Talk:David Horrobin

Untitled

This entry is spectacularly and obviously biased. At absolutely every point the subject's history is slanted to the most negative possible interpretation. It is so obvious as to be genuinely embarrassing to the integrity of this resource.

Section: Legal and regulatory issues

This is an important section, but I have concerns about it as currently written:

1. It relies heavily on an avowedly partisan source (Stephen Barrett writing on his website Quackwatch)
2. The article doesn't match the wording in the sources
3. The timeline is confused
4. It leaves out significant parts of the story.

I have therefore rewritten it with the correct chronology, more independent references and details of the DSHEA which directly arose from these court cases and transformed the supplement market in the US (for good or ill). This, I think, is what makes these cases particularly notable, so I am a little surprised that Barrett didn't mention it in his article. Beechnut (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of avowedly partisan, I note that in User:Beechnut's three-year history on Wikipedia, the user's edits have been mostly (indeed, until last week, exclusively) to this article and others involving fatty acids. I'm sorry, but I won't allow Wikipedia policies to be compromised for an agenda. This article is about David Horrobin, not about the history of supplements in the United States and certainly not about Beechnut's opinions about fatty acid supplements. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise (at least, not for that). I would be more impressed with this line of reasoning if you hadn't gone out of your way over the last few weeks to find so much negative material. I don't have a problem with that - if the statements are properly referenced and represent a non-fringe point of view, that is your right. But don't criticise me for trying to give due weight to other points of view. You certainly don't need my help for the negative stuff. I shouldn't have to tell you that, where conflicting opinions exist, our job is to cover each of them. You appear to want to exclude all viewpoints apart from your own. If you feel that I am breaking the rules, I am more than happy to go to mediation or arbitration, as I have offered over the lead section. If you are not prepared to do that, then stop reverting my edits wholesale and let's discuss them line by line here.

BTW, I added "citation needed" in the lead because the reference given does not support the statement; and I changed "drug company" to "biotechnology company" because that is how the source described it. Beechnut (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Felony indictments were handed down. Presumably, they were not issued to Horrobin because he was a foreign national; however, an FDA investigator stated that Horrobin "could have been" prosecuted. I do not wish to exclude viewpoints; rather, I wish to keep the article's focus on Horrobin, not on your research about the FDA and supplements. Hence, the reversions. Consensus is not a vote. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm: felony indictments were handed down, fines were imposed, the law was clearly broken. That is an undisputed fact. The US and UK have an extradition treaty, and the FDA later tried to prosecute Scotia companies in the UK, so your presumption can't be correct. I cannot imagine that the FDA would have been satisfied with the distributors if they could have nailed the "big boss". It seems more likely that they didn't think that they could get a conviction. The FDA investigator who (as far as I can see) has no legal training, who had no involvement in the original trial, and whose investigation appears not to have been used in the second trial, thinks that he "could have been" prosecuted. I don't think that carries much weight.

Maybe I should remind you that it was your idea to introduce a section involving these court cases - the least we can do is describe them accurately together with the resultant outcome, which is certainly notable as it transformed a major industry in the US.

Perhaps I should describe in more detail why I made the changes I did to the original wording:

• rv Selling in 25 countries - this would fit better in the company history section.

• rv H marketed for various diseases - The source doesn't support this quote. It says that the promotional materials were produced by Efamol. They included quotes from Horrobin, but that is not the same as him doing the marketing. Furthermore, most of the material appears to have been produced after the first court case.

• New para First court case - I have included everything I can find in the original court case which relates specifically to Horrobin (as opposed to Efamol or the distributors) using or promoting the use of claims for marketing. The evidence clearly suggests that he was, but we can only include what is in the source, anything more would be WP:OR.

• rv Claims made by Horrobin/Efamol/distibutors after 1984 - I have removed these because they are not relevent to the second court case, which was about misbranding and unsafe food additives. If you would like to put them in to show that Horrobin was still using claims to promote his products after the 1984 case, then I have no objection, provided that they accurately reflect the sources.

• New para Second court case - I have described the case because the FDA were clearly very worried about this dangerous substance; because it affected Efamol (which was a company under Horrobin's direct control) rather than distributors; and because the outcome was a major change in the US legal framework regarding dietary supplements.

• rv American Dietetic Association quote - Whether the products work or not is not relevent here. We could perhaps include this in the next section?

• rv Barrett's views - I don't think that these add much to the guilty verdicts passed down in the 1984 court case. The "research ethics" might go into the next section.

• New para Consequences of the court cases - This is taken directly from a reliable source and is not therefore WP:OR; the new legislation arose dirctly from the court cases in which Horrobin was heavily involved, so it is relevent; and it resulted in a major expansion of the dietary supplement industry in the US, so it is notable. I don't see why you have a problem with this.

• New para Third court case - I have included this because the FDA continued to pursue Horrobin's companies and this shows that their case was so weak that, even under the legislation prior to DSHEA, they were unable to obtain a conviction in an unopposed hearing. This is an important part of the story of Horrobin's involvement with the FDA.

It is possible that you may be concerned at the use of court records. I would say that they are impeccable secondatry sources as far as the evidence presented is concerned, because submitting false evidence is perjury. It might be argued that they are primary sources with respect to their judgements but, if so, they are extremely reliable primary sources, and the policy against the use of primary sources is not absolute.

If you are still unhappy with the changes I have made, then please tell me why, on this page and we can discuss it further. But please don't just revert my edits, again. Beechnut (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources state that Horrobin (and his company, Efamol/Scotia) marketed and sold products without the necessary safety and efficacy testing. These are the sorts of sources used on Wikipedia. We do not introduce primary sources to claim that the FDA was being too zealous, had a weak case, etc. If there's not a reliable, secondary source, there's no reason to include this information.

Neither the Press Gazette nor the PCC called the BMJ obituary "character assassination"; this was what Horrobin's family called it. The IP sockpuppet is encouraged to pick any of the sources describing the obituary controversy to support the statement that Horrobin's friends and family were angered by the obituary.

Scotia has been called a drugs company, pharmaceutical company, biotechnology company. I don't much care which word we use. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1. If you have reliable 3rd party sources which state that Horrobin sold products without the necessary safety and efficacy testing let's use them. If the sources say that Efamol did that, let's say so. But we can't say that Horrobin did it if the source says it was Efamol, or their distributors.
2. The outcomes of the court cases are described in secondary sources. The interpretation of the outcome is from a legal journal - a reliable secondary source. I don't understand your problem.
3. The Press Gazette says that the PCC did call it "character assassination". That is a reliable secondary source.
4. It is clear and, I think, unanimously agreed here, that friends and family were angered by the BMJ obituary. Where the text goes beyond the references is in saying that they were angry because it was negative. Mr Kelliher specifically excluded that, according to the PCC report.
5. If you don't care, why do you keep reverting "biotechnology" to "drugs"?

Beechnut (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources that demonstrate it should be after the info. No reader should have to go fishing for it. It is not properly attributed at present. If it can be then it should be. I've said as much a number of times now.86.3.142.2 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And having taken your advice to check it out, this one we find it says "The editorial triggered more than 100 angry responses from Horrobin's family, former business associates, scientists who described how Horrobin had been extremely kind and helpful to them, and others who said they had not known Horrobin but thought that the obituary showed extremely poor taste." A partial picture of the source is being used, family, business associates, and scientists, no mention of friends in that one, the view may be correct but is nowhere near properly attributed. Should it not say it 'triggered angry responses' and from whom, without chopping and choosing the list?86.3.142.2 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The PCC did not call it "character assassination", nor did the Press Gazette. The PCC was merely quoting Kelliher or another member of the family, just as the PCC was quoting the BMJ as saying Horrobin was "in some ways a charlatan". In any case, opinions of comments about Horrobin do not belong in the lead; only notable comments about Horrobin, such as the most notable comment of all, belong in the lead. You are arguing that Efamol marketed products, but Horrobin had nothing to do with it? Horrobin was the founder and CEO of this company until he was voted out. According to the reliable source, Horrobin directed the US marketing campaign by personally suggesting strategies to GNC. I have changed to "biotechnology". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also unable to find justification or words to the effect that 'anger was caused by negative and positive sides being portrayed' - again it might be a valid view but it is not properly attributed. V with RS the fact it is the most notable comment and I'll believe you, otherwise it's someone's unattributed opinion of what's most notable.86.3.142.2 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed Keepcalm's comments on the lead section above. I am not arguing that Efamol marketed products but Horrobin had nothing to do with it. He may have been directing them personally; or the marketing details may have been handled by a subordinate: I have no information and cannot make a judgement. And if I could, it would be WP:OR. For that reason, if the source says "Horrobin did it" then we can put that in the article. If the source says "Efamol did it" then we can't say "Horrobin did it". We have to say "Efamol did it". We probably can't even say "Efamol did it while Horrobin was CEO" as that would combine WP:OR with WP:SYN. I presume the reliable source you are referring to is the Steven Barrett article. The source doesn't say that Horrobin "directed" the US marketing campaign. And anyway, it is hard to see how he could direct a campaign by making suggestions (as opposed, say, to giving orders).

