lines of Vernon Coleman is an English writer and blogger who writes on topics related to human health, animal welfare and politics. He was formerly a general practitioner and newspaper columnist. He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, pseudoscientific medicine and COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific. That groups the "He is a this that did that" together and then groups the "General consensus is he makes very bad medical claims" together. I think we need to stipulate the COVID-19 conspiracy theories, since that is how the sources we're citing frame it. I changed the verbiage on the anti-vaccination to pseudoscientific medicine because there's no mention of vaccines in the body, and there is plenty of mention of pseudoscience. Obviously this is just a rough hack at it, but hopefully it can lead towards getting something everyone can agree on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be a massive improvement in my opinion (ScottishFinnishRadish) I would vote for your amendments set out in green. Regarding the larger re-write, with a more balanced lede as per your suggestion, and that Draft, I think it would be somewhat less critical. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support text proposed by ScottishFinnishRadish. Definitely seems like a huge improvement though "discredited and described as pseudoscientific" sounds redundant. I might pick one or the other for the lead. It looks like he authored Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe and Effective Is Lying and was fact checked on the subject in PolitiFact so the anti-vaccination part would appear accurate though this needs to be developed in the body with supporting citations before making it to the lead. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think discredited and pseudoscience are fine together since they speak to different, although related, things. There is plenty of regular science that is discredited, and plenty of pseudoscience that isn't discredited because no one bothers to discredit non-scientific theories. That said I'm not terribly bothered if consensus is to use one or the other, but I think using discredited addresses him having been an actual doctor and pseudoscience addresses his current beliefs and statements. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with all text proposed by RogerGLewis due to clear malicious intent. A consensus on the lede was reached until RogerGLewis suggested a highly redacted suggestion from an very old edition of the page (which was favorable to Coleman) which referenced only the "true" information in praise of Coleman's works. I also have evidence here which shows RogerGLewis is purposefully suggesting sources which are in no-way impartial. I say this because the "Yumpu" is a copy-paste of Wikipedia articles, "Vetapedia" (a blog) claims Wikipedia is trying to "disfame (Colemans) reputation" and finally "NotTheGrubStreetJournal" is (according to the about me page) RogerGLewis's personal blog where RogerGLewis has written favorably on Coleman's view that "Wikipedia is a prophylactic (weapon) against thought crime" ". All these sites claim Wikipedia and its editors are malicious actors and then link to a video of Coleman criticizing Wikipedia. Third; Coleman did not come to prominence in 2020, because sources going back to the 1980's demonstrate his notoriety. I instead suspect what may have come to prominence was RogerGLewis's knowledge of Coleman in 2020 and a then Roger himself desired to have Wikipedia align with Coleman's biased views. Suddenly linking to Coleman's 'BrandNewTube' after he was banned from YouTube is effectively free advertising for Coleman, something which he has instructed his viewers to do via his videos, multiple times. In short, changing the lede this significantly strikes me as attempting to push a particular POV which is not the purpose of Wikipedia, RogerGLewis is not acting impartially, however I am however in favour of adding a category outlining how Coleman's works have been criticised by independent bodies regarding his spread of COVID-19 misinformation MrEarlGray (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the consensus version that you refer to the currently live version or something else? - Wikmoz (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus version I refer to is the current live version. MrEarlGray (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The text proposed by ScottishFinnishRadish is very similar to the current live version. It just omits the critical elements from the first sentence. Dives head first into them in the third sentence. Your objection is that the criticism doesn't appear until the third sentence? - Wikmoz (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The only reason I moved the critical elements is for readability. I think it flows better in my version without losing the valid criticism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray, can you clarify your objection to the proposed text? - Wikmoz (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Phew, I thought it was what I wrote! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I support The text proposed by ScottishFinnishRadish, this Draft in "green" the ordering of the sentence is much more balanced in my opinion. "Vernon Coleman is an English writer and blogger who writes on topics related to human health, animal welfare and politics. He was formerly a general practitioner and newspaper columnist. He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, pseudoscientific medicine and COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific".

ScottishFinnishRadish , Wikmoz & RogerGLewis all agree it seems. Regarding consensus the current lead does not have consensus, the last discussion was truncated as I was blocked from editing and the request I made for posting the discussion to appropriate notice boards was ignored.I posted a notice at (Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard)Vernon Coleman which seems to have attracted some interest. I believe that a number of archived discussion participants would cetainly disagree that a proper consensus had been reached on the article as it currently stands and other notices should be posted to relevant editor Boards, I do not wish to canvas and must for the record reject MrEarlGray's allegations of COVID-19 misinformation I am editing in good faith and have no fealty to or with Dr Vernon Coleman. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)78.69.176.146 (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, You are aware that Coleman wrote a book called "Vaccines Are Dangerous - And Don't Work", aren't you? And another called "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying"?

