Talk:John Maddox

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The 1983 AIDS article

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm sensing an WP:UNDUE problem with this. 1983 is very early on in the history of AIDS research, and it's entirely reasonable to suspect that Maddox changed his mind as time passed (I've seen suggestions that this is so, though no outright statement I can attribute to him). A quick search shows that this article is commonly cited by AIDS denialist authors. I don't know about deleting the passage but I would suggest that it doesn't tell the whole story. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think your concern is more WP:BALASPS (WP:UNDUE refers to giving undue weight from third parties). My view is that this section should stay because it is notable, and if you find references to John Maddox changing his views then these could be added - even if they are from others. (Peter Ells (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC))Reply

Changing his ways? He was right, it isn't the black death, research continues to alleviate the issue constantly. No alarmism needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.225.177 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. This is a cherry picked primary sources. Looking for secondary sources (which we should of course be basing our article on) they tell a different story. I have replaced the section and upgraded the sourcing accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Expanded detail on Sheldrake editorial

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've expanded the detail on this editorial somewhat. I hope in a balanced way. I've improved the link (cut and paste from the Rupert Sheldrake page) so that the original editorial can be seen. (Peter Ells (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC))Reply

The Balance of the whole Page

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In order to get the balance of the entire page correct, the Career section needs to be expanded. At the moment it's a stub plus two controversies. (Peter Ells (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC))Reply

Add topic