'Anger was caused by negative and positive sides being portrayed'. I'm only aware of anger being expressed at the negative sides. Do you have any good references for anger being expressed at the positive sides? I'm sure there was some (anger that is) but I haven't found any reference to confirm it. Beechnut (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously unbalanced article dominated by a single agenda editor.

During the past two months this article has been subject to a sustained and systematic sequence of edits whose purpose has clearly been to present the subject in the worst possible light. The lead has been packed with the most negative spin on the life of the subject possible, as has much of the remainder of the article. Any positive aspects of the subjects life have either been systematically edited out, minimised, or else presented in a manner which is clearly intended to undermine their weight, or value. This editor has systematically undone any edits by any other editor which do not agree with the clearly negative agenda as set forth in their own words (the following quote taken from the Richmond obits section above):

"The purportedly compromise suggestion is to add "balance" in the form of a misrepresented quote. That's not balance and it's not NPOV. There is already appropriate balance in the lead in that this same paragraph mentions the references to positive aspects of Horrobin's life, then mentions the controversy and the notable quote. As I've said before, the quote also represents a significant opinion about Horrobin, who engaged in illegal or quasi-illegal drug importing and marketing; hyped a pleasant-sounding drug with unsupported claims; refused to share research data per academic convention; engaged in legal means to silence his critics; and presided over a company brought down by fraud and drug licence withdrawals. There's no need for mediation. I abhor having to revert again and again, but as I said before, I am not going to allow an agenda editor to introduce synthesis, information irrelevant to Horrobin and sources like letters to the editor. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)"

The editor's comment "I abhor having to revert again and again" is a perfect- indeed perfect self-unconscious admission of an "owner" complex. This editor obviously considers that their opinion trumps those of any others, and in the process condescends to feel sorry that they are in some way forced to act, though obviously only in the vein of 'not allowing other editors (see the many edits above, but especially those which have been "archived"), as though this action were a hard patrician action upon the poor unknowledgable proletariat. The editor in question's language, motivations, and conduct, are all very much in question. With regard to the actual subject: there has been striking and repeated synthesis on the part of this seemingly agenda-driven editor (as it seems to me, at least, and apparently to others). This article is clearly unbalanced. and any reasonably detailed analysis via a search engine [ignoring this article] will bear this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.110.164 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it would appear clear who the real "agenda editor" is, and that is the editor "Keepcalmandcarryon". Hardly could there be a clearer statement of a determination to own a wikipedia article to fulfil a pre-existing POV and agenda of promoting that POV. The assertion is not one of allegation (and the accusations against Horrobin never rise beyond the level of associative allegation), but one whose tone is of avowed fact, which assertion indeed represents a very particular and very negative standpoint on the life of this person. Horrobin was never personally investigated for or accused of any major wrongdoing, was a registered medical practitioner throughout his life, and was and is considered a leading light and pioneer of what was once a fringe, but is now (significantly through his contributions) a major branch of human physiology and biochemistry. Since this statement, the editor in question has re-edited the lead further to put negative spin on the life of this individual. Reading it now, one would imagine the late Prof. Horrobin some sort of criminal monster. In fact, the "felony" charges referred to had to do with one of the distribution companies Horrobin's company used in the United States (one of many countries to which Efamol products were and continue presently to be distributed) in the 1980s, and had to do with a legal technicality concerning the definition of "food additive". The denouement of the case involved the law being changed by a unanimous act of the US legislative, striking down the legislation his distributor had fallen foul of. These facts, and many others which mitigate and give context to the extremely negative spin this editor has put on the article, were added by another editor (Beechnut) but were systematically removed by Keepcalmandcarryon, despite being fully referenced, chiefly from sites that that agenda editor had primarily relied on themselves. This, and many other similar editorially uncollegial actions have resulted in an absurdly negative bias in this article. The above mentioned incident, given such extreme prominence in the article by the agenda editor, was a small footnote in the long and impressive career, and not even directly involving himself. Prof. Horrobin was a key pioneer and contributor to the scientific understanding of what have come to be known as the Omega fatty acids. Horrobin was never personally charged with anything in the States or anywhere else, and his companies continued to do business there, and himself attend and lecture at conferences there, until his death. Horrobin was awarded the American Oil Chemists Society's "Stephen S. Chang" award. His Journal "Phospholipids, Leukotrines, and Essential Fatty Acids" was posthumously adopted as the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids. If you believe the agenda editor, you would not know this, and may be led to consider that this excellent publication is as is currently presented in the article: merely a vehicle for the promotion of Horrobin's ideas.

This same editor has systematically reverted edits by myself and at least four other editors, wherever those edits were deemed unilaterally, and against protestations by several other editors, not to accord with the black picture that this editor has been intent on painting. Beyond this this editor has engaged in bullying, ad hominem attacks, and even issuing threats (see discussions above), as well as accusing any editor who has a different opinion than their own or who wishes honestly to contribute of being a "sockpuppet", has engaged in misdirected and misapplied appeals to Wikipedia policy, and in short has employed every trick in the book to shut out any but their own particular, and strikingly negative viewpoint of this individual's life and career.

Many very well referenced edits, for example concerning Horrobin's business career, were reverted on spurious grounds, referencing Wiki policies that these edits did not fall foul of (for example removing edits on the ground that they relied on "primary sources", when they only partly referenced them, and in despite of the fact that wiki policy clearly allows the use of primary sources provided they are not solely or primarily relied on for the major part of content, which was not the case. If you read the business history as written by this editor, you might conclude that Horrobin was a poor businessman, under whose direction companies failed in almost criminal disgrace as the chief feature of this aspect of his life. In fact no business he began or ran whatever failed while he was in charge of them, and several survived him. The agenda editor systematically removed content and references relating to the continued existence and prominence of Efamol, a key Horrobin enterprise. Scotia failed under the direction of Robert Dow, whose policies were systematically opposed by Horrobin, and Dow was himself strongly criticised in the business press of the day for his handling of the company. The agenda editor has sought to reduce to nothing the responsibility of the man who actually presided over the decline and destruction of this company, seeking by any means to suggest that the entire blame can be laid at the door of Prof. Horrobin. Furthermore, the editor entirely obscures the fact that Scotia's collapse was mirrored by each and every one of the companies which occupied its entire sector of the early Biotech market. Indeed the long-term and continuing survival of both research based and over-the-counter companies founded by Horrobin is almost unique for this period of business history. The accound presented here, taking up a large section of the article, is clearly unbalanced, but yet in their own words the agenda editor is "not going to allow" others to alter this editor's particular spin.

This editor has elsewhere systematically reverted edits on often truly frivolous or indeed no grounds, simply, it would appear, because they do not show the subject in a negative light, or go some way to balancing the negative impression the editor has striven to foster. There are too many examples to note in detail here, but the discussion page and edit histories themselves bear witness to this sequence. One example which serves for the generality, however, is the editor's removal of details from the very source they themselves added concerning the "Tim Crow" complaint about Faulks' acknowledgement of the subject, in which Faulks asserts that Crow was fairly dealt with, as well as removal of material which makes it clear that Horrobin couldn't have derived his ideas originally from Crow, as his own such work predate Crows by decades. In this case, tellingly, the editor even agreed with this fact, but removed reference to it entirely on the grounds that I had not noted that it went back as far as it indeed did. Instead of merely correcting it, the editor removed it entirely, since once again it did not accord with the deeply negative impression this editor has systematically fostered. The impression therefore left in this instance is distorted, factually innacurate, and biased. This is a situation this editor appears comfortable with, provided it portrays Horrobin in a negative light, and undermines his (frankly considerable) achievements. Another similar example would be the editors insistence on adding the phrase "many" to refer to the publications Horrobin had in his own journals, despite these in fact not being many proportionally, it being standard practice for editors to publish in their own journals (many of these such were the likes of obituaries- an irony which ought not to be lost on those familiar with this subject), and Horrobin's remainder of papers published in some hundred or so (often very prominent) peer-reviewed journals numbering in the hundreds- far more than all but the most prolific scientists. All told, those publications either in paper or book chapter or book format published under peer-review or equivalent terms by Horrobin number well over 700. This is the really significant fact, but this editor has carefully chosen to finish reference to this with the undermining and misleading comment which appears. These are just a couple of examples among many others.