Also "Warning issued as 'dangerous anti-vax' leaflets posted through doors in Luton notes that [t]he leaflets claim to tell the "truth about vaccines" using information from Dr Vernon Coleman, a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccination activist.

Dundee Evening Telegraph: "The leaflets appeared through doors and letterboxes in Perth earlier this week and were titled “19 truths your government won’t tell you about Covid-19”, quoting Dr Vernon Coleman, a discredited former doctor and conspiracy theorist.". The Daily Record calls him "a conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist and AIDS denialist".

Vernon Coleman is a rabid antivaccinationist and anti-medicine conspiracy theorist. This is obvious from media coverage, from his books, and from the crap he writes in What Doctors Don't Tell You, a magazine thankfully no longer sold in shops due to the endless litany of complaints about the terrible advice and misleading advertisements it contained.

Coleman disputes all of this. But then he would, wouldn't he? He makes a nice living preying on the fears of the gullible, and doubtless joins the many other charlatans in considering Wikipedia's reality-based coverage of his noxious outpourings as some kind of restraint of trade. But we're not here to present the world as conspiracy theorists believe it to be, we're here to present objective facts. Even when that might stop some random dude from selling anti-vaccine propaganda. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw that after writing that first lead, which I think I mentioned elsewhere on this page. I'm fine with changing psuedoscientific medicine to anti-vaccine activism. When I wrote my first rough draft I had only reviewed the sources in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger, you claim "I am editing in good faith and have no fealty to or with Dr Vernon Coleman." - Yet, you have written on your blog, which you have linked here, in an entry titled "Taking the Lead in a ship of April Fools. Amending the Lede, No greater passion “Than the Passion to Alter Someone Else's Draft”" and wrote "Dr Coleman correctly diagnosed the use of Wikipedia as a prophylactic (weapon) against thought crime, and the coordinated banning of the Drs You tube video, and substantial re-writing of his wikipedia entry on the date that it went viral after being put on line are all borne out by the Wikipedia articles Page view statistics.". MrEarlGray (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr EarlGray, The Page view statistics bear out that the interest in Dr Coleman's Wikipedia Entry coincided with his Viral Youtube video and the nature of the article changed dramatically after the traffic increased, that is clear for anyone to see and I have merely pointed it out. Wikipedia is characterised by factional ingroup editing , I do not take part in any factions , I do observe ingroup biases and infighting between Editorial teams, one such group has been suggested to be operating on this page, if you read the Archived discussion comment by Excalibur talk|). My interest in Wiki's and the work of Ted Nelson on Hyper text as I have said is currently being put to use in development of a collaborative community design project hence why this article with its many layers is of more interest from a coding semantics perspective for me. I am an enthusiastic advocate for Wikipedia but, also critical ((as is Larry Sanger ( Co Founder) )), of the poor management protocols as applied to Rogue Editing by Editors with administrator privileges and the abuse by some editors of those same privileges.I will continue to engage in the substantive issue in question on this page. Again for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat my support for Scottish Finnish Radishes proposed amendment, see Green Bold Above.) which reads better and adds much needed balance to some of the excessively partisan aspects of the rest of the entry.I do not see that your side bar regarding my bone-fides is of any assistance on the support for and need of the suggested change by ScottishFinnishRadish , Wikmoz & RogerGLewis RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the current lead. There is still no demonstration by Coleman puppets of the need for a change to the lead, other than as a sop to the subject, who doesn't like what the facts say about him. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 18:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just responding to the WP:BLP/N request regarding the lead. Never heard of Coleman before that. The proposed revision seems to improve WP:NPOV. The criticism is preserved, just excluded from the first sentence. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also here from WP:BLP/N. I think the WP:NPOV stays the same since all of the same information is in the lead. I just think it reads better in that order, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not support making any changes to the existing lede. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Whilst the current discussion sees a majority for the change to be made, there clearly is no consensus either to keep the Lede or to change the lede. To reach such a consensus I think some notices to other appropriate message boards might be in order, whilst a consensus is still unlikely, a clearer majority might be achieved by widening out the discussion. {{talk fringe|COVID-19 misinformation}} User:RogerGLewis:NPOVN-notice,regarding WP:NPOV & WP:COI, I think we need a NPOV and COI review and post a notice to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion , if there are set procedures for this process I have not been able to find them and would be grateful for assistance on how to widen the discussion. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger, we do things by consensus here, not majority vote. The Discussions for discussions noticeboard may just be able to help too. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 13:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious that Roger isn't going to stop spamming until he gets his POV added to the article.MrEarlGray (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good thing there are plenty of eyes on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• The version in green (ScottishFFinnishRadis) is fine, Roger's is a laughable whitewash. Coleman is a crank, and it's really not our job to fix that. I mean, he even appears in WDDTY. How obvious does it have to get? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I repeat my support for Scottish Finnish Radishes proposed amendment, see Green Bold Above.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If Roger can repeat his support for something, then I repeat my support for the current version. I urge others to repeat their support too!!! -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 20:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest running with ScottishFinnishRadish's version. Move the second sentence to the end of the paragraph. Roxy, EarlGray, would this help? I'd still remove one instance of the twice-stated "pseudoscience". The anti-vaccination statement can also be restored if anyone endeavors to actually edit the body content to reflect this. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Video et taceo. 78.69.176.146 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lead of Special:Permalink/1015541130 is good and clear, with the advantage that the first sentence, that often can be considered a short description, includes some important points. —PaleoNeonate – 05:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The ordering of the lede paragraph will help with some of the more enthusiastic "ducking stooling" of Dr Coleman, Video et Taceo from my IP address I was editing in another Wiki

