Talk:Ty Bollinger
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Article creation[edit]
Another new article on wikipedia! Feel free to improve it. I initially thought it should be named Ty and Charlene Bollinger, but researching it showed a lot of their activities don't actually involve Charlene. Robincantin (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Ty Bollinger banned in a Google search too[edit]
This comes after The Bollingers were shut down for the anti-vax rants on relation to COVID-19.2601:640:C681:C260:C8A0:EEB:9B4D:170F (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Reference 13[edit]
It’s pure opinion. Not a good reference 1quantumdoc (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Reference 14[edit]
Again pure opinion. No facts. Just typical allopathic ignorant response 1quantumdoc (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Reference 15[edit]
Same link as 13. Just unsubstantiated opinion 1quantumdoc (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Quite right 1quantumdoc, that was a duplicate citation. I removed it and added two references to adequately support that statement. The article Detoxification (alternative medicine) already covers the evidence, no need to replicate everything here. Robincantin (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is bias[edit]
Wikipedia should allow open discussion. Did a medical doctor write this demeaning article? Who gave Wikipedia the authority to determine which medical doctors are right and which are wrong? I know many medical doctors who disagree with mainstream people vaxers. 63.64.36.245 (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we are biased toward facts, science, and what the highest-quality sources available say. That's what the article reflects. And yes, many contributors to medical Wikipedia articles, including this one, are licensed physicians. While you may know physicians who disagree with "mainstream people vaxers," this undermines the credibility of the doctors you claim to know and only amounts to anecdote in the end. Anecdote is worth far less than objective evidence, especially when it comes to medical topics. Thank you for sharing your concerns. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Getting this article right[edit]
In other places on Wikipedia I had heard some rumblings about this article not being fair or well written. I am a retired professional writer/editor with more than 40 years experience. As they say, I have no dog in this fight. My only goal is to edit this article with a neutral tone adhering to all Wikipedia MOS and encyclopedia style. I edit boldly with confidence because I know what I am doing. If you have a bone to pick with what I do with this article because you think this guy is a whack or because you are one of his devotees, take your argument somewhere else. If you honestly believe I have erred and your only goal is a Wikipedia article that represents excellence, by all means, let me know. Finally, if you are an experienced editor, then please, jump in and help! All the best to all of you. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- UPDATE: It is getting late and spouse wants to sleep! Don't give up on me, I will return tomorrow to continue to contribute to this article. Good night! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)