Talk:Richard Doll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: In the current entry on Richard Doll, it says: German researchers had established this association in the 1930s, although that work was not widely appreciated until recently (Robert Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer, 1999). Yet a review of this book in the BMJ of 11 March 2000 says: Indeed, as early as 1936 - the year that the young Richard Doll was attending the lectures in Frankfurt of the SS radiologist Professor Hans Holfelder - they had gathered sufficient statistical evidence to prove the cancerous hazards of what they labelled "passive smoking" (passivraucher). If this is indeed the case, it would suggest that Doll knew a great deal about, and perhaps also appreciated, Nazi research into smoking, long before his post-war researches. However, Doll's Independent obituary says: The growing failure of capitalism pushed Doll further to the left - he described himself as a "democratic Communist" - and while still a student he walked part of the way with the Jarrow marchers in 1936, treating the bruised and blistered crusaders. Did Doll both study in Frankfurt under Holfelder, and also join the Jarrow marches?--Idlex 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (edit)

[edit] Copyvio

Sigh. User:81.152.252.239 "helped" by pasting in contents of the BBC link ([1]) into the article. I've reverted it, but naturally it's still in the article history. I forget what we do about these problems these days; in olden times we'd have to delete the article, but has the promised "delete one version" feature actually appeared yet? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation Part II

It would be great to paste the contents of today's (12/08/2006) Newspapers articles about his role as a paid consultant to major chemical industries guilty of horrible crimes and several unhealthy practices. So the man was indeed a cynical money taker and an impostor. Bye, bye, criminal whitewasher! I hope his widow is enjoying very much the money he left her!

Err yes...--86.20.247.36 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent newspaper articles.

added a paragraph that puts the latest controversy in some context + mentions the view of his (many) defenders. In response to the invective above, it should be pointed out that Richard Doll's wife predeceased him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.211.105 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Doll and payments

I was the source of the Sir Richard Doll stories in both the Guardian and on the Today programme and while we can establish that the £50,000 donation from the Asbestos company Turner and Newall, was paid as Doll said, "in appreciation of work I undertook on their behalf" to Green College Oxford, the various payments referred to from Monsanto, Dow and the Chemical Manufacturers' Association and indeed previous and subsequent subsequent payments from Turner and Newall to Doll were paid to Doll personally and in secret and were never disclosed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberdi (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sir" Richard

The naming convention cited by User:Peter Isotalo applies to the titles of articles, not the lead paragraphs . This guideline has: "The opening paragraph should give...Name(s) and title(s), if any" I propose to revert the lead paragraph in accord with this.--Old Moonraker 08:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do we insist on this type of overly silly respect for British peers? It smacks of haughtiness and nobilitycruft and does not strike me as being consistent with NPOV. Titles like "Dr." or "General" are discouraged, with good reason, but at least they're actually a sign of actual achievement. "Sir" is really mostly about being a member of the biggest club for grownup boys in the world.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really a matter of accuracy and trying to keep the encyclopaedia an authoritative source, as well as conforming to WP practice and guidleines. By the way, a knighthood is an earned honour and has nothing to do with the peerage. It's a bit like the Swedish Order of the Polar Star. --Old Moonraker 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Authoritative would mean mentioning it in the body of the article, not insisting on keeping it before the bolded title. It looks like undue weight and an obvious British POV to me. And let's not mince words here; endless peerage title detail in leads is so obviously something that is being forced on the readership by a small minority of enthusiasts.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change in language

The article states: he was the first in the modern world to prove that smoking caused lung cancer and increased the risk of heart disease.

This really should be changed to state: he was the first in the modern world to link smoking with lung cancer and an increased risk of heart disease.

Anyone have a major objection to this?

Naacats 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly this point needs another look but there is no doubt, based on the citations in the article and on the works in the bibliography, that Doll proved the issue, and did not merely state it. Any other interpretation would be wrong. However, research in Germany in the 1930s, before Doll, came to the same conclusion but is not widely cited because of ethical concerns over the samples. I will research this and incorporate it if I can find the information; if not I'll attach an {{expert}} tag to the statement in the hope that someone else who knows about it will drop by. --Old Moonraker 07:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Doll's position on passive smoking

If it is perhaps true that anti-smoking groups were upset by Richard Doll's declaration to the BBC, when he said "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me", he has afterwards clarified his position on this question. In a contribution to a report from the British Medical Association, published in February 2005, Sir Doll stated:

As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.
The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke.

(See Medical News Today, 9 February 2005)

Therefore, there is no controversy over this issue, and to cite the first declaration without the second fails to fullfil Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As the two statements combined show that the question has been settled and that there is no controversy, there is no justification for including this point in the Controversy section of the article.

--Dessources 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps both his initial comments and his subsequent 'clarification' should be included in another part of the article then?

Timclarke85 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)