and its easier to navigate between pages when one is not logged in. still voting for an unpoisened well RogerGLewis (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger seems to be now tagging this page on as many boards as he can to garner it attention. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

So there's been a lot of back and forth, but is there any consensus for Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English writer and blogger who writes on topics related to human health, animal welfare and politics. He was formerly a general practitioner and newspaper columnist. He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, anti-vaccine activism and COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific. instead of Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is an English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist, blogger and novelist who writes on topics related to human health, politics and animal issues. Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific. He was formerly a newspaper columnist and general practitioner (GP). I think my version keeps all the same information, and I've added back in the anti-vax activism since I've seen the sourcing for it now, though it should be covered in the article body as well. I think my version reads a bit better, but I'm not terribly bothered either way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that we have any consensus for any change to the current lead, so no. It is well written, succccinccct and covers the main points from the body text. If a reader reads just that, and left, they would get a good idea of the nonsense he promulgates. I do not understand the need to make the lead more complicated, and move away from policy in not framing him properly at the earliest opportunity, i.e. what makes him notable should be front and centre in the lead. If it wasn't for the pseudoscientific claptrap, I'm not sure he would even be notable as a writer or blogger without all his other nonsense. Sigh. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry, my friend, but this is a good-faith but IMO misguided attempt to reach peace by splitting the difference between the current factual version and a counterfactual preferred by the subject, a dangerous crank.

The issue, of course, is that advocates for nutbaggery are very well practiced at endlessly demanding that we split the difference between the current version of any article, and their nonsense. Nothing could be more important to them than having their nonsense reflected as fact in Wikipedia. We've seen this forever at articles on quackery (homeopathy, chiropractic and the rest).

Vernon Coleman writes fiction. Some of it pretends to be medical advice, and that leads people to make potentially deadly choices. His commercial interests indicate that we should pretend he's a health writer, and he might grudgingly allow us to note that some of his opinions are not widely accepted. In fact, what he writes is bullshit. AIDS denialism, anti-medicine propaganda, anti-vaccine propaganda, and more. And what sources exist are pretty clear about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I'm splitting the difference really, since it's the same lead we have now in a slightly different order. There's actually discussion about similar reordering on a few article leads on BLPN right now. In my version I think the fact he's essentially a crank is actually more prominent despite coming a sentence later, and it reads better. I have no investment in it though, and I asked if there's was any sort of consensus so I know if I should keep the page watchlisted any longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I disagree, as does Roxy. For a start, we currently (correctly) describe him as a conspiracy theorist, which is absent from yours. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

References

That is true, I did forget that, which is certainly sourced well enough to be in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

The article description is biased and misleading, e.g., Mr Coleman is a best-selling author, whose work appears in many countries and translated into many languages.

