Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman

I'm considering moving this discussion to form an article content dispute, as per McClellon. Could I have some views on this? JFW | T@lk 15:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:JFDWOLFF'S CONTINUING INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR

I am most grateful to Jfdwolf for her further comments which further demonstrate that this conduct dispute is one that relates to her conduct and not to Ombudsman's. 81.111.172.198 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think my editing behaviour is inappropriate (and I don't think it is), please consider starting a seperate RFC for me. But don't make a fuss over here just because we happen to disagree on issues. We have only disagreed on Talk:Mumps, yet you feel you should disagree with edits of mine (which ones?) on other pages. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the acronym you used towards me is DNFTT - 81.111.172.198 21:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to object to JDWOLF's also Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MMR_vaccine posting of my name. The reason I don't use my name is to deflect some of the hostility I get subjected to, and I don't notice anyone else using their real name. The reason he posted my name was to be hostile. Also I object to being called a "spammer" by JDWOLF, and I object to her and Wikipedia posting text calling my sanity into question, and accusing me of stealing copyrighted material, not to mention inferring I was anti-semitic. I did notice it would appear to be OK if Wikipedia posted the Protocols but not my site for some reason. john www.whale.to (86.128.123.119 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

I will remove your name from Talk:MMR vaccine and the copy on this RFC. I did not actually insert your name. It seems to be an online nemesis of yours. I think that with obscuring your name I will have satisfied 81.111.172.198's probably erroneous concerns about the Data Protection Act. JFW | T@lk 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Took your time. Bit late now don't you think? The page could be archived on numerous search engine sites by now and is in at least 5 revisions on Wikipedia. And what about all the abuse and vilification that goes with it? Look at all the time and effort of your fellow Wikipedians you have taken up. Remember you were advised in a very measured way by Ombudsman it might at the least be better to edit the item - but you, as is your wont, took absolutely no notice and now there is this long audit trail evidencing the consequences of your actions. I did not plan things that way but that is the way they turned out courtesy of intransigence a la User:Jfdwolff.

81.111.172.198 11:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

And of course I forgot to mention that anonymity is explicit when people sign on. They are not required to identify themselves. They are also not asked to provide a name or an email address and are promised if an email address is given "We won't reveal your address to anyone."

81.111.172.198 12:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this edit. Now it is even clearer what we are dealing with. User:Jfdwolff claims to have taken out the name (nothing else, note) and then puts in signposts to it in prior edits. This suggests Wikipedia is in the control of some people who seem to have difficulty with socially responsible behaviour. This regrettably appears to be a facility in the hands of some people who do what they like, regardless of legality and engage in name calling and abuse, as has been seen very clearly on a number of occasions. For those of you perched to leap to attack, this is factual - describing events seen and recorded on Wikipedia.

81.111.172.198 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia is controled? I find this claim questionable.Geni 14:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. That seems to be the size of it. Thank you for your perspicuity.

81.111.172.198 15:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Data Protection Act 1998 - Contraventions & Extraterritoriality

User "TenofAllTrades" states "(rv removal of information: UK Data Protection Act doesn't apply in the United States, and identity of whale.to creator isn't protected info anyway)".

The UK Data Protection Act 1998 does apply in the UK and Jfdwolff is in the UK. She was holding and has used and disclosed the data, including an unauthorised transborder dataflow to a state "TenofAllTrades" claims does not afford any protection.

Accordingly, a major internation issue is whether Wikipedia is going to act as an unauthorised data haven and encourage illegal acts by its Users and be actively complicit in them.

Does Wikipedia acknowledge and intend to comply with observe and respect the laws of nations in which Wikipedia is active. This cuts across all Wikipedia databases in all languages.

That is just for starters and it does not even begin to consider all of the other implications of this.

The Data Protection Act 1998 implements the UK government's obligations under the Council of Europe Convention and under EU Directives and Regulations.

EU law, including the UK implementation under the UK Data Protection Act 1998, applies to personal information and operates to protect it.

