Talk:Arthur Caplan
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
COI? edit
Most of the edits to this page seem to come from BTH-BIOET-*.med.upenn.edu; the subject is head of bioethics at Penn Med...
PENN MED!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.119.58 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Falun Gong edit
The Falun Gong info was deleted by a single subject editor claiming it was out of date. I restored the Falun Gong section because what Caplan said in 2012 is still important in 2015.
Maybe someone should check the other 29 August edits done by this editor. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It's important, but it's not well integrated into this article, and the quote given isn't particularly good. I've replaced the section with relevant content and a new quote integrated into the section about his work. I'm working on a general cleanup of the article, which has a number of issues. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Lawsuit dismissed without merit edit
"The suit was subsequently dismissed as without merit." There are four references following this statement. I couldn't find any mention of the suit being dismissed without merit in any of them. 174.23.106.241 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, that statement was factually incorrect as well as unsupported by any of the four sources. I corrected the statement and added a cite which supports it (one of the preexisting cites- the law journal article- also supports it) Here is the text after my edit: “The family’s suit was settled with the University for an undisclosed amount of money, in exchange for, among other things, dropping Caplan from the suit. [9][10] The federal government’s suit on the same facts was settled for $500,000. JustinReilly (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
COVID-19 claim & COI edit
I've originally responded to User:EthicsMatters on my talk page, but further discussion should be carried out here. EthicsMatters has an actual COI per the message he left on my page, and has contributed to a fair portion of this page. The article will need further rewriting for WP:NPOV.
The phrase that EthicsMatters repeatedly adds into the lead, claiming that "Caplan is helping devise policies for many hospitals, companies, organizations, and health systems to allocate resources in conditions of scarcity during the Covid-19 pandemic" and includeds two sources from the Washington Post and LA Times. Neither, however, mention any specific work Caplan is doing in terms of COVID-19 response, including no mention of any hospitals, companies, organizations, and health systems specifically during this epidemic. All we learn is that Caplan works with NYU, and we get Caplan's commentary on the crisis, but not what he actually did. The phrase has been removed for now unless a better source can be found. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 19:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)