The edit request is: Change "Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited" to "Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited (on sites such as Wikipedia without supporting references)" Stephen111morr (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No. -Roxy . wooF 15:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why should we say that when the Wikipedia article does contain supporting references? We would be publishing a lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Coleman's work needs a black box warning. 'Side effects of consuming the work of Vernon Coleman may involve developing partial blindness or selective vision' MrEarlGray (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Remove all false assumptive edits that dis-credit Dr. Coleman as one who is a conspiracy theorists instead --- replace with Dr. Coleman is a pioneer in exposing conspiratorial architects within governments World Banking and pharmaceutical corporations colluding to deftly create a totolitarian usurpation of genuine human rights using an old World form of dictatorial disaster capitalism to redistribute wealth and engage a new financial system that awake people would never consent to but will under the threat of a health crisis fear triggered domain. 2001:569:7A7E:6700:91E7:6B79:A648:30A2 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit

Re this. Coleman's claims have been almost universally rejected, not just by a "community" of scientists, but by the entire of the mainstream. His views are only embraced by the fringe. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert, I had not considered the potential semantic misinterpretation of 'community'. MrEarlGray (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray, I think you are right to want to point out that scientists reject Coleman's theories. Perhaps we could say that "scientists overwhelmingly reject" his claims? I think my problem was more the use of the word "community", which implies that there's a community of scientists (like a village) and that they all know each other... rather than a huge profession of which there are millions of people who disagree with Coleman. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Only the ones who are paid to lie reject his claims or they are scared to speak out in case they lose their jobs, there’s a lot of them that agree with him but they don’t get the time of day

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Vernon Coleman has not been discredited and his claims are backed up by science 2A00:23C5:EB80:9B00:F175:BF5C:E853:59E6 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 (2)

change “In 2021, Coleman claimed "no one can possibly know if the [COVID-19] vaccine is safe and effective because the trial is still underway; thousands of people who had the vaccine have died or been seriously injured by it; legally, all those people giving vaccinations are war criminals". This claim was debunked by Health Feedback, a member of the World Health Organisation-led project Vaccine Safety Net.[26][27] Coleman later claimed 'COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous, having killed many people and causing serious adverse effects on many more (strokes, neurological problems, allergies, blindness, paralysis); people who got the COVID-19 vaccine have been pathogenic primed, their immune system is going to overreact when in contact with the virus, causing lots of deaths' and that "bodies of vaccinated people are laboratories making lethal viruses". Both claims were similarly debunked as inaccurate, misleading and unsupported by the Poynter Institute due to a lack of evidence from the legitimate medical community”. To “In 2021, Coleman claimed "no one can possibly know if the [COVID-19] vaccine is safe and effective because the trial is still underway; thousands of people who had the vaccine have died or been seriously injured by it; legally, all those people giving vaccinations are war criminals". This claim has so far not been debunked. 26][27] Coleman later claimed 'COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous, having killed many people and causing serious adverse effects on many more (strokes, neurological problems, allergies, blindness, paralysis); people who got the COVID-19 vaccine have been pathogenic primed, their immune system is going to overreact when in contact with the virus, causing lots of deaths' and that "bodies of vaccinated people are laboratories making lethal viruses". Both claims have not been debunked and are accurate.” These claims are backed up by government figures. 86.132.132.80 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide your 'government figures' and peer-reviewed evidence to support your claims. MrEarlGray (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It may also be useful to consult WP:FRINGE. Ifnord (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Coleman occasionally suggests his viewers 'visit' Wikipedia. It is only fair we treat them like anyone else, despite how daft they are :-) MrEarlGray (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Provide your sources that discredit Vernon Coleman I’ll wait

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Vernon Coleman has not been discredited and his claims are backed up by science. Change “his claims have been widely discredited and are considered pseudoscience” to “his claims have been widely discredited by no one apart from Wikipedia without supporting evidence” and change “an English conspiracy theorist” to “an English conspiracy theorist because Wikipedia says so” 2A00:23C5:EB80:9B00:F175:BF5C:E853:59E6 (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:

Please provide peer-reviewed sources to back up your claims. Currently there are approximately 40 independent sources from a wide variety of organisations with no connection to Wikipedia agreeing that Coleman's conspiratorial claims are not backed by scientific proof. MrEarlGray (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No there isn’t and they are backed up by government figures turn the news off and stop talking shit

Please also refrain from using profanities on Wikipedia. MrEarlGray (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Don’t cry and how about you post these sources that discredit him and names of scientists that have debunked his claims, I’ll wait.

