Talk:Celia Farber

Untitled

Hmm, not surprised that my version was reverted without discussion -- the usual tactic of the PC crowd trying to slant things their way. So I've reverted back. And will keep doing so until good reasons are given by those who prefer the other version...[AT] 8 May, 2006

Okay - added some language for balance. It's nice that someone took the time to put together an article on Farber, but to totally ignore the fact that her assertions about HIV & AIDS are out of step with almost 100% of the medical professionals in the world is ridiculous.

Heh..."almost" 100%. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.56.165 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-05 19:02:24 (UTC)

Sure, the medical professionals could be wrong - and Farber goes to great lengths to present her best case in her many articles. But to do a wiki on her, mentioning all her creds as a sceptic, with absolutely zero links or reference to the issue she aims her scepticism at, is beyond bizarre.

--69.214.216.68 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Intellectual dishonesty is the norm for Farber and other AIDS denialists." Errors in Celia Farber's March 2006 article in Harper's Magazine, Robert Gallo MD, Nathan Geffen, Gregg Gonsalves, Richard Jefferys, Daniel R. Kuritzkes MD, Bruce Mirken, John P. Moore PhD, Jeffrey T. Safrit PhD,"

Robert Gallo accusing Celia Farber of intellectual dishonesty!! That's a hoot! It's gonna take me a couple hours to get off the floor after laughing. You really outdid yourself this time, Nun-huh (or whatever your name is...) Thank you for putting a quote about Farber in there, and thank you for providing a quote that makes Gallo look so obviously like the enormous, egomaniacal, psychotic, ass he really is. Revolver 07:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to have made you so happy. -- Nunh-huh 01:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice you didn't deny my statement about Gallo. You must have read Science Fictions too. Revolver 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to believe that I agree with every statement you make which I haven't denied—if you want me to even entertain the thought that you care what I think on the subject—if that's the kind of logic and rhetorical posturing you choose to practice—and if you want to think you've made a "statement" about Gallo rather than about yourself, well... that's your prerogative<G> . - Nunh-huh 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I take it back, clearly you haven't read Science Fictions. (I'm assuming you even know what book I'm talking about.) And anyone who has read that book or knows even the slightest thing about Gallo as either a scientist or a person would know how incredibly hypocritical it is for HIM, of all people, to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty. There are 2 possibilities — either someone knows who Gallo really is, in which case, my statement merely reaffirms what they already know, or else they're completely ignorant about him, in which case ignorance is bliss. But such is the case in the world of AIDS... Revolver 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I DO care what you think on the subject — esp. when you insert quotes into articles which are so...I don't know, there's no accurate word, except maybe...Orwellian, yeah that's the right word. Revolver 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You seemed to be having trouble locating a quotation that illustrated the fact that Farber's writing is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous. That's probably because she's a somewhat obscure figure and irrelevant to serious discussion about AIDS. I'm happy I was able to provide one for you. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey kids, want to join a research area where you can lie, steal, and commit fraud, and still be considered a "world-renowned" researcher?? You got it. Revolver 11:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Edited to eliminate POV and give both sides -- the dissenters and the orthodox view. [AT] 2 May 2006

We have, yet another, AIDS denialist attempting to whitewash. Supaflyrobby (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

       RfC will resolve this if necessary, but I am hopeful that is not necessary.

Supaflyrobby, if I am the person you are calling an "AIDS denialist", I would like you to remember several things. One is that believing that an article about a living person should not be written to attack or discredit that person does not necessarily mean agreeing with that person's views on any subject (it's thus foolish to make assumptions about what I believe about AIDS based on my edits here). Another is that Wikipedia has policies such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, since you insist, we will bring an RFC, and your aids denial will go away via official channels.