81.111.172.198 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

John edited the page today and made no attempt to exonerate himself, nor to remove the information, nor protest its presence. This is implicit approval that his real name be mentioned. Also, you forget that the Wikipedia servers are in the USA and do not fall under the UK Data Protection Act's jurisdiction. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted my real name used I would use it wouldn't I? The use of names is hostile, which is why that person uses names. If you don't use your name it does deflect some of the hostility. john whale.to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.207.121 (talk • contribs)

So the world has to know your views, but you prefer not to be known by name? Anyway, you still haven't asked us to remove your name, John. I'm happy for it to be removed, because your identity is not actually of great importance to this issue. It's whether your views need Wikipedia to reach its audience. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

He does not have to ask for what should have been done in the first place which was for his personal data not to be posted. It is your contravention of the law to put up personal data not the victim's. And that is what you do, isn't it, you victimise people don't you [User:Jfdwolff]. That is what is going on here. It is all over all of your edits and reversions and you spend your life doing this by the looks of things. That is really strange, really strange. 81.111.172.198 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of violating the law or victimizing people. You've had your say. Be civil and refrain from remarks that could be construed as legal threats or personal attacks. If you don't have any further polite or constructive remarks to make, please refrain from further comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion page and [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] has clearly made very personal attacks on another Wikipedian and seems to be contravening the law in doing so. Those attacks appear in the nature of victimisation and the foregoing are commenting on that and asking [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] to answer. Additionally, I am not threatening any legal action against anyone. I am pointing out that there is a seeming breach of the law and it should be investigated and dealt with by Wikipedia.

However, no answer has yet been provided by any Administrator to the question asked regarding Wikipedia complying with the laws of the nations in which Wikipedia operates nor to the question of any existing or proposed stated Wikipedia policy on the matter. 81.111.172.198 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Data Protection Act 1998 and EU Directives and Regulations require express consent. There is no indication John was asked for consent, nor any that express consent was given, nor that John had any idea that he has a right to have his personal data protected. The fact he has not intervened in this also indicates he approves of the protection of his personal data. The fact that the servers are in the USA does not necessarily exonerate Wikipedia and Wikipedians or excuse them. In all the circumstances it is therefore right and proper that the deleted data should remain deleted until a Wikipedia policy statement has been issued.

81.111.172.198 22:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the question of jurisdiction, could you indicate what sections of the remark you have repeatedly removed contain information that would even be covered under the DPA? I don't see any personal data, and I don't see any information that's not readily obtained from a simple Google search. John Scudamore operates a website (incidentally registered in the Tonga TLD—how does the DPA feel about that?) called whale.to. He's in his mid-fifties and lives somewhere in the southwest of England. On their face, those would seem to be factual statements that don't reveal any particular personal details (no exact location, no precise birthdate, etc.)

With respect to Ombudsman's observation that some of the remarks constitute personal attacks, I would agree that the last statement–"I have never known of an anti-vaccinationist who didn't have something wrong with them"–would indeed fall into that category. I would say that the remarks reflect more poorly on the writer than on the target of the statement; if someone is very offended by them then they can be struck through, but it's almost never appropriate to remove wholesale someone else's comment from an RFC. The remainder of the quotation, which harsh, seems to be criticism directed at the editorial behaviour of an external website. John Scudamore's editorial judgement would seem to be a legitimate topic of discussion when the quality of his website's content is at issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether you can "see" personal data. The issue is a matter of law and you are welcome to educate yourself on the matter. I have already explained the situation several times and explaining it again to you will serve no particular purpose other than to take up cyber-space. You will not accept it from me, so either accept it from someone else or educate yourself.

The bottom line is that it would seem [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] put personal data on Wikipedia without compliance with the requirements of the law, in particular, without seeking consent. It seems a really simple matter, although I am happy if someone wishes to express an alternative view based on the law but so far all we have is hot air from people who spend their spare time (and in the case of [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] sadly it would seem a great deal of spare time) being insulting and picking fights on Wikipedia and paying scant regard to the law. Not much of an advert for Wikipedia really.