The article as it is currently written, dominated and owned by the agenda editor gives an impression of the life of the subject which accords with the most negative views of the subject's fiercest critics, and is a truly impoverished and ugly shadow of an impartial encyclopedic article.

Other editors have withdrawn from attempting to edit this article based on the aggressive behaviour of this editor who clearly seeks to "own" this article and has an obvious, and self-declared agenda to promote concerning the late Professor Horrobin. I left the debate some weeks ago, exhausted by the constant and wholesale reversion, and aggressively negative attitude of this editor. I will not re-enter the fray in the way of continuation of editing the actual article, as this editor has rendered it a pointless and unpleasant task, but I invite other editors fairly to examine the life of this individual through detailed examination of ALL the sources (and not simply those of Barratt, Richmond and other members of Quackwatch, Healthwatch, or other agenda-driven pressure groups.

As a beginning, those unfamiliar with the subject might like to read the Lancet obituary, as from an impeccable professional scientific source, and compare it with the "rap sheet" which has been produced by the efforts of one editor who has insisted on owning this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noncarborundum77 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the drive-by tagging. In response to NC77's accusations, I expanded this article from a stub to a full biography, and in the process increased the number of reliable sources from about ten to (currently) 59. There is no question that Horrobin was a controversial figure, but all note of this was absent in the previous version of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The tag reversion is absolutely clearly in violation of wikipedia policy, and represents very nicely an example of keepcalmandcarryon's clear sense of personal ownership of this article. There is obviously a dispute concerning the balance of this article. KC has done nothing whatever to address this, and has no right to revert the tag, but must wait until other editors have fairly examined the piece and the dispute is resolved!Noncarborundum77 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As to the ridiculous accusation of "drive by" editing, the involved and substantial editorial contributions I and others have made during this process were "weeded" by KC in an extraordinarily biased fashion, removing numerous reliable references in order to favour the extremely negative view of the subject which the article presently represents. KC has made it essentially impossible for any other editor to contribute to the piece in any substantive manner, in defense of the highly negative picture they clearly intend to maintain concerning the subject. The sources referenced in the article are used in a highly skewed manner, heavily biased towards negative content, which is included until the veritable pips squeak, largely from agenda-driven sources nakedly hostile to Horrobin. All significantly balancing material, even from these same sources, has been aggressively edited out. NC will, in their own words, "not allow" anyone else to make significant contributions to this article, and it remains non-encyclopedic, biased, and clearly agenda-driven. I fully expect NC will continue the pattern of behavior described above, violate wikipedia policy once again, and revert the tag once more. Let's just see.Noncarborundum77 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent NPOV Tag - Style and Tone

Whatever the issues surrounding the controversy, the current lede is currently completely unacceptable per our standard, clearly defined by consensus, at WP:LEDE:
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
Now it is perfectly reasonable to take note of controversial issues, but they must conform to WP:SS. Hashing through a litany of issues in the lede is destabilising, unencyclopedic, amateurish and - most important of all - transmits to the reader: this article is the subject of petty content warring. This is why the WP:SS and WP:LEDE policies have strong community support. By way of comment and suggestion, I observe that content disputes that unfold on the actual article page (see, for instance, discussions at Israel/Palestine articles or Kashmir) tend to produce unbalanced, over-referenced text, less-than-germane citation (to "prove" the dispute) and inappropriate wording. I am consequently reverting the lede back to what it was per our policy at WP:LEDE & WP:SS and I highly recommend that editors involved in this dispute work through their differences here on the talk page; fail that, editors need to proceed to one of our dispute resolution mechanisms such as WP:RFC. It is unacceptable to engage in edit-warring and I remind editors that WP:3RR can be violated both in letter & spirit. Should it be necessary, this page can be placed under administrative protection pending resolution of the current controversy to give editors time to work through their differences. Eusebeus (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless WP:LEDE and WP:SS have been changed recently to encourage the inclusion of inaccuracies and the exclusion of proper summary, I fail to see how the lead is "completely unacceptable".

• The change from "drugs company" to "biotechnology company" was a consensus change, agreed by several editors who otherwise disagreed.
• User:Eusebeus states that "detailed treatment is not appropriate to the article lede", but adds a statement that the subject was active "chiefly in the field of eicosanoids". This highly detailed statement (eicosanoids are specific, chemically-modified versions of certain fatty acids) is without source, and Horrobin's research into fatty acids is already mentioned.
• The change from "involve" to "involved" is unnecessary and, it seems, wrong.
• Elimination of a summary (as provided per WP:LEDE and WP:SS) of Horrobin's questionably legal activities and run-ins with the FDA, lasting over a decade and covered by multiple sources including those Eusebeus removed, does not improve the lead and does not serve the project well.
• "Three years after his departure as CEO in 1998" is inconsistent with WP:RS as noted by several editors in the previous and extensive discussion above: the subject was ousted as CEO.
• "currently conducts research based on Horrobin's intellectual property as a subsidiary of the biotechnology company Amarin" is not found in any of the given sources.
• The mention of Carol Richmond, which I added, was objected to by others, and it was removed.

I am certainly open to discussion, as I think should be clear from the amount of time I've devoted to discussing my editing of this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The lede should contain a summary-style of any major controversies. However, a detailed list of those controversies is better placed in the text. You need to find a refined, coherent style to make your points succinctly. "X was involved in a number of controversial issues, including A,B and C and was at point facing investigation by Authority N," for instance. That is summary style. I don't care about the content and hash it through all you want in a controversies section. But it is alienating to our readers and disruptive to our project to make the lede a WP:BATTLEGROUND for contested elements of this article. Now I apologise if in slapping up an earlier version I inadvertently removed reasonable content - I have no familiarity with the topic. Please feel free to restore whatever grammatical infelicities I introduced through restoring an older version. But please note from the standard of encyclopedic writing, the lede needs to be extensively reworded in proper summary prose style that does not get bogged down in a detailed recitation of issues that are currently being worked through on the topic. I simply cannot comment on content, but I do know an amateurish lede that shouts out "Yay, we're having an edit war" when I see it. I should add that, as I am from time to time called in to help massage prose and work out style issues pre-FAC, I am more than happy to edit and massage any proposed text from editors familiar with the topic in order to effect a proper lede summary. Finally - a small point - while I am indeed a great admirer of Constantine's biographer, I sadly do not aspire to such an august standard. Eusebeus (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This unrefined amateur thanks you for your suggestions and will ask for help from the community in crafting a more coherent lead! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to call you personally unrefined and amateurish; I have no suspicion that the lede was the work of any one single editor and regret that you have taken offence. What I meant was that by addressing so many controversial issues in specificity in the lede, this was not following the tenets of lede-style WP:SS. Now, it is important not to confuse the inclusion of material in the body of the article that can be substantiated by WP:RS & WP:V (bearing in mind of course the sensitivities of WP:COATRACK issues), with incorporation of material written in proper summary style in the lede. I can make many sourced claims about Mount Olympus, but would provide only a basic, informative summary of those facts in the lede. I observe from the larger discussion here, that there is a lot of back and forth about content backed up by WP:RS. But that is a separate issue from how to write an appropriate article lede that strives for balance and concision. Finally, an RFC seems highly salutary and conciliatory. For my part, I will try to solicit comment from an uninvolved admin or two to help sort through the issues here and to provide additional guidance. Btw, I suggest you refactor your comment above lest my i-before-e Doppelgänger find himself disagreeably referenced in a debate to which he was in no way party. Eusebeus (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC on appropriateness of lead and tone

Comments and suggestions would be appreciated:

• Is a POV tag appropriate, or is this article appropriately rooted in WP:RS?
• To what extent was the previous version of the lead (compare and see section above) inappropriate, amateurish and unrefined, as a respected editor has suggested?

As background: I expanded this biography significantly beginning in September of this year (compare this older version with the current version) after noticing no mention was made of the various controversies defining the subject's life in RS. Several editors, mainly User:Beechnut and User:Noncarborundum77, have voiced dissatisfaction with my changes, which we have discussed extensively on the talk page. Although some of the counter changes they suggested have been incorporated, it's my opinion that some of their other edits (which I have reverted) have constituted synthesis, are not based on RS and in some cases seem to have involved personal, rather than verifiable, knowledge about the subject. To me, whether information about a subject is viewed as "positive" or "negative" is irrelevant: what's important is that verifiable information from reliable sources is used with due weight. However, other editors feel that my edits were excessively "negative" and have charged me with willful character assassination. (For the record, I didn't know the subject, don't know any of his family, didn't know anything about him before I first read this article in March.)

