Wilhelm meis (talk | contribs) →Article cleanup: AfD? |
Wilhelm meis (talk | contribs) →This article has to abide by WP:BLP: about BLP |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::It is absolutely ridiculous for OccamzRazor to claim a NPOV. Every (non-minor) edit is aimed at making Enig appear worse. OccamzRazor has decided that the paleo/mediterranean diet is the best and is going around trashing articles that disagree with his views. I have already had to deal with this on the Saturated Fat article, and I am wasting more time dealing with it now. Now OccamzRazor is inserting original research to promote a biased point of view. I would love for this issue to be about content, but it is not. [[User:Gregwebs|Gregwebs]] ([[User talk:Gregwebs|talk]]) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC) |
::It is absolutely ridiculous for OccamzRazor to claim a NPOV. Every (non-minor) edit is aimed at making Enig appear worse. OccamzRazor has decided that the paleo/mediterranean diet is the best and is going around trashing articles that disagree with his views. I have already had to deal with this on the Saturated Fat article, and I am wasting more time dealing with it now. Now OccamzRazor is inserting original research to promote a biased point of view. I would love for this issue to be about content, but it is not. [[User:Gregwebs|Gregwebs]] ([[User talk:Gregwebs|talk]]) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::The purpose of [[WP:BLP]] is to protect living people from [[libel]] that may potentially find its way into WP articles. Our best way to avoid introducing libel into our articles is strict adherance to our [[WP:Verifiability]] policy with careful attention to [[WP:Reliable sources]]. I do not see any unreferenced assertions of fact in this article that could do harm to the subject. BLP policy has very little to do with neutrality and much to do with verifiability and reliability of sources. Is there anything specific here that you believe violates BLP? <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">[[User:Wilhelm_meis|Wilhelm Meis]]</font> <font face="Helvetica">('''[[User talk:Wilhelm_meis|Quatsch!]]''')</font> 08:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Article cleanup== |
==Article cleanup== |
Revision as of 08:09, 25 September 2009
![]() | Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class | |||||||||
|
"Renown" description
tightened up article slightly, and removed reference to the subject's renown - from what I can tell she has written just under 30 peer-reviewed articles in a long-ish career. This is a very respectable work-rate, but I don't see evidence of 'renown' (though would be happy if someone else could provide this) Jon m 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal praise for subject of article
- Nice unsigned comments below here. Must have been Mary? Gravix 08:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-I personally know of no better instance of greatness than that of Mary Enig. She has almost single-handedly changed the course of food history, when forty years ago she began a quest to show the detrimental effects of Trans Fat in the diet. Now every major food chain in the world (MacDonald’s KFC, etc.) are moving away from trans fat as a result of the pioneering work she began all those decades ago. Despite being interviewed in nearly every major publication in the world, and having written books on the subject, she has lived in utter anonymity when you consider the stunning change she has brought to the food industry, and to the health of the people of the world. The key to her success -- aside from her dedication to the truth and a fanatical dedication to her own scientific research -- has been her utter humility. As scientist, she has focused only on the truth of things, while never ever seeking the limelight. The more she took this approach and time passed, the more life responded, and the world benefitted. I believe there is a much to be learned about greatness from her monumental achievements in nutrition that were steeped in truth and humility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.187.95 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
NPOV accusations and related reverts
My attempts to expand this article to be more encyclopedic with verified facts have been consisently reverted by one editor who claims they are "nowhere near NPOV." My attempts to tag the article for further review have also been deleted by the same editor, as can be seen in the article's history.
Why is there such a strong desire to avoid stating the fact that Mary Enig is the co-founder, Vice President and Board Member of the The Weston A. Price Foundation?
Additionally, Enig's dietary advice is extremely controversial given current science and that needs to come out in the article if it is to be balanced - but seems to be defensively blocked. Is it possible the accuser is the one lacking a NPOV?