== The Norwegian Blue is not a parrot, but the [Monty Python] joke is still relevant and funny. It seems to me to be utterly unreasonable to fact-check all public entertainers, and what's more, it makes us all look like pedants. Excalibur (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent sources added

I've added some sources which describe Coleman's self-published books as "being used to promote anti-vaccine theories". If anyone feels they would be better placed elsewhere move them. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a particular fan of vaccines or boosters: this is not anti science at all: the last one I took gave me a nasty case of shingles. Why not be open minded, and accept that the human immune system is really astonishingly good at beating viruses, in (lets say) 99.99% of cases of virus attacks, and that there are many decent ways of boosting it by eating decent healthy and nutritious foods, not junk food?

You think I can be bothered to engage in an edit war: well no, I cannot be. Every post you make on this topic discredits yourself and this Mighty Organ, and turns it into another vehicle of the system - many people now are disregarding our impartialty, to our greivous loss. You are not by any chance paid for this, are you? -" To aid with impartiality your account contains no bio." Fine: I am, by contrast, a retired NHS Strategic Planning Manager... with a good deal of Public Health training, and I wouldn't feed my dog this experimental Covid vaccine...

Excalibur (talk)

Choosing not to feed your dog the Covid vaccine is a wise choice, because it was developed for humans rather than canines. I'm also not sure why you have quoted my bio, but you're probably no-doubt aware how middle-management was often said to be a misshapen, crippling splint on the National Health Service and given that I thank you for retiring, because your lack of basic medical knowledge and clear ignorance can now no longer be influential within an institution intent on saving lives rather than loosing them. Perhaps now is the time to read some more mainstream books, might I suggest The Oxford Textbook of Medicine 6th ed.? MrEarlGray (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Shock-jock: controversialist : entertainer : NOT a public enemy

I quite like the old codger: he forces people to think, and sometimes he is on the ball, and sometimes he isn't, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to nit-pick entertainers because we don't like their jokes, it is our job to record their relative importance and notability, and Vernon is a popular counter-cultural icon of sorts - as indeed are many other controversial journalists, TV personalities, authors, and broadcasters. By being so hostile and POV, all we do is inflate his importance! Excalibur (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember you also writing: "This article on Vernon is a hatchet job from start to finish: and you know it fine well. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia in that POV form: either he is notable, or he is not. He is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast, not some kind of hard core fanatical conspiracy theorist (whatever that is, presumably someone who disagrees with your own version of the facts)" on my talk page. Once again, please provide impartial sources if you desire for the article to be changed via agreed consensus. MrEarlGray (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

and so I did: like anyone else, I am perfectly entitled to change my mind every week or so should I choose so to do: that is a sign of editorial strength, not weakness. All I am urging editors to do is to be kind: Vernon is not exactly a global threat, is he? Excalibur (talk)

You provided no impartial information, only a rambling rant. An individual whose misinformation has been reported in global sources during a global pandemic may be seen as a global threat. MrEarlGray (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Vernon Coleman (born 18 May 1946) is a former general practitioner, and the author of over 100 books, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[citation needed] He is a militant vegetarian[3] and [4][5]

One of his novels, Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War, has been turned into a movie with the same name.[6]

According to The Independent, Coleman has "been censured by the Press Complaints Commission and banned by the advertising watchdog" and "irritates just about everyone".[7]

Coleman complains that his campaigning has made him many enemies and he has been regularly attacked by large corporations and their spokesmen. According to his website (www.vernoncoleman.com) the book which inspired both complaints (‘Food for Thought’) listed 26 scientific papers proving that meat causes cancer. When the meat industry complained about an article based on the book, and an advertisement for it, both the PCC and the advertising watchdog refused to look at the scientific papers but upheld the complaints.[citation needed]

According to The Independent "Vernon Coleman is many things and he has written books about most of them." "He's frank, fearless and prolific. He's outrageous, outspoken and iconoclastic. A Vernon Coleman book will change your life...and may even save your life."[citation needed](Independent 14 May 2008)

"...our doctor is completely independent, and can afford to stick two fingers up not only at medicine and mainstream publishing but also at Bush, Blair, Lord Hutton, those who want to surrender British sovereignty to a European superstate, the pharmaceutical industry, animal experiments, Dr Atkins, Uncle Tom Cobley and everyone who eats meat. (You have been warned, Mr Blair)"[citation needed]Spectator 6 March 2004 and 20 March 2004)

In 1983 Coleman prepared the text for a series of home doctor programmes for computers.[citation needed] (The Times 29 March 1983, British Medical Journal 8 September 1984, British Medical Journal 27 October 1984)