User:Eusebeus has partially reverted the lead as "completely unacceptable" per WP:LEDE and WP:SS, deleting a summary of what several of the sources would consider Horrobin's legally questionable activities in the 1980s and early 90s. Since these activities are reported by several sources and occupy a section of the biography, it seems to me they should be summarised in the lead. Thanks for your comments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

The user Keepcalm,it seems to me on reasonable review, has throughout this discourse sought to dominate and own this page. A careful examination of the history will bear out this situation. This user, it appears, makes the most liberal possible use of the revert options without reasonable justification, among other tactics. Any reasonable and detailed examination of the the history of this and the main article will bear this out. Please do not remove the dispute claim until the issue is actually settled by reasonable discussion, and factual neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.110.164 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead does seem to give a full history of his company, which is a bit distracting. Some details could be relegated to the rest of the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article doesn't say how much money he made. From The Independent obit: "In 1996 he was listed number 212 in the Sunday Times's list of the richest people in Britain, with a fortune of £70m". Tijfo098 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with a single editor do not provide sufficient justification for placing a dispute tag. In my opinion, I have contributed to this article using the best available sources as per Wikipedia policies. Any editor who finds information in this article that does not come directly from a source should bring the issue to the talk page. You will find that I am quite willing to discuss these matters. I do not in any way own this article. In fact, the majority of my contributions were made during a one-month period in 2009, and I have not edited the article since then.

By all means, let's discuss the accuracy of the article. I am not, however, particularly inclined to purge treatment of the Horrobin controversies from the article, as the controversies are quite notable and have resulted in extensive and vehement criticism of the subject. This, like his company, must be a part of his biography; in this case, a large part. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You will not be surprised that I disagree with your second removal of the POV tag. I, and others, have tried to reason with you in the past (see archived discussions) and to achieve consensus. You have not responded in like spirit. Edits which have reflected badly on Horrobin you have accepted without a murmur; those which were favaourable have been fought tooth and nail, reverted and overwritten. I have neither the time nor the patience to engage in further line-by-line trench warfare with you. Most of this page has now been written by you; you have not edited it for many months so presumably, given your interest, you consider that it is a balanced account of the contoversies surrounding this award-winning scientist and that is fully in accord with the Wikipedia ethos. I disagree. That is why I am reinstating the tag. If other editors are interested, they can review the discussion and form their own opinions. Please do not remove the tag again - this should only be done once consensus has been achieved. Beechnut (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the second removal was by Shot Info rather than Keepcalmandcarryon, to whom I apologise. My point however still remains, that KCAC has shown him (or her)self unwilling to compromise or consider other points of view. In that circumstance, and where there is fundamental disagreement with the way the subject has been treated, a POV tag appears to be justified. This is not 'snark' but a genuinely held viewpoint which has already been argued at length. Other editors have made similar points. Beechnut (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise is often good, but we should not compromise the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and balance merely because we don't agree with what the sources say. I try to avoid commenting on editors, but in this case, those who would remove exhaustively sourced statements about the subject (because they view them as negative) or place a distracting tag on the article have much in common that some would view as being at cross purposes with the interests of an encyclopaedia. Who are they?

• Two editors whose Wikipedia contributions have been almost exclusively to this article and who have a clear interest in the fatty acid industry and/or a personal connection with the subject;
• IP socks of an editor who disputed my edits here (and elsewhere), apparently because of a conflict with me at another article.

I appreciate that Horrobin's memory commands admiration and respect, but our personal feelings about the man and/or his work don't justify rewriting the history about him as presented in reliable sources. As I've stated before, in addition to the many "positive" aspects of his life that are mentioned in our article, Horrobin engaged in illegal and quasi-illegal drug importing and marketing; hyped a pleasant-sounding drug with unsupported claims; refused to share research data per academic convention; engaged in legal means to silence his critics; and presided over a company brought down by fraud and drug licence withdrawals. These are not minor or inconsequential aspects of HB's life that the biographer can simply ignore.

POV tags are not placed because one or a few single-purpose editors personally disagree with the sources. I have no control over what is said in the reliable sources about HB, nor can I change the fact that the third-party sources include extensive criticism, while the more laudatory comments come from individuals who were close to HB. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I add that Beechnut solicited comments in 2009 from Unschool, with the following [response]:

Anyway, this is not one of those cut-and-dried situations where one party is categorically wrong. I understand your feelings, but I must say that I find the current version of the article to be perfectly acceptable. Per WP:LEAD, the obituaries definitely need to be mentioned in the lead, as they get a large portion of the article below. Inclusion of the snake oil quote would not be acceptable without it also being noted that the same were controversial, but as written now it is fine. Could it be written without the direct quote? Sure, but to be perfectly frank, it makes a hell of a good closer for the lead; simply put, its placement constitutes good writing, in my humble opinion. When you included that line about the "character assassination", it didn't read as well. One possible idea would be to either replace or supplant the general comments about the obituaries being controversial with the "character assassination" reference. In other words, I think the last line of the lead should end as it does now, but you may be able to change the beginning of that sentence. Looks like you're a sharp thinker, and newbie or not, looks like you'll be a great asset to the project. Nice to make your acquaintance.

There's obviously room for discussion, but the notion that this article is anything other than appropriately sourced and balanced appears to be held only by those with strong opinions on the subject, and a POV tag is uncalled for. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, yes I did know Horrobin. But the man's been dead for seven years now, nothing written here is going to hurt him. He was a controversial figure - I believe that the article should show that. As an iconoclast he made enemies, and some of those people wrote uncomplimentary things about him - that also should be included. But the article as it presently stands, does not to my mind present a balanced account of the man's life and work. Nor (IMO) does its tone sit comfortably in an encyclopedia. I do question the reliability of some of the sources, but leaving that on one side, the use of them in the article appears to be always to contribute to the negative view of Horrobin, to the point of being misleading. To take just one example: In the article it says "According to the Commission, the journal was not obliged to omit negative information, including the journal's contention "that Dr Horrobin was 'in some ways a charlatan'"." This implies that the Press Complaints Commission supported that view. In fact, they specifically stated that "The Commission ... made clear that it was not in a position to make a reasoned or fully-informed judgement as to the veracity of the claims about Dr Horrobin’s former conduct ...". They in fact point to the robust response to the obituary as the means by which balance was supplied.

You refer to your view of the negative aspects of Horrobin's character:

"engaged in illegal and quasi-illegal drug importing and marketing" The laws were repealed as a direct result of his activities. When I tried to add this to the article you simply reverted it.

"hyped a pleasant-sounding drug with unsupported claims" Evening primrose oil as a health food is not a drug. Claims are permitted at a much lower level of proof than for a drug. Evening primrose as a drug may have claims made for it within strict limits. I am not aware that Horrobin or his companies exceeded those limits.

"refused to share research data per academic convention" Scotia's drugs were not patented; the only protection against generic competition was secrecy.

"engaged in legal means to silence his critics" It is normal for any company to respond vigorously to any negative criticism, particularly if it is considered to be unfounded. The critics may have been justified, I don't know, but the courts would have punished Horrobin severely if that had been the case.

"and presided over a company brought down by fraud and drug licence withdrawals." The "fraud" was perpetrated by an investigator, not the company (let alone Horrobin). And the GMC accepted in it's judgement that monetary gain was not the motivation on the part of the investigator. The drug licenses were withdrawn, as I understand it, because they did not meet the then current requirements and, since the new drug substance protection was near an end, it was not worthwhile for the then license holder to institute new trials.

The fact that you can make those five comments so baldly I think confirms that you have an entrenched view of the man as an individual. This is your right, but you should allow there are other views which may have equal validity when editing. Both views should be represented in the article.

Actually, I find this whole episode rather sad, as I think that there is a good article which could be written about this unusually talented, but flawed man. This isn't it though. Beechnut (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no view of Horrobin other than what I have read about him in the reliable sources that are referenced in this article. I was not DH's friend or relative. I have had absolutely no contact with Horrobin, nor have I had dealings with his companies or competitors.

Beachnut has disagreements with the sources, which directly support all of the statements I have made in the article and on the talk page. As far as I can tell, these disagreements are based entirely upon personal knowledge and on Beechnut's interpretation of primary sources.

The only objection Beechnut raises about the article is this: In the article it says "According to the Commission, the journal was not obliged to omit negative information, including the journal's contention "that Dr Horrobin was 'in some ways a charlatan'"." This implies that the Press Complaints Commission supported that view. No such implication was made. The article does not say the Commission endorsed anything; it says the Commission's position was that the journal did not have to redact negative statements.

