Talk:John Lauritsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.

I don't know much about this person, but he seems to be real at least (bibliography) regardless, if you think he is not notable please use Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion - cohesion | talk 06:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Warning: The bibliographies of John Lauritsen on the internet are widely speculated to be false. I think this should be cleared up before an article is finalized and posted. Rabryan 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I really have no knowledge of this person, if you think it is a candidate for deletion though you should add it Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, it's not speedy deletable though under the WP:CSD rules. - cohesion | talk 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This just barely scrapes under the speedy deletion criterion "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance". OK, so he is an "activist and scholar" who "covered AIDS for the (publication which we do not have an article on)". Is that asserting importance or significance? Come on, if the guy has published books, at least mention that. --Stormie 23:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How can a bibliography be false?? The existence of his articles and books are trivial to verify. I own several of them at home. What a moron (or troll). 198.59.188.232 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• If bibliographies are false, it doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they carry false information. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What nonsense. A bibliography is a list of publications. A bibliography asserts "such and such was published by so and so, here are the ISBN's, etc." That's what a bibliography IS. Either the published works exist (and the bibliography is accurate) or they don't (and bibliography is false). In this case, it's trivial to check the publications exist, they're not fabricated. 65.182.94.109 02:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

April 25, 2006: I think most people who would see this article would understand what it's all about. I suspect the anti-popper folks who are censoring the efforts to post more neutral and credible information about poppers on Wiki will also remove the information I just posted on the main page of this site. We'll see.

For sure my post is not a "popper ad", as this critic keeps calling any post that include neutral information on poppers. Let's see what he finds objectional about a simple post such as this one. :=)

Here it is, in case he deletes it from the article:

"But even his dinner companions disagree with his theories about poppers: "However, he totally loses “credibility” when he drags out his old/ancient/never-documented assertion that “poppers=death”.

If “poppers really did equal death” I'd be long dead by now. Once, after having a pleasant dinner with John Lauritsen, I actually indulged myself by “toasting him” with a hit of Rush as he looked on in wide-eyed wonder and/or horror." Randy Wicker New York City

This is bodily assault, and Randy Wicker should be convicted for this. By the way, this links to badpuppy.com, a famous Poppers vendor, see [1]. Do you consider postings like these suitable for an encyclopedia?

Stop advertising your drug! And stop using sock puppets, "Allabout2006". --DenisDiderot 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Diderot: It appears you may have finally revealed yourself. In fact, are you John Lauritsen himself?

You are mistaken. --DenisDiderot 04:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Threatening those who do not agree with you is inappropriate behavior, nor is calling people names.

You are a sock puppet, see page User:Allabout2006 for evidence.

It would be better if you'd stop censoring people who try to add to the body of data on these various subjects. You appear not to have any level of expertise on these subjects. Based on your actions over the past few months, you are not able to look at the entire body of data (not just the narrow, biased data that might better appeal to you), and make a rational decision. As Winston Churchill said, "A zealot is someone who can't change his mind, and who won't change the subject". You anti-popper zealots are all alike.

However, you should not use your considerable computer and Wiki-manipulation skills to apply your brand of censorship to the subject. You should let the body of information be added to Wiki. People deserve to have the curtin of darkness pulled back to reveal the sunshine of facts.

I hope you'll consider it.

"The sunshine of facts" -- from a Poppers vendor like badpuppy.com? And by methods like bodily assault to people who don't want to take drugs? Concerning my expertise, stop your accusations immediately and provide scientific evidence by actual peer-reviewed articles like I did on Poppers#References. --DenisDiderot 04:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems POV has become a problem on this subject and people are pushing back and forth for some reason. Some are screaming.

DenisDiderot, what does your comment that "This is bodily assault, and Randy Wicker should be convicted for this." mean? Did Wicker assualt Laruitsen by having dinner with him? By taking a "hit of Rush" after dinner? Also, what should Wicker be 'convicted' of? Having dinner with Lauritsen? Taking a hit of Rush?

He should be convicted to bodily assault if he forced John Lauritsen to take a hit of that inhalation drug as he mentioned. --DenisDiderot 04:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the stuff on the website that person is showing you? It's a HUGE site, full of expert analysis from I can tell. What's your argument against letting it be posted?

Because it again links to your Poppers vendor sites allaboutpoppers.com and badpuppy.com and is an advertisement for that drug itself. You find expert analysis in medical scientific journals, see [2] and the abstracts I quoted on Poppers, not in texts of Poppers vendors or people like Bruce Voeller who is affiliated with Rushbrands, the leading Poppers manufacturer. --DenisDiderot 04:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =======

Interestingly, this post from a Wiki expert, would seem to contradict the anti-popper folks here who keep deleting any links to popper articles or sites that are not negative:

"Note to people: the content of links is not required to be NPOV, only content in articles, esp. if said links have disclaimer that said content may be POV. This is elementary stuff, people. Come on. Revolver 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) If the AIDS Wiki link is allowed to be deleted for "NPOV" reasons, then just about every external link to a POV webpage on a controversial subject (Israel/Palestine, abortion, etc., etc.) would be able to be deleted. Nonsense. Revolver 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)"

Based on this, it would see that the anti-popper folks should cease their efforts to delete links to poppers and AIDS information sites such as: Poppers Myth