He was a CSV volunteer in Liverpool in 1964/5 ('Volunteer in Kirkby' - "The Guardian" 14.5.65) In "How to stop your doctor killing you" (1996) he argued that it is the breakdown of the immune system which contributes to the development of cancer. In 1981 he resigned from the NHS after refusing to put diagnoses on sick notes. ('Bumbledom forced me to leave the NHS' - "Pulse" 28.11.81) In 2003 he resigned from The People newspaper after the editor refused to print a column criticising the Iraq War ('Conscientious Objectors' - "Financial Times" 8.8.03)[citation needed] JimmyWolf74 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

== the expression "militant vegetarian" is a bit POV in my humble opinion: perhaps you might consider replacing it with the expression: "an enthusiastic promoter of healthy food that doesn't screw up the planet" ? By the way I am NOT a vegetarian, but neither do I feel the need to beat up those who are. Excalibur (talk)

"...an enthusiastic promoter of healthy food that doesn't screw up the planet" is lacking encyclopedic tone. MrEarlGray (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Excalibur: Can you please skip the chatting and concentrate on improving the article? Nobody here is interested in what you eat or what you think about the subject of the article. See WP:TALK. Also, your formatting stinks. New stuff goes to the bottom, and the "==" thing is for headers. See WP:INDENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Restore all the books and tv series Vernon Coleman has written and been in and remove the bit where he allegedly wrote an article for the scum denying the existence of aids in the 1980s because no one has given an exact date or year and remove “conspiracy theorist” “aids denalist” “pseudoscientific” and “discredited” because he has thousands of scientific papers backing him up which are no match for your 40 you supposedly have😂 or better still remove the protection 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:EDED:47E6:EAFB:4BE9 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources that discredit him and that make him a conspiracy theorist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:B5B3:2FAF:B135:94B5 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Already done. See the sources used in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased Article

I'm a fan of Vernon Coleman and as a result I actually have previous versions of his Wikipedia page. Over recent years I have seen this page change greatly from one of summarizing the man and the positives and negatives of his life and career. This is called being unbiased and fair. However, what I have seen recently on this page is an attack on the man. He has done a lot of good throughout his life, but where is this mentioned in this page? This is why I don't rate Wikipedia. You sell it as though anyone can edit and contribute and yet if I edited this page and added some positives about Vernon Coleman's contribution to the debate, I know they would be deleted. The people editing this page have a hidden agenda. Where is the list of his more than 100 published books? Where is the list of his medical qualifications, as is done on other Wikipedia pages? etc etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not usually list over 100 books. Excerpts, containing the most important ones, are fine. If you have reliable sources about any "medical qualifications", bring them.

We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. When reliable sources say mainly bad things about someone, Wikipedia will not try to mislead its readers by pretending that the good/bad ratio is 50/50. That would be dishonest. You want the article to be dishonest? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia will not try to mislead its readers by pretending that the good/bad ratio is 50/50. That would be dishonest." Eh? You don't want an unbiased article? What? Why does presenting an unbiased article have to be "pretending"? Why would showing both sides to an issue or person be considered "dishonest"? What a nutty stance to hold. It's like saying presenting both sides of the Brexit Referendum would have been "pretending and dishonest". You need to rethink your moral code. I see others have raised the point in this discussion area about a direct attack on Coleman, and they are right. "Excerpts, containing the most important ones, are fine." --> They are all there on his 2 websites and Amazon. "If you have reliable sources about any "medical qualifications", bring them." --> They are all there on his 2 websites.

If you disagree with WP:FALSEBALANCE, this is not the place to discuss it. The right place is Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. But you will not succeed because changing that guideline would be a really stupid and absurd idea that has been rejected before.