The rest of Beechnut's objections are to language I used on the talk page, which has nothing to do with the balance of the article itself. Even so, the criticisms, meant to indict me as having a POV, are mistaken:

• "engaged in illegal and quasi-illegal drug importing and marketing" The laws were repealed as a direct result of his activities. If this were true, it wouldn't change the fact that his activities were deemed illegal when he committed them.
• "hyped a pleasant-sounding drug with unsupported claims" Evening primrose oil as a health food is not a drug. I believe that this language came directly from a source, but as I watch over 250 pages and haven't edited this article in over a year, I don't remember which one. In any case, medical claims were and are made about the oil, and reliable sources call it a drug. Whatever Beechnut wishes to call it, this matter is a side issue with no relevance to the portrayal of Horrobin.
• refused to share research data per academic convention" and "engaged in legal means to silence his critics" are specific criticisms of Horrobin leveled in the sources cited in the article. They are not my statements. HB's reasons for doing these things as recalled by an associate are immaterial. We go with the reliable sources.
• "and presided over a company brought down by fraud and drug licence withdrawals." The "fraud" was perpetrated by an investigator, not the company (let alone Horrobin). Absolutely, and nothing in the article implicates DH. But the fraud and the drugs withdrawals did bring down the company over which Horrobin presided. It may not be fair, but the behavior of subordinates always reflects to some extent on the boss. Multiple reliable sources mention Horrobin in this context. That DH's company was brought down by fraud and withdrawals is certainly notable and must be mentioned.

Beechnut has already established his or her personal association with Horrobin. Although I admire the loyalty evidenced by Beechnut's attempt to remove perceived negative information from the biography of DH, this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. I encourage Beechnut to direct this energy more productively, maybe by publishing his or her recollections of Horrobin and his ventures, which if not yet suited for an encyclopaedia, would likely be a fascinating addition to the literature on DH. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, with a heavy heart, let's return to the text of the article and take it from the top.

Lead Let's leave this to the end, as it should be a summary of what appears in the article, and we have not agreed that yet.

Education and academic career - I have no problem with this section.

Founding of Efamol and Scotia The article states Because he presented only circumstantial evidence and did not propose a mechanism underlying the hypothesised link, the idea was ignored by other scientists and Horrobin was unable to obtain funding to pursue research in the area I can't find anything in reference 17 to support this statement. Let's remove it unless anyone has a reference.

Source 17 goes on to say Dr Horrobin established Scotia's predecessor, Efamol, with his wife, Sherri Clarkson, in 1979. It initially concentrated on natural products - Dr Horrobin had identified evening primrose oil as a potentially useful treatment for eczema after trying it on the son of a librarian from his college.

The article currently says: ... in 1979 established a company called Efamol to sell evening primrose oil (EPO) as a proposed cure for various ailments. For example, Horrobin became convinced that EPO was a treatment for eczema "after trying it on the son of a librarian from his college.

I suggest the following as a more accurate summary:

... in 1977 established a company called Efamol to sell natural products, including evening primrose oil (EPO) which he had identified as a potentially useful treatment for eczema after trying it on the son of a librarian from his college.

What do others think? Beechnut (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot comment on the above, but would note that insofar as the substance of the article has been challenged in a way that derives at least partial support from the secondary literature, the POV dispute tag should certainly remain. To remove it at this stage given the ongoing discussion would be disruptive. Eusebeus (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no serious challenge from the secondary literature, only from an editor who was a personal associate of Horrobin with apparent but undefined ties to the oil drug industry. Or, as s/he would say, the food industry (I'd like the scrod, please, and a side of evening primrose oil.") Where there is a challenge, it violates WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia cannot lend credence to claims about drugs efficacy that are established in newspaper articles, hence the "Horrobin became convinced that" and similar language. However, if other editors agree with the POV tag placement, I will not edit war but instead place an additional tag to show that several of the main contributors here have admitted conflicts of interest with the subject. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new section containing my response to the new Conflict of Interest tag here so that the discussion can more easily be found by visiting editors. There is a back reference to this section.

I am sorry if I have given the impression that I have only three objections to the style and content of the article. I have many objections. However, in my experience, if too much is put on the table at once then the discussion becomes unfocussed and unproductive. I am therefore proposing to take my concerns step-by-step, moving sequentially through the article. I am pleased that other editors are renouncing edit warring and take it as a positive sign that we will be able to put that behind us and collaborate productively.

Turning to the specific edits, I thank Keepcalmandcarryon for his timely reminder about the need to avoid apparent claims for drug efficacy where these have not been approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies, even when they appear in what would otherwise be regarded as a reliable source. This is of course, correct. We should however seek to convey the sense of the source with the smallest possible change and without distortion. If this is not possible, we should perhaps omit it or look for an alternative source. I suggest that we replace 'had identified as' with 'considered to be' to give: ... in 1977 established a company called Efamol to sell natural products, including evening primrose oil (EPO) which he considered to be a potentially useful treatment for eczema after trying it on the son of a librarian from his college. That makes it clear that it was Horrobin's view (rather than a generally held view) that it was a potentially useful treatment. The current text (...Horrobin became convinced that EPO was a treatment...) is saying something quite different.

Keepcalmandcarryon is silent on my suggestion that we delete the sentence beginning: Because he presented only circumstantial evidence.... May I take that as agreement? Beechnut (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with "considered to be". The "circumstantial evidence" line should be changed to: "Other scientists considered his evidence to be circumstantial and..." or similar, as we should not convey the impression that Wikipedia is supporting one position or the other. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"considered to be" is an improvement; thank you for making that change. We also need to include the word "potential". There is a world of difference between believing, on the basis of a simple experiment, that something is a "treatment" or a "potential treatment". The one implies a casual approach to evidence, the other the caution of a medical scientist. The source says "potential treatment"; we should use it or find another source. This is an example of where the text of the article goes beyond the sources to create a negative impression.

With regard to the other sentence you edited (which is sourced from the Telegraph obituary, reference 10) there is an unfortunate distortion. The source does not say that "The idea was dismissed by other scientists who suggested that Horrobin had presented only circumstantial evidence ...". It says "Horrobin's theory was based on circumstantial evidence ... but his failure to explain how a faulty fat mechanism could change the connectivity of a schizophrenic brain meant that he was largely ignored by mainstream scientists.. So it was failure to explain a mechanism which caused other scientists to "largely ignore" (not "dismiss") his theory, not the circumstantial evidence. I suggest that this should be rewritten as "The theory was based on circumstantial evidence but he was unable to propose an underlying mechanism and so it was largely ignored by other scientists."

In the following sentence, you have added the word "thus", thereby creating a causal link between his theory being largely ignored and him being unable to raise funds for research in the area. I can find nothing in the quoted sources which suggest that inability to raise funds was a factor in leaving academia and starting the company, let alone that it weas a direct result of his theory being ignored. Where does this come from? If it cannot be supported, it should be deleted. Beechnut (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What I'm gathering from your comments is that, in your opinion, unless the article quotes the source word-for-word, it is POV. In my opinion, the encyclopaedia should be more than a collection of quotes. That Horrobin started a company to raise funds for his controversial research is mentioned in at least one of our sources (it's been a while, and I do have duties outside of Wikipedia, so please give me some time to find this). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's one source for the connection: "His initial interest was in schizophrenia, but after failing to raise funding for more research, he founded the cash-cow operation that would become Scotia" (Glasgow Herald).

If you have reliable sources contradicting any of the following, we should certainly discuss them:

• Horrobin applied for schizophrenia funding
• His applications were turned down in peer review
• He founded Efamol to pursue his research

As it is, though, I don't understand why you're seeing this as a POV issue. We know from the reliable sources that Horrobin's ideas were controversial, so naturally it was hard to get funding. No shame in that. And kudos to him for establishing a different funding mechanism to research something he believed in, right? I'm not following how any of this could be construed as negative, even if we were primarily concerned with feelings not sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is actually a little different. The article contains a lot of statements which make him out to be a charlatan; one of my concerns is that such statements (and indeed the whole article) should accurately reflect the sources and not be editorial interpretations. I have suggested following the sources largely word-for-word as being the least contentious approach. I am quite happy to consider alternative forms of words within the foregoing constraint. Actually, I agree with your opinion too that it should not just be a series of quotes.

That's a useful new source - is there an online reference for it? Your three bullet points are valid, except that the source does not state that his applications were peer-reviewed. Some may not have been (e.g. to charitable foundations or industry). But it does support the use of "thus" in the sentence "Horrobin was thus unable to obtain funding to pursue research in the area." so I am happy with that.

