Talk:Hal Huggins

Notability created by controversial views and legal troubles

Huggins' notability has been created by his very controversial and unscientific viewpoints, unethical practices, and his very notable loss of license for unethical conduct, deceptive advertising, and practices which enriched himself at the expense of his patients' great suffering.

If these facts aren't presented in the article, then the article will be in violation of NPOV by serving as a hagiography. There are numerous V & RS sources regarding his troubles in the courts, and numerous sources describing the unscientific nature of his views. Here are some teasers:

• Are Your Teeth Toxic? Time Magazine, Christine Gorman;RICHARD WOODBURY/COLORADO SPRINGS Monday, Dec. 11, 1995 (before he lost his license, but was already in legal difficulties.

• Tooth Will Tell: The state wants to yank his license. But dentist Hal Huggins keeps mouthing off. Denver Westwood News, Eric Dexheimer, April 25, 1996

• Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions about Hal A. Huggins, D.D.S.. Excerpts from Administrative Law Judge Nancy Connick's 235 findings of fact, together with the full text of the judge's conclusions.

• Environmental Illness: Myth and Reality, pp. 248-249. Herman Staudenmayer, 1999

• There's Nothing Dangerous About 'Silver' Fillings. Time Magazine", May 9, 2002, Leon Jaroff

• Anti-amalgam pioneer no stranger to controversy. Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jan 27, 2003. Bill Radford

• Why the amalgam debate just won't go away. Dental Practice Report, Dennis Spaeth

There are many other sources, but most of them aren't V & RS.

This article is now the property of all editors and is governed by Wikipedia's "Law of unintended consequences":

If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Go for it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied from my talk page

Why don't you go ahead and work your derogatory information about Huggins into the entry; both sides should be heard!--Alterrabe (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fys, I've set up a criticisms section where you can dump your vilifications. --Alterrabe (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any derogatory information or vilifications, but RS do have some things that round out "the whole story," which is what Wikipedia is about. -- Fyslee / talk 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know of, and have alluded to, the "slant" that your articles provide. I do not believe them to be true, and believe it would unethical for me to include them in the entry, though I readily agree that others are free to do so. In other words, be my guest.--Alterrabe (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing here....

As an editor at Wikipedia, I hope you realize that it would be unethical for you to not include them, since they are from V & RS. Such an omission would be classic tendentious editing and using an article for advocacy, which is forbidden here. Your own personal beliefs need to be laid aside and you now need to put on your Wikipedia Editor's Cap and follow policy. You might find this interesting: Writing for the enemy. -- Fyslee / talk 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am under no ethical obligation whatsoever to impart information to wikipedia users that I believe may lead to their disfigurement, mutilation, or even death. Even wikipedia agrees with this, see WP:IAR--Alterrabe (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm not asking you to describe what can happen to people who have all their fillings and teeth yanked out unnecessarily with great suffering and risk. I'm only asking that you edit in an NPOV manner, which means including all sides of the story, including the parts you don't like, as long as they are properly sourced. -- Fyslee / talk 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Let all sides be told! If you bother to read what you wrote, you'll notice that you directly contradict yourself! Please stop, I find it annoying.

Let me append it for others:

I have added some source material regarding Hal Huggins' unscientific and unethical practices, which is the real reason his license was removed, to the talk page. Someone has tagged the article because of its multiple policy and style violations, and I'm hoping that you will show yourself to be a good enough editor to respect NPOV by cleaning it up and using the sources to provide the whole story. When that is done, the tag can be removed. -- Fyslee / talk 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC) [1]

Why don't you go ahead and work your derogatory information about Huggins into the entry; both sides should be heard!--Alterrabe (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) [2]

Now who implied that I was under an obligation (be good enough) to add opposing viewpoints to the article, and who argued that both sides should be heard?--Alterrabe (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, since you are reproducing material that I have already placed above. If it is just to argue with me and bait me, I won't play that game. End of this discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim above, you did not include the "good enough" quote on this page, which started our entire discussion. Allow me to remark that it is not customary on wikipedia to start discussions, and then refuse to continue them when (embarrassing) inconsistencies surface.--Alterrabe (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "claim above" you are referring to, but you are including something I later wrote on your own talk page, and placing it along with something you had written earlier on my talk page. That part is not from my talk page, which is what I have copied above. This discussion seems to have little to do with improving the article and is thus rapidly becoming a violation of WP:TALK. Be careful not to read too much into what I have written above. Now if you find inconsistencies in my editing, I'll be happy to discuss them, but this discussion isn't about the article anymore and should stop. -- Fyslee / talk 07:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed about the amount of slander some individuals calling themselves editors have collected here. I found this post-mortem on Dr. Huggins that gives a good summary too. Specifically it is much more factual AND neutral than this (sadly rather typical) Slanderpedia "article": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566458/ 62.171.16.180 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

References