Talk:Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Re speedy deletion
The argument re speedy deletion is solely because the previous Aajonus entry was deleted for spurious reasons, solely due to lack of notability. However, Aajonus Vonderplanitz has been featured in several newspaper articles, books and magazines, so is clearly notable enough for wikipedia - I will now add various references and further text..Loki0115 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding further information to the page now that I've added enough references to make it notable. Further sentences will follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aajonus article now easily meets Wikipedia's criteria re notability/length etc., so there's no reason for its deletion. It's also quite different from the much shorter entry that preceded it.Loki0115 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is tagged for "neutrality". I fail to see how a simple recitation of facts can be considered "not neutral". I don't see any bias or opinion in either direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Hayles (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights

 * Since much of the article cites it, it's probably worth evaluating the reliability of this book. A reviewer wrote: "A blogger and advocate journalist stacks the deck against the government's over-regulation of food, employing salient stories of individuals 'entangled in the enforcement crackdown' amid their efforts to provide nutrient-dense products, including raw milk and fermented foods." and also (relevant to this article): "Still, he does not write with an overly alarmist tone and fairly portrays the quirks and flaws in the individuals involved—e.g., author and war food activist Aajonus Vonderplanitz."  The publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing seems to publish a lot of political books.  .  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Questioning that the source is adequately reliable for a specific claim may be more relevant, realistic, and reasonable than suggesting that David Gumpert and Chelsea Green Publishing are unreliable, period, and therefore, in effect, that half the article should be deleted, let alone since Chelsea Green, one feels, "seems to publish a lot of political books". As a tangential issue, politicians make decisions that affect food choices and rights, which are the publisher's focus and explain the intersection of food and politics declared at ChelseaGreen.com. That one sees these books cited at Wikipedia articles encompassing political issues may just as well suggest that that publisher is reliable in its own area of focus. — Occurring (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The citations use an inconsistent and ugly format. When many notes point to the same book it's probably worth using  with the source listed down with harv (Help:Shortened footnotes).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done for this, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The preexisting footnote format—not merely a "citations use"—was both consistent and standard. Dictionary.com clarifies a footnote as "an explanatory or documenting note or comment at the bottom of a page". I find the newer format introduced to the Wikipedia article instead the "inconsistent and ugly format", splitting the footnotes into three sections—"Notes", "References", and "Bibliography"—as if these were real distinctions beyond the prior, single category "Notes". The new tripling of sections uses letters for explanatory notes, numbers for documentary notes, and adds a bibliography egregiously incomplete. "A bibliography", though, "is a list of all of the sources you have used (whether referenced or not) in the process of researching your work", explains Plagiarism.org. But the new format suggests a gratuitously specialized interpretation of notes—as if this means only "comments"—versus references as distinct from bibliography. In most academic sources, all of these are simply notes, that is, footnotes. For instance, Amy Cook, Building Character: The Art and Science of Casting, University of Michigan Press, page 166, lists "Notes to pages 91–95": explanatory footnotes and documentary footnotes, all mingled and numbered. Of at least several hundreds of books published by university presses that I've seen, I don't know if I've seen any exceptions.


 * Initially, though, I thought the new format nice in potentially trimming word count, as displayed in the "References" section. So I sought to integrate the newly lettered footnotes into the numbered section renamed "References"—and, accordingly, restore its name to "Notes" or, to prevent recurring misreading, now make it "Footnotes"—while deleting the redundant "Bibliography", which is only two sources. But I swiftly found the task arduous or impossible. Each lettered or numbered note or "reference" is locked in an editing template, which itself must be edited tediously, one field by separate field. Further, in the "References", I find no way to restore Google Books URLs. And it seems the "Bibliography" can't be deleted, as apparently the "References" hinge on it. But if the "Bibliography" stays, it should be completed, drastically raising the word count. Meanwhile, the templates hyphenate page ranges that properly get n-dashes. And overall, even during visual editing, I can no longer mouse on the number or letter to see the full note or "reference"—perhaps to copy or cut and paste it elsewhere—because mousing on it merely cues me to open a template, which in turn might reveal that I must find another template elsewhere. Altogether, since Wikipedia dictates no particular format besides clear and consistent, I'll likely revert to this article's original format. It was formatted as it was, with the full source written for each cited page, along with URL if available, since that significantly simplified reading, vetting, and editing. Mere economy of words within the footnotes is a trivial issue, as we don't scroll down to read the footnotes section in full. — Occurring (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Assessment
This article goes in too much unnecessary detail. The style is also not really that of an encyclopedia. As another editor noted at WP:FTN, it uses ages rather than dates. I would add that it even does for non-important events. As for the presentation of the claims, this was an alternative medicine and fad diet advocate but this is never clear (the point of view is not Wikipedia's WP:NPOV). Several times in the article's past it was pruned, possibly too much at times, but the main editor appears to have restored the lengthy details gradually again. Some are based on a promotional primary source (We Want to Live). But most material is based on another book, listed above, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights, that is mostly concerned about political advocacy (like most Gumpert's books it seems, he's described as an "advocate journalist"), rather than about scientific merits and developments. As such it would be best to present the book's POV in a context of history of advocacy and perhaps summarize that in its own section... Some aspects even touch on some conspiracy theories, but we wouldn't know reading the article. I'll have to look again when time allows, but the topic is of little interest to me and it is unclear if any lengthy work would be worth it considering the attitude when confronted about advocacy and article ownership in the past: 1, 2, and that the work might not stand. — Paleo Neonate  – 09:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding: the lead is better than the article itself as it does tell his views were controversial and included some conspiracy theories, albeit without being specific. — Paleo Neonate  – 09:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)