Returning to my earlier point, I would like to replace the previous sentence "The idea was dismissed by other scientists who suggested that Horrobin had presented only circumstantial evidence and did not propose a mechanism underlying the hypothesised link." with "The theory was based on circumstantial evidence but he was unable to propose an underlying mechanism and so it was largely ignored by other scientists." The word "dismiss" implies that they considered it to be wrong; whereas "largely ignored because he was unable to propose a mechanism" implies that they would reconsider if he could propose a feasible mechanism. The difference is important: the one suggests that the ideas were crackpot; the latter that they were at too early a stage to warrant further consideration. It also allows that some scientists didn't ignore it. Either way, there is no suggestion in the source that the reliance on circumstantial evidence was a factor in the theory being ignored. Since the proposed replacement is closely based on the wording of the source, I believe that it more accurately reflects its intention, but I am happy to consider other wordings which address these concerns. Beechnut (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we in agreement to make the above change? Beechnut (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons, although I agree improvements could be made. First, the proposed version presents as fact the "circumstantial evidence" bit. Second, the theory was dismissed, not largely ignored, in peer review, such that Horrobin had to generate his own sources of funding. Again, as stated above, we haven't seen sources that refute the following:

• Horrobin applied for schizophrenia funding
• His applications were turned down in peer review
• He founded Efamol to generate money to pursue his research Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, on your first point, the "circumstantial evidence" bit is presented as fact in the Telegraph obituary - my suggestion just reflects that. On your second point, the source doesn't say that his theory was dismissed ("largely ignored" is significantly different) and doesn't mention peer review at all. We should be seeking to reflect the sources as accurately as we can, hence my concern. I'm not sure that I understand your comment that we haven't seen sources to refute the bullet points - that suggests that we take them as true without a source unless they are contradicted. I'm sure that you don't mean that as it would be hard to distinguish from POV. Beechnut (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just from this one source, ignoring every other source cited in the article, we learn that "no one was interested" in Horrobin's theory; the theory was "largely ignored"; the theory was based on "circumstantial evidence"; and Horrobin failed to explain how his proposal was relevant to the brain. But the Telegraph isn't the only source cited in the article. We learn from other sources that Horrobin failed to get funding for his idea, that is, it failed the peer review of the grant process. We know that this failure led him to start a business to raise funding to study the rejected idea. When I ask you for sources that contradict the statements above, I ask because each of these statements is supported by sources we have both read, and because we both know what it means when reviewers repeatedly reject a funding request because they see it as based on faulty reasoning and circumstantial evidence.

All of this supports the current language, in my opinion. If we cannot summarise what's found in the sources, if we insist on using only the exact wording of every source, rather than writing a cohesive article based upon multiple sources, Wikipedia ceases to be an encyclopaedia and becomes instead a collection of quotes. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we can infer that "The idea was dismissed by other scientists..." from his failure to obtain funding. There are all sorts of reasons why projects don't get funded. Competition is intense. Maybe Horrobin just wasn't very good at writing grant applications. Maybe they felt it was an interesting idea but too speculative to fund - we just don't know. All we know is what is in the sources.

I do take your point about quoting sources verbatim. I kept close to the source in my original suggestion as I thought that it might prove less controversial. May I suggest this as an alternative version of the first two sentences, which I think meets both your and my concerns: "While working in Africa and later as a beginning academic investigator, Horrobin developed a theory based on circumstantial evidence which implicated altered fatty acid metabolism in schizophrenia. He was however unable to propose an underlying mechanism and so his hypothesis was largely ignored."

We could add "by mainstream scientists" to the end if you feel extra emphasis is needed.

I would also like to remove "beginning" from the first sentence, firstly because it is inelegantly phrased, and secondly because I get the sense that he carried on developing his theory throughout his academic career and beyond. What do you think? Beechnut (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

When no one is interested in your idea and your funding applications are rejected by scientists who consider your theories to be based upon circumstantial evidence and conjecture, your idea has been dismissed. No, not by everyone in the world, not by others who later made careers selling oil-based drugs/health foods, not by friends, family and acquaintances, but by and large rejected. And that's what a general encyclopaedia must show.

As stated by the sources, Horrobin developed his schizophrenia idea during his time in Africa and as a young investigator. He may have refined the idea or expanded it, etc., later in his career, but it was developed early in his career. Or perhaps that's just more of my boorish, inelegant understanding of the English language? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know who wrote the phrase "beginning academic": if it was you and you found my comment offensive I apologise, that was not my intention. However it is an inaccurate and pejorative term for a period in which he held down a professorship, and it does not appear in the Telegraph article. I think it should go.

Scientists do not reject theories because they are based on circumstantial evidence. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was based on circumstantial evidence and it was some 40 years before the first substantial experimental corroboration was achieved. So if they are rejecting a theory because of the evidence it will be because they consider that evidence to be flawed. That is a serious charge to make against a professional scientist. If there is a source that supports that statement, then fine. But the Telegraph obit went out of its way to avoid saying that the theory was ignored because of evidential failure. If we have no source for the statement, it is just an unsubstantiated slur, and it should be removed. Beechnut (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Horrobin was starting an academic career when he developed the theory. That's neither inaccurate nor pejorative. He left academia to start a company based on his theory.

This is not debate about the value of circumstantial evidence or the merit of Horrobin's ideas. No one is making any charges or slurs. We are summarising what is found in the sources. That you insist on imagining insults to your late associate when a young academic investigator is described as a "beginning investigator" or when the scientific community's rejection of funding due to circumstantial evidence and lack of mechanism is described as dismissal is, to me, puzzling. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at a rewrite, I trust without introducing any slurs.

Another note on the "beginning academic investigator": there's likely a better formulation for this. However, Horrobin was an investigator for a total of seven or eight years when he left academe at the age of 37. Is there some language Beechnut won't take as an insult and Eusebeus won't remove in "ce", as if it were a spelling error? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah - I think I can see where one issue has arisen. The section in the article starts with the phrase "While working in Africa and later as an academic investigator..." which implies that he only started as an academic after he left Africa in 1972. However, he was appointed as a fellow at Oxford in 1963, so when he founded Efamol in 1977 he had actually had 14 years as an academic. "Beginning academic" would be a fair description if he had started when he left Africa, but not if we start counting from 1963. Maybe we should reword the opening phrase to make it less ambiguous. Perhaps "While working as an academic investigator, in Africa and later,..."?

I like your new version. It addresses the concerns I have expressed on this part of the article. In particular, it removes the suggestion that his theory was rejected because the evidence was circumstantial, which was not supported by the sources. The only amendment I would suggest (for reasons of clarity, not bias) is to change "did not propose a mechanism" to "was unable to ..." (or "could not..."). As it stands it implies that he could have, but chose not to.

The next sentence begins "To raise money for his research,[17] Horrobin left academia and in 1977 established a company called Efamol" which is fine, but it then continues "to sell evening primrose oil (EPO) as a proposed cure for various ailments.". I have a problem with this, as it implies that he was intending to make medical claims for unlicensed products. The Telegraph source actually says: "...to research and market Evening Primrose Oil" I earlier suggested "to sell natural products, including evening primrose oil (EPO) which he considered to be a potentially useful treatment for eczema after trying it on the son of a librarian from his college" as this also reflects the contents of the Guardian source (currently #18 in the references). What do you think?

(As an aside, I would be very surprised if Horrobin ever claimed that EPO or fatty acids were a "cure" for anything. They merely replace a missing metabolic component and so are unable to address any underlying biochemical defect. So, at best, they can only provide symptomatic relief, not a cure. Although symptomatic relief is not to be dismissed, if the symptoms are unpleasant and there is no alternative.) Beechnut (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)"While working as an academic investigator, in Africa and later,..."? is a good improvement and as you note is accurate. Let's change it. I also agree with the proposed mechanism phrase and the "cure" to "treatment" change. So, basically, yes. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made the suggested changes. On Horrobin's status as fellow at Oxford, do you know what type of fellow he was and if he held this position until assuming the academic job in Africa? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. I've not been able to get much detail on his fellowship at Oxford. A number of sources refer to him teaching medicine but we probably can't read too much into that. None of the sources suggest that he did anything between Oxford and Nairobi so it seems likely that he went directly from one to the other but I wouldn't want to state that explicitly in the article without a bit more to go on. While we are on the subject of his early years, it seems that (according to the Telegraph obit) he took his doctorate at the same time as he was studying for his medicine degree (BM). He is also listed in several sources as having got a BCh as well (e.g. the Lancet obit). That must be quite unusual and suggests that he was a bright and busy lad. Should we include it? Perhaps something along the lines of "He studied medicine on scholarship at Balliol College, Oxford, obtaining degrees in both medicine and surgery, and during the same period earned a doctorate in neurophysiology and neuroendocrinology." Beechnut (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good addition. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have put that in place.