As for [User:Jfdwolff|JFW]'s edits on medical topics, it is clear she is not a medical doctor as I cannot imagine any real medical doctor would put such inaccurate information on Wikipedia. So sure was I of this that I checked the medical registers in the UK and Holland and hey presto, there appears to be no doctor of the name Dr J F D Wolff registered. So if [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] really is a doctor there seem to be some inconsistencies and if she was what has she done to lose the registered status? Oh dear, I cannot be contravening the data protection act because it seems there is no such identifiable person, such a shame. And even if I was contravening the data protection act, it does not matter on Wikipedia because the law does not apply in Wikipedian cyber-space now does it?

Now where did I put my Wikipedia passport and driving licence - oh silly me, you can't really drive in cyber-space now can you? 81.111.172.198 20:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

U.S. law still applies to Wikipedia, the servers are in Florida. But you still haven't answered my question—what personal data (that would be protected by the 1998 DPA were we in the UK) is being revealed here? If there is a genuine concern about privacy, I would be willing to seek some reasonable compromise.

I am also confused about where Jfdwolff's medical credentials come into this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You need to come to terms with the fact that it does not matter where the servers are. The law applies to [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] and [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff] is also an authorised Administrator of Wikipedia based in the UK (according to her account anyway). That also brings us to the issue of [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]'s claimed medical credentials. She travels all over Wikipedia editing medical type articles. The edits made to mumps are unusual for someone claiming to be medically qualified. And this comment is really unusual also from someone claiming to have medical credentials:-

"Mumps is second to chickenpox as one of the mildest of all routine childhood diseases." Have you ever looked after a child with chickenpox?"

Accordingly, it is extremely relevant to all aspects of [User:Jfdwolff|Jfdwolff]'s actions and reflects on them and reflects on the accuracy of all contributions made to Wikipedia.

81.111.172.198 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, can you answer my question? I'll avoid coming back to the relevance of Jfdwolff's medical credentials, because I don't want to get sidetracked again. What, precisely, is the personal information about which you are concerned, and what specific parts of the Data Protection Act apply? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably this is becoming circular. I have already addressed this. The offending paragraph is the personal data and that has been abundantly clear from the outset. I have also referred you to other authority because you will not accept this is personal data. I have also raised policy issues which remain unanswered. You can see them above and here [[1]] and here [2].

81.111.172.198 02:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

←back to left margin I agree that this is becoming circular. There is no substantial issue for Wikipedia to address here.

1. Wikipedia is not responsible for obeying the laws of other nations, only those of the United States and the State of Florida. Period. Off the top of my head, I can think of Wikipedia articles or discussions that would violate or have violated the laws of France, several Middle Eastern countries, Canada, and likely several others.
2. Individual editors may face prosecution in their own countries if their conduct violates local laws. That's their problem. Wikipedia is not the French, British, Saudi, or Canadian police.
3. In this specific case, there has not been a release of personal data. The identity of the whale.to webmaster was readily available on public websites outside of the UK; the anonymous editor who added that information to the Wikipedia dicussions (86.134.160.129 (talk · contribs)) was able to draw on those external sources. Jfdwolff did not release the information either; at most s/he has reduplicated the information already supplied by the anonymous 86.134.160.129 and already present on Wikipedia.
4. I doubt that the information in question constitutes 'personal data' within the meaning of the Data Protectect Act 1998 anyway.
5. Even if the information were 'personal data' within the Act, its release in this circumstance would be a wholly valid application of section 32(1) [3] of the Act, which exempts public expression for the purposes of journalism and literature from the Act's restrictions.

I have nothing further to say to you. As I have explained on your talk page, if you take issue with the actions of myself or any administrator on Wikipedia, you may bring the matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard for further discussion. If you require clarifications on the meaning of Wikipedia policies, visit the help desk. If you believe that Wikipedia policy requires modification, see the Village Pump. Further attacks on other editors are likely to be met with sanctions, up to and including a suspension of your editing privileges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. It would seem the answer to my queries is that:-

• there is no Wikipedia policy on dealing with seeming contraventions of the law
• Wikipedia has no policy of endeavouring to comply with the laws of the states in which it operates outside of the US and in fact is happy to continue to facilitate law breaking by its Users and Administrators and without implementing any form of self-regulation

Thank you for confirming this on behalf of Wikipedia. I have no further need to correspond on this topic now that it is officially established by you as an authorised Administrator on behalf of Wikipedia. If I am wrong in this understanding, please do not hesitate to let me know as it has taken a goodly deal of time and numerous requests to get the position established.

