Talk:Alan Howard (nutritionist)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Howard (nutritionist) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 May 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 1 May 2020 by Usedtobecool.

Tomp-uk (talk · contribs) has been paid by Howard Foundation (UK).

COI[edit]

With regard to the concern about my connection with the subject and also that I received payment for my time spent researching. I declared both of these on my own talk page. Since creating the initial draft which was accepted, I have not received any payments for the time I spend editing. Before commencing the article, I asked for advice in the Teahouse. I have done my best to provide a neutral point of view and to provide source references as far as is possible. I concur with the removal of paragraphs that are not sourced. I thank editors for their help on many details.

I am removing the maintenance tag. I am also discussing and addressing issues raised one by one. Tomp-uk (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is apposite. You have written 95% of this article and until it gets a thorough review concern remains about its content. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tomp-uk ceased editing in October 2019, the article is still so much the creation of this one editor. As such,, the COI tag should remain until other editors have significantly added or subtracted from the article. COI does not impune the article - it only signifies to readers that the majority of the content is from one editor who had a relationship with the topic. David notMD (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have significantly edited the article, I concur with the removal of the COI tag. Other editors have further edited the article and added different tags. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dubious tag[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In the section on The Cambridge Diet, the Dubious tag was inserted. I have now reviewed the reference and the text. I modified the text and added a better reference. I then removed the Dubious tag which I now realise I should not have done. I am asking for an editor to review the text and the reference then assess whether the tag can now be removed. Thank you Tomp-uk (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD:Thank you for checking my edit and removing the Dubious tag. I notice that my "Request for edit" is still in the queue. Will this get removed automatically or do you need to do this? I'm now working on additional secondary references. Tomp-uk (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "Request for edit" reviewer. I did edit the article a bit and added "citation needed" for statements currently without any references. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD:I'm looking at the cn tags. When I either supply a citation or remove the text, can I also remove the cn tag or do I need to go via the Request for edit process? If I need to use the process, can I list them all in one request or must they be individual requests? Thanks David. Tomp-uk (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we edited at the same time; I was marking the request as answered. Tomp-uk, please check my edit. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD:I have now added citations for each of the statements that you identified. I have also made a request to edit, asking that the article be reviewed and the two tags at the top removed. Are you able to help with checking the citations? Thank you. Tomp-uk (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

secondary sources[edit]

@David notMD: @Usedtobecool: In parallel with obtaining additional citations, could we look at the sources? The following references are, I think, secondary sources. Are these sufficient to support the article?

thank you again for your help. Tomp-uk (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all of those as secondary. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomp-uk, context matters. You can not ask people to evaluate sources from a list in a vacuum. Howard is apparently a significant donor to Downing, and which has a number of buildings named after him. Two positive pieces on a most generous alumnus? That's the least they could do. So, no they are not acceptable at all. They are primary sources on all things pertaining to the college and their relationship with Howard. More importantly, they are not an independent source. They may satisfy WP:V for some instances, but their very presence goes against WP:NPOV. This is visible with what the article has to say about the Cambridge Diet. The article doesn't satisfy our NPOV policy on that topic, and that is because all sources used are primary, non-independent sources.

ASO talking about its own history is the very definition of primary. Rcplondon piece is likely written by McLean himself; isn't that how those things work? msn looks ok, but it is obviously the same as the one from diet.com. Why are you using the same source twice and presenting them as coming from two different sources? Howard won wit fellowship according to wit. Yes, that would be another "as primary as it gets". Again, it satisfies WP:V, WP:NPOV not so much. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool:, thank you for your detailed explanation. In my own mind, I did independent research and would have done it the same whether paid or not. However, I am able to see things more clearly now from the viewpoint of an authoritative encyclopaedia. I agree with your removal of the undue details. I'm happy now with the article representing a summary of his life and work. While most of the sources are "primary", I do believe they are all true but understand that is not really enough for an encyclopaedia. I value Wikipedia and respect and admire all the work that goes into it. I've learnt a lot through my efforts on this entry. Thank you again. Tomp-uk (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Tomp-uk! It is quite possible to have all the true facts add up to a misleading account. The sense I get from this biography right now is that Howard was a great researcher who made money from all his ingenious work, and later used that money for philanthropy. If I were obese, I might even think to try his diet. But the msn piece suggests it might just be a fad diet with no real benefits to real people in real practice, a viewpoint not even hinted at by the article. Who knows what kind of picture we might have if we had significant coverage from multiple independent reliable seconday sources to consult? That is really at the heart of my concern; the possibility of misrepresentation by omission. Primary sources are particularly great at that. This is no doubt true in general, it may or may not be true in this case, but we won't know unless we have those sources, will we? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Again, I see your points. The current article seems quite factual but does not have a truly balanced review of the efficacy of the Cambridge Diet. I am not in a position to give that. I've only known the family for four years. Dr Howard is now in palliative care so perhaps in a short while there will be a broader analysis. Tomp-uk (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review citations and secondary sources[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

This article has two tags applied regarding multiple issues and primary sources. I have edited it to add citations and to provide more secondary sources of which there is a list in the section above this one. This edit request is asking for a review of these changes and the removal of the two tags. If one or more tags cannot yet be removed, please help me understand what else needs to be done? Thank you. Tomp-uk (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been detagged. Remember when you're adding citations, make sure they go after the period or punctuation. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DonSpencer1, at the very first glance, refs 1 through 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 17 are primary sources. That's 76% of the total. Care to explain why you chose to remove the primary sources tag on request from a paid editor who has been actively editing the article? It would help if you explained about the other tag as well, because I am seeing a number of unsourced or poorly sourced claims. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure all the sources you identify as "primary" necessarily all look particularly "primary" to me, but in order to avoid disappearing down yet another unconstructive pissing contest about the meanings of "primary" and "secondary", might I respectfully suggest that a more wiki-positive use of the parties' time here would be to find and insert better sources - not necessarily as replacement sources, but as complementary sources. And I am indeed grateful that you belatedly take time at least to spell out which sources you have in mind. Alan Howard has not, over the years, been exactly publicity shy. I strongly suspect that you will have little difficulty in finding additional sources more to your liking and - within reason - more sources is usually a "good thing"!

My own position comes from the belief if you find something you don't like about a wiki entry, it is a whole lot more helpful to improve the situation than simply to insert irritating little flags at the top of the page which distract the reader and piss off the vanishingly small proportion of wiki-contributors who actually hang around for more than a couple of months and actually help build wikipedia into something bigger and, one would hope, better. Wikipedia has roughly 400,000 registered editors. Around 9,000 of those have made at least 10,000 edits. That looks like 2½%. Sad or what?

Success Charles01 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01, nice to meet you! If wiki-philosophising is what you're after, JIMBOTALK is thattaway. Alternatively, you are welcome to address the issues with the article so it can look all tagless and pretty, unless it is your contention that our unsuspecting readers be let into a neat looking paid-for hagiography just because you "strongly suspect" something? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, I was just referencing Talk:Alan Howard (nutritionist)#secondary sources and saw that more secondary sources were indeed added. Please feel free to add the tag back if necessary. I suppose I didn't break down the percentage citation number as you did (very helpful). Perhaps an inline tag will be better for the editor to follow along? Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 16:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DonSpencer1, perhaps! I personally prefer putting one tag at the top instead of cluttering the whole page, especially when the issue applies to the whole article. But I have no strong feelings about it, and know of no policies/guidelines preferring one over the other. Do please revisit WP:COIRESPONSE though. Responding to requests from paid editors requires a lot of work, or the whole purpose is defeated. I didn't know of anybody other than Spintendo brave enough to take this thankless task. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]