In the article we currently have "...in 1977 established a company called Efamol to sell evening primrose oil (EPO) as a proposed treatment for various ailments.". I think that this is conflating two ideas. We know from the sources that he established the company to sell natural products (including EPO) to raise money, and we know that he planned to spend that money on research to prove the efficacy of fatty acids in various conditions and to develop his schizophrenia theory. That seems to be reputable. Our wording however (especially in the light of later comments such as 'snake oil' and 'charlatan' could be taken as suggesting that he founded the company with the direct intention of selling products with unjustifiable claims. That's fair enough if we have a source to support it but the sources for the section don't - perhaps one of the other sources does? If not, I think we should look for an alternative wording. I earlier suggested joining it on to the next sentence like this: "...to sell natural products, including evening primrose oil (EPO) which he considered to be a potentially useful treatment for eczema after trying it on the son of a librarian from his college" but I am happy to consider alternative wordings. Beechnut (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comments on this proposed change? Beechnut (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into this. He set up the company to sell evening primrose oil, which he considered to be a promising treatment for various ailments. His proposed uses certainly went beyond eczema. Whatever the wording, "natural products" sounds a bit too industry-speak for a general encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If this was a non-controversial article, I would agree that the difference is not worth bothering about. However, since some sources consider Horrobin to be a charlatan, and others a reputable scientist, I think we have to be careful not to go beyond what a particular source says. The key difference seems to me to lie in the word "potential". If we leave that out, it puts him squarely in the "snake-oil salesman" category, yet I don't get the sense that that was the intention of the source..

I agree that the potential uses he proposed went far beyond eczema. We could list them here, although they might fit better in the Evening Primrose article. Either way, the majority remain unproven, so it might not be appropriate for WP. Perhaps leave out the eczema anecdote and just say "which he considered to be a potential treatment for various ailments"?

I agree about "natural products". Although the term was used by the source it is very vague (wheat? rubber?) - I suggest we use "health food products", which also has the advantage of having its own WP page (albeit not a very good one).

Whilst nosing around on Google I came across an article in New Scientist which sheds an interesting light on this whole episode. It clearly needs careful handling, but I think we should try to include something on it. Here's the link. Beechnut (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Highly-Cited Scientist

I am a retired editor (because of the treatment I received in trying to edit the David Horrobin page) but there is one piece of unfinished business. In an earlier discussion I promised to take up with ISI why Horrobin was classified as a highly-cited scientist in the Agricultural Sciences section when he published virtually nothing in this field. It took a while but I have a reply:

"As you correctly pointed out to us; Dr. Horrobin was indeed not Highly Cited in the Agricultural Sciences category on ISIHighlyCited.com. Unfortunately Dr. Horrobin does not have enough cites to be Highly Cited in any other category on ISIHighlyCited.com."

He has therefore been removed from the index. This will, I am sure bring joy to certain editors, so I will leave it to them to make the necessary amendment to the article. Before they crack open the champagne, however, they might like to know that the letter continued:

"Due to the nature of the error previously made with correctly assigning Dr. Horrobin's cites, we are carefully monitoring his cites and while he is not Highly Cited in the current dataset we expect that he will become Highly Cited in the next dataset which we will begin analyzing next year."

Beechnut (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on this matter. Let's monitor the category as this develops. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot

I have edited the first reference to add an archived version of the page and reformatted it using the citation template. I have noticed that at least one of the urls used by the references in this article is no longer active and this will only get worse with time unless we address it (see WP:linkrot). I hope that this change will not prove contentious. If no one objects, I will continue to update the references as we work through the article. Everyone is of course welcome to help. Beechnut (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can tell there's something wrong when you can learn more about the man from the talk page than the actual Wikipedia page.

Nobody has come right out and said it so I will: the pharmaceutical industry pays a lot of money to discredit Hoffer, Pauling, Horrobin and others. Anonymous will expose this in time, but my advice and warning to Wikipedians is this: be aware that as time goes on the work of these men is recognized, none of is has ever proven to be quackery. Quackwatch otoh, is funded by the pharmaceutical industry and has blatant scientific and factual errors, is biased and should not be used as a credible reference. The allegations about Horrobin's work are shameful and the proof is trivial. Know somebody who has eczema? Put some evening primrose oil on it, daily. don't believe what anyone says, try it yourself. Now when you find it works look how foolish Wikipedia looks for slagging perfectly good medical advice and I'm really sorry it can't be patented, but that affects only corporations and not the truth value of the subject matter, which is a nasty hatchet job and discredits Wikipedia shamefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.196.226 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest tag

Keepcalmandcarryon has placed a Conflict of interest tag on this article on the basis that "... several main contributors have admitted conflicts of interest with the subject" (see discussion here). Since I have voluntarily disclosed a potential conflict of interest, I have to assume that this is aimed, at least in part, at me. I am puzzled, for a number of reasons.

• No other editors have made such a disclosure, so I am unsure as to the basis for the use of the word "several".
• I am a main contributor to this discussion page but not to the article, not least because most of my edits have been overwritten or reverted by Keepcalmandcarryon.
• Keepcalmandcarryon has not identified the surviving edits of mine which he feels are biassed. I am curious as to what they might be and have no objection to him removing them.
• I have not made any edits (apart from minor, non-contentious tidying) since October 2009, when I declared that I would stop editing the article. Keepcalmandcarryon has therefore had 15 months in which to resolve any perceived bias.
• I do not believe that I have a significant conflict of interest. I knew Horrobin but I doubt that he would have considered me a member of his circle of friends; I am not a member of his family; I have no financial interest in the marketing of healthfoods in general or evening primrose oil in particular. However I accept that other editors may take a different view and would only ask that editors follow WP:COI and "... not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor.".

I do dispute the neutrality of this article (it was I who placed the Neutrality tag on the article) and it is my aim to contribute to the process of improving it. Recognising that others may perceive a conflict of interest on my part, I will only make a significant edit once consensus has been achieved on this discussion page. I intend to make minor improvements (archiving references, correcting typos etc.) without discussion but any editor is welcome to revert them pending agreement here.

As the (presumed) subject of the COI tag, it is not for me to judge whether it is appropriate or not so, having registerd my disagreement, I am leaving it in place. Beechnut (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• It would certainly be helpful if KCACO could identify that content which s/he feels warrants the tag. Otherwise it certainly looks retributive - i.e. before the dispute tag was added, the article did not evince POV-driven COI content, but suddenly now it does, despite no new major content having been added. I will remove it pending clarification and re-add it once the COI-driven article content has been clearly identified (our readers are certainly entitled to know if an article has been edited to reflect a COI POV). Eusebeus (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The most obvious part of the article is now the POV tag. This was added repeatedly, against the guidelines of WP:NPOVD, by an associate of Horrobin who also has clear interests, financial or not, in the products developed by Horrobin. This same tag has been removed in the past and recently by multiple editors who have found the article to be in accordance with NPOV, despite Beechnut's attempts to find support in different forums.

As an example, one editor recently removed the tag, calling it a "parting snark". Previously, an editor whose advice Beechnut him/herself solicited made the following comment: ...I find the current version of the article to be perfectly acceptable. Per WP:LEAD, the obituaries definitely need to be mentioned in the lead, as they get a large portion of the article below. Inclusion of the snake oil quote would not be acceptable without it also being noted that the same were controversial, but as written now it is fine. On another occasion, Beechnut misquoted the article (as our forum shopping note states, "It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you") in a request for Editor assistance, and when the reply did not favour his/her position, made one of many proclamations that s/he was "leaving the project".

Indeed, editors of this article could be divided into two categories: those, like Beechnut, Noncarborundum77, Brigantian, and various IP editors, most or all of whose edits are to this article and who, consistent with apparently strong feelings about the subject, have relied on personal knowledge and/or opinions to remove information they consider negative; and other editors, such as myself, Shot info, and others who edit a wide variety of articles and have attempted to ensure the encyclopaedicity of the article in the face of what some might call agenda editing. I, for one, have added both "positive" and "negative" information to the article (although I disagree with the use of such words in the Wikipedia setting), tripling the citations and more than doubling the total number of sources, even after erroneous information and excessive primary sources were removed. The COI tag alerts the reader to the fact that this article is and has long been a magnet for agenda editors who, in my view, have demonstrated a single purpose in editing Wikipedia: bringing this article into line with their personal opinions or memories about the subject, whatever the reliable sources may say. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, so what you need to show (through diffs or quotes) is what specific content in the article is COI-driven and thereby warrants the tag. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A POV tag, in my opinion, is a prominent part of the article, and if its addition was made in an apparently COI-driven fashion and against consensus, addition of a COI tag is appropriate to denote this, as I explained above. Perhaps others disagree.

In any case, the POV tag has now been removed by another editor, consistent with consensus for the past year and more. I trust this will no longer be an issue, as I have made the changes suggested by Beechnut. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote given by Keepcalmandcarryon above is taken somewhat out of context. I was in dispute with him/her about the wording of the lead and was specifically asking user Unschool (who specialises in lead disputes) for advice. S/he responded that the lead seemed appropriate to the content of the main article, but gave no indication whether s/he had checked the sources and could therefore judge whether the content of the article accurately reflected those sources, or whether the choice of sources was balanced. Unfortunately, Unschool is on extended leave, so we cannot ask him/her for clarification. The full exchange can be found on Unschool's talk page.