Your unsubstantiated assertions that my comments on the conduct of others are "attacks" are offensive. May I suggest it could assist if you try to distinguish valid criticism from the ad hominem remarks and gratuitous unjustified comments which some of your fellow editors seem to indulge in with impunity. As previously noted, I see no comment from you in that regard which is indicative in itself.

81.111.172.198 06:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Official policy regarding Wikipedia and the application of local and international law is ultimately the bailiwick of the Wikimedia Foundation and its Board of Trustees. Contact them for further information, and stop accusing other Wikipedia editors of facilitating criminal acts. This talk page is not the place to try to extract formal statements of legal positions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you but there seems to be no need to contact them. No policies exist and that is the relevant point. If there were any you would have found and quoted them. If I am wrong on that please let me know. Those policies you have cited appear ad hoc rather than formal and they appear to be that anything goes.

Further, please refrain from attributing to me accusations I have not made. I have not accused any Wikipedia editor of facilitating criminal acts. You seem to be trying really hard to pin on me something I have not done. Now why might that be?

81.111.172.198 07:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So all your gassing about the UK Data Protection Act was meaningless? Well good, I guess we can put it behind us and move on. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

CLOSURE: On the contrary, it has established the position that Wikipedia has no policy of observance of the laws of states in which it operates and has no policy relating to nor any intention of regulating itself in relation to seeming illegal actions of its users, editors and administrators which may contravene the laws of any nation outside of, and up to now it is not clear whether that also includes, the USA.

That is a conclusion from which I am happy to move on, although you or one of your colleagues may feel they want the last word on the matter. If so, there is plenty of cyber-space for the purposes. It also seems that English Courts may claim jurisdiction over Wikipedia in some circumstances irrespective of the location of the Wikipedia servers. That also is useful to know.

It is unfortunate that there seems to be a general lack of civility amongst some of those who associate themselves with User:Jfdwolff. For example, the derogatory use of "all your gassing" and "the goofy pseudo-legal rationale" with respect to my contributions is not only lacking in civility but it indicates a certain irritation. Is that because you and your colleagues have been keenly reading all of this material trying in vain to find something on which to pin an accusation against me, including for things I have not done? This is of course a question and not an accusation.

Many thanks for your time. If you do not want to "feed the Troll" as User:Jfdwolff put it, you may want to consider this closure, but that is up to you and your colleagues.

81.111.172.198 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

We have very firm policies about observance of the laws of states in which we operate. Wikipedia follows the laws that apply in the state of florida. Our understanding of the legal situation is that we cannot be said to operate elsewhere and to be quite honest if a country other than the US finds the wikimedia foundation in breach of it's laws it isn't really a problem. Oh coutries block us from time to time (china for example) but beyond that there isn't much they can do. As for pinning an acusation against you in terms of internal wikipedia policy that isn't diffficult WP:NLT.Geni 12:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Have another read of your own policy. But thanks for the confirmation of what you have in mind. I appreciate it.

81.111.172.198 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Have another read of your own policy. Well, that managed to be both arrogant and completely content-free simultaneously. You might just as well as written "Eat more beets" or "Don't fall into volcanoes" and conveyed the same amount of information. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am regrettably forced to request of another contributor to kindly keep a civil tone. This comment is out of place and less than appropriate. It is also and regrettably a further example of the ad hominem attacks which seem a little too prevalent. Kindly take a more careful look at your close friend Geni's comment to which it was a reply to see how out of place your personal attack on me is.

It is a shame some folks do not always engage in more appropriate forms of dialogue and debate. It would be nice if dropping into these kinds of personal attacks could be avoided. They do not advance arguments but lower the level of debate from an informed one to something somewhat less.

