Talk:Elizabeth Whelan

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Hello all,
I am planning on doing a rewrite of this page. I'll keep anything worth keeping, but there's a lot that should be added so I'm going to reword a lot, probably. If anyone has anything to contribute, please post it here.
Thanks, Geneocide (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to reading what you come up with.Sgerbic (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, everything that is in the present article is worth keeping, as it is sourced with 1st tier archival publications. Please add new, relevant content or rearrange what's there, but please do not delete any of the present content or sources. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm done. I think you'll be satisfied Agricola44. I kept much of what was present, especially if it was sourced. Some of it got moved around a bit. Issues I didn't resolve:

How many books she published. The New York Times says 23 and the Washington Post says 27, so I settled for "more than 20". Regardless I couldn't find them all listed anywhere.
I feel my "Criticism" section is a little short. This is partly because most criticism of Whelan might be better leveled at the ACSH, so it's hard to tell which page it belongs on. It is also because the criticism is often poorly sourced. It is easy to find criticizing quotes, but not an original source of such quotes. I also heard tale of some of Whelan's responses to critics, but similarly couldn't find them well sourced. I would have liked to include them, otherwise.
Miscellaneous basic info. Date of her wedding, high school attended, hobbies, etc.

Geneocide (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the sceptic movement.[edit]

Many of ACSHs scientific advisors spread ACSHs views in the sceptical movement. S Barrett and S. Novella to mention only two them. Maybe some can give a complete list to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.192.165 (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Whelan. 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/20150309225313/http://acsh.org:80/2003/12/where-did-acsh-come-from/ to http://acsh.org/2003/12/where-did-acsh-come-from/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

Whelan’s articles in professional and “lay” publications are included in one large number. How many peer reviewed articles did she publish? Nicmart (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This is an incredibly biased and unfair entry. It's totally unworthy of Wikipedia. Just for example, there is in fact no evidence that Love Canal caused birth defects, but the article makes it look like Whelan was making it up. I have no status here, so I know any changes I would to make would just be undone, but whomever is in charge of this article should be ashamed. 2600:4040:4523:F200:F4EF:A339:44F2:EFF5 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to find reliable sources saying that she was right. Your own opinion about it does not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]