Content deleted Content added
AED (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
Line 6: Line 6:
:''On reflection, I thought I'd better point out the obvious - Selig Amoils provided the same biographical details to Innovative Excimer Solutions and myself - copying? I don't think so. [[User:Paul venter|Paul venter]] 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)''
:''On reflection, I thought I'd better point out the obvious - Selig Amoils provided the same biographical details to Innovative Excimer Solutions and myself - copying? I don't think so. [[User:Paul venter|Paul venter]] 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)''
The subject's own website and personal e-mails do not meet the criteria in [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -[[User:AED|AED]] 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The subject's own website and personal e-mails do not meet the criteria in [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -[[User:AED|AED]] 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

==Professional collusion==
"How can we be angry with the plaintiff’s lawyers when in many cases our so-called colleagues are undermining our profession? I believe there are some “experts” who will testify to anything as long as they are paid their $5,000- to $10,000-a-day fee."
This sort of rabid POV should have no place in Wikipedia. From what I understand, the author of these sentiments feels that medical men should show loyalty to and support of each other, and that ethical issues should not cause a break in the ranks. This sort of attitude simply perpetuates the public perception that when things go wrong in the medical profession, colleagues cannot be expected to tell the truth. [[User:Paul venter|Paul venter]] 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:38, 19 October 2006

Sources

I have again removed the information copied from http://www.innovativexcimer.com/about.htm. The creator of the article wrote on my talk page:

Information on career received from Selig Amoils via an email - does this count? Paul venter 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I thought I'd better point out the obvious - Selig Amoils provided the same biographical details to Innovative Excimer Solutions and myself - copying? I don't think so. Paul venter 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's own website and personal e-mails do not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -AED 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional collusion

"How can we be angry with the plaintiff’s lawyers when in many cases our so-called colleagues are undermining our profession? I believe there are some “experts” who will testify to anything as long as they are paid their $5,000- to $10,000-a-day fee." This sort of rabid POV should have no place in Wikipedia. From what I understand, the author of these sentiments feels that medical men should show loyalty to and support of each other, and that ethical issues should not cause a break in the ranks. This sort of attitude simply perpetuates the public perception that when things go wrong in the medical profession, colleagues cannot be expected to tell the truth. Paul venter 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No tags for this post.