Talk:American Association of Nutritional Consultants

Animal members...
I have already argued that I prefer more serious criticism, but I can not resist pointing out yet another animal member of this prestigious society. Namely, Australian nutritionist Rosemary Stanton's Old English Sheepdog used to be a member, see. --Merzul 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to take a look, but my PDF-reading program promptly crashed. Sounds interesting: do please rewrite accordingly. After all, a dog would show that the dead cat wasn't merely a fluke oversight. And serious criticism would of course be welcome too. -- Hoary 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC) .... PS one bit deleted; below, I rephrase it. -- Hoary 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will add this one, but only because I prefer dogs over cats! :) --Merzul 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I added this, and then read "This organisation has been criticised by Quackwatch for selling membership certificates to unqualified individuals." O RLY? :D Anyway, this is fun, but don't be surprised if some editor is offended and considers that this is WP:SYNT. I feel a git guilty that I've indulged in this, but we'll see what happens. --Merzul 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Right then, I'll retrospectively rephrase: A dog might be of interest, allowing the reader (if he or she wished) to speculate on various possible implications for this organization of its recognition of the professional skills and qualifications of live as well as dead quadrupeds. -- Hoary 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I call shennagians. If an animal can be given membership, the membership has NO credibility, LEAVE in article.Dmanning 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an edit summary I don't understand for an edit I don't understand: removed thing about animals -- add a proper section if you want to, otherwise leave it out. In a word, why? -- Hoary 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that I mentioned that Hulda Clark is a member, but that's gone now (?)Merkinsmum 07:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Association of Nutritional Consultants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509182300/http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/4.pdf to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Unsourced & whitewashing" revert
A series of edits made by me was reverted, saying they were "Unsourced & whitewashing". As far as I can tell, those edits did not change any statements of fact in a way that would require citing additional sources. I also don't think the edits were "whitewashing". I would appreciate learning of the opinions of others and hearing how those changes could be considered "whitewashing". —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was told to come here despite asking directly, who hasn't responded to requests here but I'm baffled. I cannot for the life of me figure out how they drew the conclusion it was unsourced, whitewashed and needed to be written in British English... VAXIDICAE💉  20:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also to 's point about WP:RETAIN, how ridiculous. It's literally called American Association of Nutritional Consultants. VAXIDICAE💉  20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding unsourced text like "It does not restrict its membership to those who hold accredited qualifications in nutrition science" (whatever that is supposed to mean), is - well, adding unsourced text. Removing all references to the fact the this org was selling its certification is whitewashing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address my other issues that I brought up like the language changes and it appears to be covered in the second paragraph. It's not selling anything. It's stating that it has no formal qualifications (like, idk a degree) for membership. Which is sourced in the "body" of the stub, as evidenced by the fact that they certified a dead cat. VAXIDICAE💉  20:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems they sell certificates willy-nilly. The unsourced talk of "accredited qualifications in nutrition science" (?) and removal of mentions of selling rather muddies that. Alexbrn (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It says It does not restrict its membership to those who hold accredited qualifications in nutrition science meaning it does not discriminate against complete lunatics who claim to be nutritionists or doctors but aren't accredited...as in, they accept anyone who applies because it's quackery. I don't know how one could possibly construe this to mean anything good about the org. VAXIDICAE💉  21:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And what the organization has provided in these cases is only a certificate of membership, not a certification of the completion of any degree program or passing some test of specialized knowledge. The article contains a picture of one of the membership certificates. The certificate itself does not say that it certifies anything. It says only that Henrietta Beecham is recognized as a professional member (with an expiration date of April 1, 2005). Per MOS:TIES, the article should use American spelling since it is an American association. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the point, but illiterate invocations of "nutrition science" just look dumb, and WP:V is a core policy. The point is anybody with some money could buy a membership. No need to make stuff up and write badly: that makes the article worse. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I modified that sentence to say "It does not restrict its membership to those who have any verifiable credentials in nutrition science." That phrasing is probably easier to understand. It is intended merely as a neutral summary of what is is stated in the next section. In fact I believe it is not really unusual for associations to offer membership to anyone who wants to join. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're asserting things that simply aren't true. It isn't bad writing, you've clearly just misread it by your repeated assertions that this was in any way whitewashed or unsourced. Unless of course, you are bringing into question the reliability of Quackwatch which has been discussed and is reliable per WP:RSP. VAXIDICAE💉  21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. I was wondering about the Quackwatch source myself. WP:RSP says that articles on Quackwatch by Stephen Barrett (like the one cited in this article) are generally reliable but should be considered self-published and "should not be used as a source of information on other living persons". I don't necessarily see a problem with citing that source in this article, since what is referenced is commentary about an organization rather than any particular person. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If "nutrition science" is not the best phrase, I'm happy to consider alternatives, but the phrase seems to be good enough to have an article on the subject on Wikipedia. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the source says: "All you need to be a certified member of the AANC is a name, an address, and a spare $60". No mention of subtle categories or the mysterious "nutrition science". But if you want to make stuff up ... whatever. Alexbrn (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I thought it would be reasonable to assume that what is relevant would be credentials related to nutrition, but I have now just shorted it to "It does not restrict its membership to those who have any verifiable credentials" (removing "in nutrition science" altogether). —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't restrict its membership in any way. Dead, alive, animal, vegetable, mineral, fictitious. All you need is $60 and a name. This is the point. Why make stuff up? It makes it look like they have some slight restriction. Alexbrn (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Any verifiable credentials" seems pretty broad to me. The application form apparently does contain some questions about background and qualifications, although they don't seem very choosy about how the applicants respond. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)