In an attempt to avoid the edit war that was forming, I'd like to discuss the issue here. OccamzRazor 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Homogenized Milk
The article counter-poses raw milk and homogenized milk, but isn't pasteurized milk the opposite of raw milk? Could someone clarify which one she is against: pasteurization, homogenization, or both?Brent (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
How not to write "articles"
Someone who cares should rewrite this article so it doesn't suck so much. For example, there is a line saying Enig believes "that "big business" and other powerful vested interests played a significant role in the negative portrayals of saturated fats", but the document it cites as a reference does not include the phrase "big business" anywhere within it. Guess what? That means you can't put the phrase "big business" in quotes. Because she didn't say it. (At least not in the article the statement is referring to.) There's also a section that says "The only reference to back this claim is an article Enig wrote that addressed a 1970's era theory that was later disproven." It makes it sound like she wrote the article BEFORE the theory was "disproven". The article is actually a discussion of the reasons the theory HASN'T been proven. That's kind of important. I also don't see why "licensed nutritionist" is in quotation marks, as if it were a phrase Enig invented for herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivix (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has to abide by WP:BLP
This article is written in a hostile tone and is higly unencyclopedic. The negative innuendo has to be removed. The Wikipedia rules for neutrality are stricter for Biographies about living persons than for normal articles. MaxPont (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm one WP user who has attempted to edit this article with a neutral point of view (NPOV). However since I can only find primary references associated with the subject of the article, I am in agreement that the current article is not encyclopedic. In fact, I previously tagged it for needing additional non-primary references as well as requesting expansion of the entire article.
- I'm not sure what you mean in your claim that the WP "rules" for "neutrality" are "stricter for biographies of living people." It is one of the pillars of WP that ALL articles have a NPOV. I'm not aware of any variations in the definition or level of "neutrality." However, even a NPOV includes properly-sourced controversial and/or non-complimentary information about the subject of the article. An article wouldn't be neutral if it censored such information.
- Instead of stricter "neutrality" rules, it seems you may be referring to stronger standards regarding sourcing material posted about living persons, especially if the material is potentially libellous. This doesn't mean that an article about a living person has to have a positive or neutral tone, but only that all material (especially any potentially libellous material) must be properly sourced.
- If you can, please improve this article with any properly-sourced non primary references to eliminate any "hostile tone" you perceive. It benefits the entire wikipedia community to have well-sourced articles. OccamzRazor (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is absolutely ridiculous for OccamzRazor to claim a NPOV. Every (non-minor) edit is aimed at making Enig appear worse. OccamzRazor has decided that the paleo/mediterranean diet is the best and is going around trashing articles that disagree with his views. I have already had to deal with this on the Saturated Fat article, and I am wasting more time dealing with it now. Now OccamzRazor is inserting original research to promote a biased point of view. I would love for this issue to be about content, but it is not. Gregwebs (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of WP:BLP is to protect living people from libel that may potentially find its way into WP articles. Our best way to avoid introducing libel into our articles is strict adherance to our WP:Verifiability policy with careful attention to WP:Reliable sources. I do not see any unreferenced assertions of fact in this article that could do harm to the subject. BLP policy has very little to do with neutrality and much to do with verifiability and reliability of sources. Is there anything specific here that you believe violates BLP? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Article cleanup
At what point can the Expand, POV, & Primarysources banners be removed? I've been working on the first two, but non-primary sources seem hard to come by. Also, any input on the changes I've made? Argonel42 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- A lack of secondary sources can be a good indicator that the article has WP:Notability issues, and may be considered for deletion. Reliance on primary sources (upon which this article seems to rely heavily) can also lead to issues with neutrality and conflict of interest. The best course of action may be to nominate for WP:AfD. If the article can be improved, the AfD discussion will lead to improvement. If no other secondary sources can be found, then the article may be deleted, in which case all questions of NPOV, COI and BLP become moot. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As stated above OccamzRazor is demanding that original research be kept in the article. I am going to revert this once more, and start the moderation process. This is not about content, it is about OccamzRazor bias not allowing an understanding of WP:NOR
There is one issue of content that OccamzRazor is also reverting. There is a section "Homogonized Milk". It needs to be changed to "Raw Milk". Raw Milk is always unhomogonized, and WAPF information is always about raw milk, mostly with respect to pasteurization, and with minor info on homogonization. There is barely a need to mention homogonization. Gregwebs (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)