Take a another look and you will see for example that Geni's comment is another attack, again out of place. Careful examination reveals it is a threat. User Geni's comment is "As for pinning an acusation against you in terms of internal wikipedia policy that isn't diffficult" and inserting a link to a policy without any further comment. Now that is "content-free" but I do not accuse Geni of arrogance as you have done against me. Informed analysis reveals it to be a threat of legal action under the private law applied by Wikipedia under the contract Wikipedia creates directly and by implication with users of its facilities.

Why therefore do you not direct your remarks elsewhere? Those who live in glass-houses should not cast stones. This is all very disappointing. Perhaps you and your friends Geni, User:Jfdwolff, Nunh-huh and Calton might like to reflect on this and consider modifying your behaviour. After all, look at what User:Jfdwolff did with gratuitous identification and vilification of another user and done in her own words for "everyone's ... enjoyment". That is there for all to see (as intended by User:Jfdwolff, but not perhaps with the result she originally intended).

So which Wikipedia policy does that comply with? Again, not a very good advertisement for the kinds of people who populate the ranks of Wikipedia Administrators is it? It also reflects directly on those who operate Wikipedia and appoint Administrators that they cannot keep their own house in order. Perhaps they should consider their own policies and do a bit of monitoring of the activities of their Administrators.

This really does make it very clear to others the dangers of relying on what is written in Wikipedia by sometimes gifted amateurs. The value a dispassionate professional brings to a debate is clarity, lack of emotion and lack of personal baggage. It would be well to reflect on that and perhaps try to emulate an improved tone in your postings. If you would draw that to the attention of your confederates Geni, User:Jfdwolff, Nunh-huh and Calton, that might be beneficial.

I do hope there is sufficient content here for your purposes and that you do not think the foregoing is "completely content free". I feel sure the term "arrogant" might also be misplaced, but if you do have any concerns be sure to let me know.

If you have any other comments, please also do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely 81.111.172.198 06:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

---

This RFC and its talk page are not an examination of my alleged misbehaviour. This RFC specifically concerns Ombudsman and his defense of highly inappropriate external links. If 81.111.172.198 has a problem with me, my edits, my credentials or anything else I may have done, there is the possibility of starting a seperate RFC. I have stopped responding to 81.111.172.198 directly, because either way this user will not be satisfied with the answer. John has not requested removal of his name and general location (which are not private details, as summarised by TenOfAllTrades above), and John responded with his usual conspiracy theory but without a request for removal. Hence, I think 81.111.172.198's defence is quite unnecessary, and 81.111.172.198 is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have fed this troll for much too long, and it's time to do something constructive. Further villification of myself or other editors will meet with a request for arbitration. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Nunh-huh

Here we see the same inappropriate approach to name calling and labelling employed by User:Jfdwolff.

What Nunh-huh and User:Jfdwolff do is label people who disagree with them "anti-vaccinator" who are not. We also see attempts at disinformation by referring to me in the same sentence as pages I have nothing to do with such as [ Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics[4]].

There are those who wish to ensure that accurate and balanced information is denied to people who come here looking for it. If the history of relevant pages are seen, the same users crop up time and again including Nunh-huh and User:Jfdwolff. They will also be seen cropping up together such as on this page.

We also see further inaccuracy regarding medical information. It is for example well-known that mumps vaccination is not necessary and it is stated clearly and publicly by medical professionals and leading media commentators. Accordingly this "personal view" is no such thing.

No matter how many times any attempt is made to ensure the accurate picture is presented it is prevented. For example the mumps page is a mess. It is such a mess that [User:Jfdwolff] realised she had to tone down the information put into the first paragraph by her and edited it back. The page remains a mess. It has overblown claims of disease risks for a known mild childhood illness. There is no hope of getting it into proper and reliable shape because Nunh-huh and User:Jfdwolff prevent that.

