Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [1] [2]. Sometimes, the controversial statements are even blatantly incorrect, such as "When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

In its current form, I believe that the article would require a complete rewrite in order for it to become fully neutral and encyclopedic. See the talk page for additional concerns. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

I have made several improvements, such as added sources where Jackson is explicitly being labeled as a "nazi" and "nationalsocialist" by Gellert Tamas. I propose rewriting the parts which are mentioned here. There are several references to a numerous big news papers which mentions that Jackson has jonined a nationalsocialist party, but also where he is described as having "nazi" sympathies. Deletion of an article with 83 articles is not appropriate since it is not dubious or biased considering that I am merely quoting the articles content and the over all general debate about Jackson, based on my research. I will further improve the article based on these suggestions.

"When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

- This actually did happened. It is a summary of the series of events which led to him suing Aftonbladet. This is not a "lie".

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

- He was shut out of the debate, according to sources from himself, and he protested by joining a nationalsocialist party. He is mentioned as being part of a "nazi movement". Sources provided are sufficient.

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

- Two sources together can be considered as part of "Swedish media"...

Improvements: Changed text from "Jackson was labeled as a nazi" to "Jacksons interpretation of Aftonbladets article of him joining a nationalsocialist party was that he was branded as a nazi". Improvement 2: Jackson became known as the "nazi doctor" because a google search of "Thomas Jackson nazistläkare" (translating to nazi doctor) shows several hits. Change text to "he believes he was branded as a nazi".

"I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [3] [4]"

NewsVoice is not an "unreliable source", its a Swedish independent news paper... The source is here: https://newsvoice.se/2017/10/thomas-jackson-resignerade-flyktingbarn-miljardindustri/ The second source is this one: https://mxp.blogg.se/2017/november/psykiater-thomas-jackson-apatiska-barnen-en-svensk-psykos.html

--Albert Falk (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He might be notable, but the wall of biased, soap-box text and citations makes improvements through the normal editing process difficult. His theory of "malingering by proxy" sounds an awful lot like Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with lovkal and Bearian. This is a rare case, I think, of an article about a plausibly notable subject that needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. In the meantime it's worsening the encyclopedia and deletion is the clearest path to the article's eventual contribution. Its bias is so ingrained in its construction and wording throughout, apparently dedicated to railing against a perceived liberal media persecution (WP:GREATWRONGS) without much (any?) other content explaining anything about either him or the distinctiveness of his primary idea (malingering by proxy), that changes short of a rewrite won't help.

I appreciate that writing it must have taken Albert Falk a great deal of effort and that seeing it deleted will be painful, but I would respectively suggest stepping away from this subject and editing something else. It can be difficult to be objective about subjects you care about a lot and I think this is one of those cases. I criticise the current article so harshly not to be cruel but to be clear that I don't see a way that this is going to work for Wikipedia. › Mortee _talk 20:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that NewsVoice is not simply an "independent news paper". It's a known conspiracy website which has been exposed by Metro's Viralgranskaren and other organizations when NewsVoice published, among other conspiracies, articles that supposedly proved chemtrails.[5][6] lovkal (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agreement
I agree. Remove the article.
Signed Albert Falk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Falk (talk • contribs) 2019-08-03 09:41:00 (UTC)
Delete, I had this page on my (long) to-do list because it blatantly misrepresented sources in a decidedly non-neutral way, but nothing short of a complete rewriting will fix it. It's better to have no article than one this thoroughly biased. Huon (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.