His website is not a reliable source. Neither is Amazon. See WP:RS. If you disagree with WP:RS, the right place is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not here. But read the FAQ at the top first. And if you still want to change the rule to include unreliable sources: again, you will not succeed because changing that guideline would be a really stupid and absurd idea that has been rejected before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"you will not succeed" --> which you sate twice. You sound like some sort of authoritarian judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. "really stupid and absurd idea" --> Yes Mein Fuhrer. "His website is not a reliable source" --> Not a reliable source for a summary of his own books! Really! "want to change the rule" --> who wants to change Wikipedia's somewhat questionable rules. All I indicated at was listing some/all of his 100+ books, which used to be included but removed by someone or some body with a hidden agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC) I expected this kind of response from Wikipedia and it moderators, some of which are a little dubious. The article still remains highly biased and a character assassination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, learn to sign your posts. Secondly, instead of calling everybody Nazis, why dont you try being polite, and proposing some changes based on wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. You might be surprised, and I doubt anybody will be motivated to help you after your behaviour here. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Firstly, learn to sign your posts" --> I don't think so as I have no interest in joining Wikipedia. "instead of calling everybody Nazis" --> I did not call EVERYBODY a Nazi - read the post. The rest is just petty and dodging the underlying issue, which still remains unresolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You are concentrating on the wrong part of that response. The relevant part is try being polite, and proposing some changes based on wikipedia Policy and Guidelines.

You did not do that. You refuse to follow the rules or even try to understand them. That is your problem, not ours. I generously added signatures to your contributions, but don't expect people to keep cleaning up after you like that. Your next responses misusing this page as a forum will just be deleted. Go to a chatroom for puking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Wikipedia, are we seriously suggesting that this man changed so much in two years?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vernon_Coleman&diff=1062975880&oldid=933840308 --81.204.112.85 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really, but I think the current version is a great improvement over your example, we've done a great job catching up with reality, rather than the massaged version you present. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"rather than the massaged version you present" --> Are you working for Google or the government in doing a character assassination on Coleman? The Wikipedia page on Dr Coleman is way too one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither Google nor Government, I'm just messing with your head. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Autarch (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A Similar Story of Bias and Attack on Dr Vernon Coleman on "History of cross-dressing"

I couldn't help but notice the similarly poorly written article "History of cross-dressing" and the continued character assassination of Dr Vernon Coleman. I have also added several points on that article's Talk page and will not repeat them here. Wikipedia is in danger of making libelous accusations against Dr Vernon Coleman and claims in writing that are not backed up and removed when challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

As reported in The Independent: "Last Year Vernon Coleman came out as a transvestite. He published a book, Men In Dresses, which he rather grandly promoted as a European Medical Journal Special Report, in which he described himself as "someone who has gained great relief from stress by crossdressing... Dressing up in women's clothing is, he tells me, "relatively new. It happened by accident, just fooling around, and I discovered it was relaxing. I have a theory - it's obvious really - that we all have a bit of man and a bit of woman in us, and during the last few generations it's become easier for women to express the masculine side of the person, but men who have any sort of feminine part have to repress it. The urge to succeed, compete, be the best, diminishes. I notice I change: it's an excuse to become softer. I don't become so upset and cross about things.". You can read the article here https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/doctor-on-the-make-1303622.html MrEarlGray (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Coleman himself would believe that reference to his cross-dressing is libellous. It is a rather endearing, humanising, feature (think how much of a national treasure Grayson Perry has become) that he freely acknowledges. You appear to have made up your mind about this article in advance without looking at the available reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that comparing Grayson Perry with Vernon Coleman is a bit chalk and cheesy, dont you think? Roxy the dog. wooF 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"You appear to have made up your mind about this article in advance" --> That is incorrect. Wikipedia has it in for Dr Coleman and the article as a whole is poorly written. As an overview of Dr Coleman and his extensive writings, this article is in fact laughable. It is completely one-sided. "It is a rather endearing, humanising, feature (think how much of a national treasure Grayson Perry has become) that he freely acknowledges." --> This is pure speculation and takes someone with a degree of arrogance to state such. Ask Coleman if he believes references to him on Wikipedia are "endearing and humanising". In relation to his own page he writes on his own website [1]: "... As a result of his video, his Wikipedia page was deliberately and dramatically changed by government employees and used to 'monster' him. All his lifetime achievements were removed. Without any evidence or justification he was, among other things, labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' and said to be 'widely discredited'. Google, which works with Wikipedia, reproduced the lies in an attempt to discredit him, so that nobody would believe his warnings. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That argument falls down at the phrase "without any evidence". Loads of evidence is presented in the Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Vernon Coleman is not a conspiracy theorist - he is a medical practioner of many years standing who knows what he's talking about unlike the so called experts advising the uk government. Please stop spreading lies and misinformation AndyGz1136 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: seems pretty well sourced Cannolis (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Vernon Coleman and COVID denial

This is the same Dr. Vernon Coleman, yes? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

revert to last known stable version per WP:BIO

The subject of this article is complaining of unfair treatment on Wikipedia. This seems to be the case. Reverting to before the Covid-19 events, as this is more neutral and more in respect of the guideline of WP:BIO.