Those who know the facts are prevented from presenting them with perfectly acceptable medical references. [User:Jfdwolff] just reverts. One example is a reversion claiming the inclusion of an overall accurate summary of mumps is "cherry picking". The referenced quote (which was as a direct quote from a medical source) was reverted and replaced with an inaccurate text not based on any accurate source but her own POV. She recanted and toned it down but the very short paragraph concerned remains a mass of inaccuracies and contradictions. But edit at your peril. You may be labelled and abused for your trouble.

81.111.172.198 05:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

81.111.172.198 writes "It is for example well-known that mumps vaccination is not necessary and it is stated clearly and publicly by medical professionals and leading media commentators. " Unfortunately 81.111.172.198 was unable to provide the names of any of medical organizations so advising when asked. - Nunh-huh 09:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, read the Telegraph, the Guardian, the British National Formulary prior to government introducing MMR (vaccination against mumps actively recommended not to be used), medical text books, commentator column "Dr Ali" in the Mail magazine and talk to doctors and pharmacists who were in practice before MMR. Sorry I cannot post private individuals names in Wiki - it would not be fair, especially seeing the hostile treatment they will get.

However, if Nunh-huh actually knew anything about mumps, I would not have to be having this dialogue because s/he would know this was correct. Also, there is absolutely no excuse for Nunh-huh not knowing that mumps is mild in children and that it is far better for them to get mumps as children and get lifelong immunity.

We are now seeing 10,000 cases of mumps each year in adolescents in the UK and that is not because mummy and daddy did not vaccinate them. Many will have been vaccinated but it would have been much safer for them and for many other people's kids to have caught natural mumps which is pretty much harmless in children in comparison. And it is the behaviour of folks like Nunh-huh who deny accurate information on mumps that are directly contributing to putting other people's children at risk when they hit their teen years.

Have you got any kids Nunh-huh? Have you? If you have take careful note of the scares put on the mumps page about sterility, because unlike true love, mumps vaccination does not last forever. Might we be seeing adults getting it next?

81.111.172.198 10:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Telegraph and Guardian are not medical organizations, and the BNF does not recommend against mumps vaccinations. And yes, you are correct that adults and adolescents will get mumps when children are unvaccinated. Vaccinations are not solely for the benefit of the person vaccinated. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Contributors to the Telegraph, Guardian and other papers include those medically qualified and they are specifically engaged to contribute because of their credentials. Adults and adolescents do not contract mumps when children are unvaccinated because they get lifelong immunity from contracting mumps harmlessly as children. This is one of the main reasons why the BNF recommended against mumps vaccination. It is unnecessary and it puts children at risk of adverse reactions from an invasive medical procedure which cannot in such circumstances be clinically justified individually or on a population basis. In the light of this you really must consider carefully whether it is in the public interest that you refrain from further editing of medical pages on Wikipedia as further misinformation puts the public at risk.

May I also suggest that you also try to put substance over form? The BNF also does recommend against mumps vaccination. It is in numerous editions prior to 1988 and is clearly stated in no uncertain terms. Further, the absence of the recommendation against mumps vaccination post 1988 advertises the political nature of the British Medical Association. The British Medical Association exists to represent the interests of its members. This includes in relation to matters like pay and you will see that British doctors have recently had a very favourable pay rise recently for which they can thank their trade union the BMA. Accordingly, you cannot rely on the pronouncements of the BMA for impartiality. They are very partial and are paid to be so by their members. It really would not do to go around publishing information in the BNF or anywhere else that irritated the very people that pay the BMA's members.

Accordingly, you are in fact wrong to describe the BMA as a medical organisation. It is an association of medical professionals whose primary purpose is to represent the political interests of its members just like any other trade union. Accordingly, its pronouncements are neither necessarily impartial nor to be wholly relied on. They do not exist to make public pronouncements on matters of public health pro bono publico but any pronouncements they do make are made against the backdrop that they must represent the interests of their members first and not necessarily the interests of the public.

In that light, your argument by authority is in fact an appeal to an inappropriate authority where there is potential for conflict between the interests of the members of the BMA and the greater public interest.

If you have any further comments or queries, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely, 81.111.172.198 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)