Upholding WP:BLP, and otherwise insisting on simple fairness to the subjects of biographical articles, is not "aids denial." Oh, and by the way, you should remember to sign your comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

Elaborating on credentials, even if that person's assertions are dismissed by the medical community (which is called "orthodox"), reeks like POV pushing. Further, deleting large parts of the articel without discussions looks a bit unreasonable. Nomen Nescio 11:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

^^ You should acquaint yourself with the fallacy of "appeal to authority"; you are the one pushing POV by assuming that the authoritative view is the correct one (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and many other scientists would disagree). The mainstream scientific view is widely publicized. The views and credentials of the dissenters are not. Not telling both sides of the story is committing another fallacy called "special pleading". I am not explaining future reversions, since you people are clearly acting in bad faith...[AT] 19 May, 2006

Note

It may or may not be worth noting in this article that Celia Farber is the daughter of Barry Farber, talk show and, lately, infomercial host. 72.224.249.248 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) I think it is significant as he is labelled conservative in the USA and we know that means no compassion when it comes to HIV and AIDS. Importantly, she is not the daughter of highly respected scientist of tobacco harm, Emmanuel Farber. Link needs to be added.Ericglare (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotes section

I'd propose removing the entire "Quotes" section. It's gotten way too long, and I think rather than chip away or quote or two it should just be removed. If a particular quote is especially relevant, it could be cited in the body of the article. MastCell 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Since a neutrality tag has been added, can we get a summary of what, exactly, appears to violate the neutral-point-of-view policy? The tag refers us to discussion on the talk page, but I see none as of yet. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe she won the Semmelweis Award in 2008 along with Duesberg. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Update to Lede

I am not sure the emphasis is placed on what Farber is mostly notable for in the last 2 decades, and that is clearly the promotion of AIDS denialism. Granted that early in her career she covered a wider range of topics, but reliable sources all say essentially the same thing; namely that she primarily promotes quackery,pathological science, and woo. Psychologist Seth Kalichman gives notable detail to Farber in his book "Denying AIDS" and in the peer reviewed journal 'AIDS and Behavior'. The lede should certainly make mention of her earlier work, but it should also reflect what the weight of reliable sources have to say about her notability/infamy. Thoughts? Am I off base here? --Supaflyrobby (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Supaflyrobby, regarding the disputed material in the lead (the statement about how Farber has "been particularly noted for her unsubstantiated and potentially harmful beliefs about HIV and AIDS"), I suggest that it would be a good idea to take this to the BLP noticeboard. I will make no further objections to including that material if you can show that consensus supports it. Without demonstrated consensus, you definitely should not be edit-warring to restore contentious BLP material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I can naturally file an RFC, which you will lose, but I am hoping that is not necessary. Frankly, Aids denial types are a waste of time for any editor, as I am sure my counterparts will agree with. Either tag the article appropriately, or you will get an RFC that you will lose. Please stop advocating for AIDS denial.

You should stop insulting other editors, making unfounded assumptions about their beliefs (I have never said that HIV does not cause AIDS), or offering false characterizations of their edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Something else you should stop doing is altering my comments without my consent, as you did here. If I want to use the word "unfounded", I will. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments/debate my edit has generated. I am hoping consensus can be reached without any of the personal attacks I have seen on Wikipedia. Of course, we're all entitled to our own beliefs (even Celia Farber, I might say), but we should be able to reach a consensus without mud-slinging. I suppose if one feels a NEED to modify "beliefs" in the opening paragraph of this article with an adjective, perhaps "controversial" might be more appropriate than "unsubstantiated" and (potentially) "harmful." In the reference for the edit in question, I saw no mention of Ms. Farber's beliefs being unsubstantiated or potentially harmful. I believe whoever put those adjectives in in the first place, made a bad edit. In closing, let me say I am not implying by the edit I made that I either agree or disagree with Celia Farber's beliefs. That is not the point; good journalism is.Ray Jameson (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is no source stating that Farber's views are unsubstantiated or potentially harmful, then it clearly violates WP:BLP to include such a claim in the article. It's unfortunate that any editor would restore a BLP violation, let alone edit war to do so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, FreeKnowledgeCreator, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately...especially if potentially libelous." Also, editors such as one who made second comment in this section, should sign their comments.Ray Jameson (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celia Farber. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=3887&IssueNum=157

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celia Farber. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211132229/http://www.salon.com/june97/spin4970609.html to http://www.salon.com/june97/spin4970609.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)