--Mick2 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I was considering issuing you a vandalism warning for that edit. I've reverted your whitewash, please dont do it again or I will issue a warning. - Roxy the English speaking dog 17:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19 denial

Vernon has never denied the existence of covid-19 he has simply stated it is as deadly as the flu and he is a vegetarian also he has never denied aids and did not write this article in the 1980s 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:1C14:FD43:A594:7D0F (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"[H]e has simply stated it is as deadly as the flu"? Likening the vaccines with WWII war crimes is a bit more than that.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

He has referred to the virus as the "rebranded 'flu" on many occasions, since the official statistics clearly do not show that some unusually potent virus came along wiping out many times more people than a regular winter 'flu season. At the same time, if we are to believe the official figures the regular old 'flu practically disappeared. The question of the so-called vaccines is a different matter, but the frequent and horrific side effects which were known about very soon after testing started (if not before) coupled with numerous governments around the world not only refusing to withdraw the shots but continuing to promote them does, indeed, rank as a crime to those of us who can see what is really going on. 72.204.13.203 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

[H]e has never denied aids"? From Dr. Coleman's own website: "'Does AIDS actually exist?' ... I suspect that the answer is that it doesn't."   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

New article about Coleman

Vernon Coleman: how the Pandemic has brought some unpleasant people new fame, focusing on his COVID conspiracy nonsense. The Skeptic is the UK's oldest specialist publication on pseudoscience and other fringe claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really conspiracy nonsense when not one journalist, tv presenter or media doctor will have him on or debate with him. I think you should stop listening to media lies and the conspirators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.206.188 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's precisely because he peddles conspiracy nonsense that journalists, tv presenters or media doctors will not have him on or debate with him. He's simply not important enough. I also don't have such people falling over themselves to debate with me, although I base my statements on fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, if they really believe that Dr. Coleman is talking nonsense and they could debunk everything he was saying easily, why not take him up on his offer of a debate and do so? That way they could expose him as being the snakeoil doctor they claim him to be. Or could it be that they are afraid of losing the argument? 72.204.13.203 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

An angry debate will only cement the ideas, and open ridicule is even less constructive.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Put simply, nobody wants to be Bill Nye to Vernon Coleman's Ken Ham.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If those criticizing Dr. Coleman really believe that they could completely debunk everything he claims with ease, why will none of them take up his challenge of an open debate? If they genuinely believe he is a charlatan whose ideas can be debunked with ease, why not do it and put and end to the matter in just a few short minutes? The only reason for refusing to debate with him is because they know full well that he is right. 72.204.13.203 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum. It is for improving the article.

But verbal exchanges mean that one can prepare obscure bullshit beforehand to which a response is difficult to find quickly. See Gish gallop. Even if one has a response, it will take much longer than the bullshit itself. See Brandolini's law. Written exchanges are more useful to find out which side really has the better arguments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Mucormycosis and Masks

Long before Dhriti Kamdar's article which Wikipedia cites as being a source of misinformation, the Spencer Unit (specialising in eye procedures) at the William Harvey Hospital in Kent, England was warning patients NOT to wear masks for 24 hours after ocular injections for macular degeneration. This was following a rise in incidences of mucormycosis, a potentially dangerous condition requiring extra treatment of its own. Clients were handed printed instructions and explanations for this (exhaled breath was being breathed straight up into the newly treated eye through the top gap of the mask). Those clients who immediately needed to attend other departments in the hospital were provided with plastic visor masks which would prevent both projection of droplets and upward movement of exhalation.

It's disappointing that, in the interest of criticising everything about Vernon Malone, this fact has been debunked, inadvertently making Wikipedia a peddler of misinformation. 31.124.216.171 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for any of that? And please pay Coleman the courtesy of getting his name right. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman - how could I be so lax? I recommend the writer/editor of the article intensifies their research by phoning the Reception of the aforesaid unit and enquire about post-eye injection protocol. Google offers a direct number, and here is their contact page for convenience:

https://www.spencerprivatehospitals.com/contact/

Hope this helps.

The public deserve better than to be offered sweeping assertions that have not been responsibly verified. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.216.171 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So, no reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A hospital is a reliable source, but I forgot you people are not allowed to do your own research. Life is tough, eh, and Wikipedia continues to fall short. 95.144.164.151 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. A hospital is not a reliable source.

If you want something in the article which cannot be found in any reliable source, publish it in a reliable source first. Then we can add it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)