Talk:Leonard Coldwell

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

article

I thought it was about time this gentleman had a page of his own.--Longdog (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The prose is extremely long-winded unnecessarily hyperbolic. The "snark" is simply childish. The article is rife with unsourced statements of fact, some of which might actually be defamatory. Even were the subject of this hatchet job not litigious, this site owes him a duty to be truthful. I find it especially unsettling that the article mocks him for defending himself, however ineptly, as it if was written by someone disconnected from the reality that (a) these things piss people off, and (b) the internet is obviously populated by human beings. Without decent sourcing, especially for strong claims like that he's a quack (hint: a source is not your opinion, Longdog), this article needs to be so extensively rewritten that I would suggest deleting it. It's not worth anyone's effort to rewrite this person's florid screed. Faraday Cage (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I was actually being wary of giving this duplicitous little quack's own websites any more attention than they already get and it does seem Coldwell is reasonably adept at massaging Google searches to get his own sites well up the ratings. If there are any specific statements you would like me to back up with sources then I am quite ready, willing and able to do so if needs be. If there are any specific claims you have problems with then please let me know on here and I will add the citations and / or references needed. I can assure you there is nothing 'defamatory' in anything I have written and his 'litigious' nature would only be a problem if what I had written was false... It isn't. I am quite happy to re-write anything that needs re-writing but please be specific.--Longdog (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, someone just cited it on Twitter. So, nice one having created it - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems 'somebody' is pretty determined to get rid of this article. I notice the 1st Dec edit includes... "please put on wiki page thx sis Sunday, August 24, 2014 2:34 PM Mark as Unread Flag this message From: "Dr Leonard Coldwell" To: "Sarah Barendse" ". A Google search for Sarah Barendse lists this informative page... Also I note the BoN IP from 29 Nov resolves to Charlotte South Carolina where a certain German born 'doctor' just happens to live. Cooincidence I'm sure.Longdog (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Longdog, it is my sincere hope that you or your parents own property. That "somebody" was either Leonard Coldwell or his lawyer. Coldwell appears to have been rolled back and vandal binned by a RationalWiki editor. His attorney appears to have been rolled back by a RationalWiki editor. Of course, neither the RMF nor RW nor any individual officers or directors has any liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for what you miscreants do. Individual RationalWiki editors do. But you RationalWiki editors need to be aware that paper does not refuse ink. Coldwell has filed a frivolous lawsuit against Trent and RW. Frivolous or not, it is a lawsuit. Lawsuits require a defense. Because of RationalWiki editors. I wonder why some of you assholes think this is a joke, something to debate, or something to devise a legal policy on behalf a someone else for. It is a damn crying shame that this site's culture of entitlement has gotten so deeply entrenched that some of you assholes actually fight for your perceived entitlement to defame people and pretend you speak for the corporation that owns this site. It has no liability for your nonsense. But it and every individual who has served on the board or as an officer is subject to being frivolously sued because you dipshits think you're entitled. Fuck you. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nutty: Longdog hasn't edited this article since September last year. An infinite block for a genuine mistake seems a bit much. Scream!! (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK... It looks like I'm back so thanks to whoever revoked the block.

I was going to write a long post directed at Nutty Roux, his cavalier attitude to the blocking guidelines and his incomprehensible post but on reflection I really can't be bothered to extend any courtesy him when he showed none to me. So rather than stoop to his level and wear out the 'F', 'U', 'C' and 'K' keys I'll just say "And the same to you with knobs on".Longdog (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It speaks badly to your sense of empathy if the anger of being blocked prevents you from seeing why he did and said what he did. You and I both made some serious mistakes here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? What have we (or me at least) done wrong? As far as I can see Nutty is working on the assumption that the article was edited by Coldwell, his 'lawyer' or his 'attorney' but I see nothing to support that claim. The edits from whoever it was were appallingly amateurish and nothing more than cut and paste hagiographies from elsewhere. If they were the work of a lawyer then all I can say is he must be a really, really bad one. Obviously I am biased because I wrote most of the article and it's 'my baby' to a certain extent but I can see nothing in it which is actionable and unless we are saying that an article will be deleted at the first threat of legal action no matter how unwarranted. This isn't the only article on here which calls fraudulent quacks to account. Is it going to be the case that any of the quacks, frauds and charlatans who have an uncomplimentary article on here can get them deleted just by saying the word 'lawyer'?

Can anybody (other than Nutty Roux) confirm or deny that Coldwell has either brought an action against RW or at least threatened to? I can believe he's threatened to because that's his standard MO but has he actually done so?Longdog (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't "confirm" it in the evidence-based sense, but I will say "Why would he lie?" Do you think Nutty has some personal attachment to Coldwell or something? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Given his behaviour over this I wouldn't like to speculate why he does anything. His blocking of me was totally uncalled for and a flagrant breach of the guide-lines (yes I am still pissy about that) and his claim that the article had likely / possibly / maybe been edited by Coldwell's lawyers is totally without foundation as anybody can see just by looking at the fossil record so why he does anything is anybody's guess. Given that the only person who has apparently heard of this lawsuit is him and there is no mention anywhere else on this site that I can find and Coldwell is not crowing about it (which past history suggests he would do) I really don't see any reason to believe it exists... But I'm open to offers... Longdog (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I can confirm that I have seen items that indicate that Coldwell has a suit against a member of the RMF for this article, but the lawsuit isn't your fault either. Seems the Coldwell fellow is litigious anyway, from research done; he'll drop a lawsuit on you if you so much breathe "Coldwell is a REAL LIVE DOCTOR!". But never mind Nutty; he sees this article, the people who wrote it, and FCP as the Source Of All Woes For His RW Bros, and by bro he means Bruce, as he gives no shits about anyone else. I'd...try not to take it personally and just treat the action with the contempt it deserves. --Castaigne (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not in a position to convince you, but you're wrong. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Tread carefully in this article

I have some legal experience here (granted, as an investigator and not as a lawyer). We need to be careful about throwing around terms like con-artist or quack.These sorts of terms may seem like fun, but unless there is evidence to back their usage (con artists, for example, are people who have been convictedof a crime), they can easily find themselves as grounds for defamation lawsuits. Same goes with the term "scam." Old guard (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Goodness gracious!! This article, in its current state, smacks of character assassination. This Wiki would be wise to clean it up. I'm no defender of Coldwell, but the Wiki really needs to be careful with how it treats, even, woo-meisters who appear to be practicing healthcare professionals. Even a chiropractor would have grounds to sue if you outright called them a quack without more evidence outside of the fact that chiropractic is unproven. Old guard (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If Coldwell were a 'qualified' chiropractor then you might have a point but he's not even that. He has no medical qualifications whatsoever and the nearest he has to a legitimate reason to award himself the title 'Doctor' is an honorary doctorate in humanities from a dodgy bible college. He even admits on his German website that he is not a doctor and claims that it's nothing to do with him what other people call him even though he refers to himself as 'doctor'. This guy has consistently and deliberately portrayed himself not only as a medical doctor but as a world leading expert on cancer when he quite clearly is neither. Longdog (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So what? That's a minute point when compared to a lot of the other issues with this article. Old guard (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

deleting irrelevant unprovable text

I deleted a single sentence because: a) there's no evidence supporting it; b) it can't be cited without showing that the entire internet lacks this crucial fact; c) it doesn't add anything that's crucial for persuasion; d) the main point of the sentence is made more generically in the prior paragraph (and with less need for citations); e) the {{fact}} tag is annoying and can easily be dispensed with; f) facts and provable points matter, especially on RW. MarmotHead (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment

This article really needs some cleanup 94.213.59.113 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)