I did indeed ask for editorial assistance, over the wording of the lead, and I did inadvertantly misquote a source (not the article). I was attempting to demonstrate that the BMJ obituary was controversial and provided source descriptions of it as "vile", "personal abuse", "vitriolic" and "infamous". I discovered that I had mis-remembered "vile" and retracted it, substituting "character assasination". One editor replied and he wrote: "If in fact the "topic" was notable for selling snakeoil, literal or figurative, that may make a reaonable lead. If it came out of the blue in the obit, then sure it would seem to be a fringe viewpoint that may be worthy of less prominent mention. If you can source "vile" as applied to obit from a reliable then it may make sense to qualify the quote or even impugne the source rather than topic.". The exchange can be found in this archive (search for "Biography dispute"). I leave it for others to decide whether Keepcalmandcarryon has used these quotes fairly.

I fail to see how adding the POV tag is in breach of the suggestions in WP:NPOVD. It says "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.". Removal of the tag by ShotInfo, who has taken no part in the discussion for at least a year is particularly hard to reconcile with this guidance. WP:NPOVD gives a list of ways in which an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy: I think this article ticks most of the boxes and I intend to work through them by discussion. We should also remember that "... an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is"

I would like to make it clear that I am interested in fatty acids and their related metabolism; I do not have "clear interests, financial or not, in the products developed by Horrobin"

Most of my edits have been on this article, largely because, of the pages I am interested in, this is the only one which is contentious. I am not encouraged to edit more widely however when even an apparently non-controversial edit in an unrelated subject was recently reverted without a reason being given by ShotInfo.

So, if I understand the situation correctly, Keepcalmandcarryon has decided that I am not a suitable person to edit this article (as evidenced by the above discussion and repeated reversion of my edits) and ShotInfo believes that I should not apply a tag to signify my concern about the lack of balance and misuse of sources. That doesn't leave me many places to go.

For the record, I continue to believe that the POV tag is justified and I will continue to point out the reasons why in the discussion. I will leave it for other editors to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the tag to be reinstated. Beechnut (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Shot info simply doesn't wish to spend hours arguing about whether substituting "dismissed" for "largely ignored" is evidence of tag-worthy POV. You've brought your concerns to multiple outside parties, receiving little support for your charge of bias; multiple previously uninvolved editors have come to this page, finding no major POV problems and in some cases reverting POV tags; I even started a Request for Comment, which received no comments. The consensus appears to be that this article is NPOV.

As to the "suitable person" comment, I have noted that this article has a disturbing history of single-purpose account editing that is inconsistent with the goals of the project. You happen to be one of those editors, and your edits have been reverted by me and others because they have often consisted of editorialising that, in the opinion of several editors, is somewhat more egregious than "dismiss" vs. "largely ignore". This does not mean that you cannot edit the article or contribute to it, although individuals with connections to the subject must recognise that their opinions and personal memories should not be allowed to influence the balance of an article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

KCACO, speaking as a longtime contributor to the disputes brought to WP:WQA, I appreciate your attention and interest in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of this article, but I would caution against taking these intentions too far. The idea of an WP:SPA carries with it a negative connotation, and denotes an editor who seeks unreasonably to slant or alter an article, typically as a result of an underlying WP:COI or WP:POV. In the instance where an editor commits to a good faith engagement with the content and seeks to articulate his or her concerns with an honest reference to WP policies and guidelines, using the designation of WP:SPA contravenes the spirit of WP:AGF, especially where the editor has a contribution record that, while skewed to one topic, is not, strictly speaking, SPA. You risk diminishing the legitimacy of your own engagement on this article by flirting with this kind of accusation. Furthermore, the fact that the editor retired from Wikipedia and desisted from editing the article for over a year makes such accusations all the more unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. Finally, consider the fact that several content alterations have been agreed upon as a result of good-faith engagement. It may irk you that you feel a POV-warrior is pressing unsupported claims in service of a whitewash derived from personal involvement, but the nature of the discussion/edits do not provide succour to that view and you should thus respect the principles of WP:AGF. Eusebeus (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have thought about this over the weekend and there are a few things which I would like to say which I hope may be helpful.

• I respect the time and commitment which Keepcalmandcarryon has devoted to Wikipedia over a long period. He or she is obviously intelligent and I imagine has many other calls on his/her time, so it must have been hard to sustain this.
• I also respect the stand which Keepcalmandcarryon has taken against quasi-scientific contributions which sometimes confuse belief with evidence. There is a place in this world for belief systems, but it is not helpful when they become confused with scientific proof.
• Given the pressures on Keepcalmandcarryon's time, I can understand that it may have been irritating for someone who could be perceived as having a COI to start editing again on an article which was 'settled'.
• I recognise that I have not always acted as gracefully as I might and that sometimes I would have been better advised to walk away from the keyboard. I sometimes forget that there are no angry mastodons and I apologise for any offence I may have caused. I will try to do better in future.
• I have been taught to mistrust secondary sources and to always work from primary sources when possible. Wikipedia is therefore something of a culture-shock for me, where a newspaper article can take precedence over a paper in Nature, but I am slowly adjusting.

I believe that this article can be improved considerably and I hope that we will be able to work together collaboratively to achieve this. We have different viewpoints but, because of that, I anticipate that the end result would be better than anything I could have written alone. Where we disagree, let's disagree constructively. Beechnut (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly noticed an apparent POV in this article. In my opinion the overview section deals too much with technical details of accusations and controversies where it should provide a brief sketch of life and career. Language like "Horrobin sold primrose oil in the United States without legally demonstrating its safety and efficacy" strikes me as odd, and I do not see how footnote-4 is relevant for this particular piece of text. What does it mean "legally demonstrating its safety and efficacy"? Should he have gotten an FDA license? Something like an achievements section is totally missing or hidden deep in mud. Did he contribute anything anywhere? Richiez (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Beechnut for the comments above.

In response to Richiez, in my view, the overview should contain information in proportion to the weight of reliable sources. Roughly speaking, what is Horrobin known for in the world (not amongst his circle of friends or in the natural products community)? When obituaries and other reliable sources, including scores of news articles, place emphasis on "accusations and controversies", an encyclopaedia article must also place emphasis on these. As to the specific example, it's quite notable when an individual or a company distributes its signature drug or "health food" without going through government approval processes and against express orders, resulting in indictments and a multi-year legal battle and plenty of press coverage. Should we ignore these reliable sources as too "POV"? If there are reliable sources showing that Horrobin in fact did obtain FDA approval before distributing his products at the time, we should certainly include them, too, but I haven't seen them yet.

The purpose of this encyclopaedia is to present reliable information, not to whitewash what some might consider negative aspects of an individual's life. As it stands, the article covers Horrobin's background, his journals, his scientific and popular writing, his work in Africa, etc., along with the controversies that are the subject of so many of the reliable sources on the man. If there are sections that can be expanded with reliably-sourced information, that's fine by me, and I will be glad to help. But I oppose removal of reliably sourced information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding distribution of health foods, this requires some explanation because it appears there was a change in law (correct me if I am wrong, is not my domain) and under current law ruling "food supplements" and the like he would not need any FDA approval. Consequently many readers may be confused why someone would object to the sale of EPO.

I have got interested in his person after reading a few articles about the interaction of NSAIDs, prostaglandins and the neurondocrine system, obviously when reading about stuff like that it would be hard to fail to notice that in a certain epoch about 80% articles about prolactin and prostaglandin interactions were either coauthored by him or published in one of "his" journals. While he did publish quite a bit about his food supplements my impression is this was only a fraction of the work he has done and substantial part of the work appears to be more or less "innocent, boring research". I do not see a trace of this in the article, the first impression is that the man spent his life selling snake oil and had nothing better to do than getting involved into countless legal battles. Maybe the boring research is not spectacular enough to fill pages in mainstream media? Richiez (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your points. There are tens of thousands of scientists who publish "innocent, boring research", some of them quite prolifically. Most of them are not mentioned on Wikipedia. It would seem that they deserve recognition. But for the encyclopaedia, notability is conferred not by what a subject does, but by how the world receives what the subject does: in terms of prizes, reviews, write-ups in the press, etc. That said, Horrobin is certainly notable for his research, not just the controversies, and the article covers this: he researched and wrote prolifically, he was an editor, he started journals, and so on. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am slowly looking what could be changed, so lets start with the first sentence. Should not the listed roles be chronologically ordered? We would probably never agree on ordering by "importance" but I find it odd that his entrepreneur role is listed first. Afaik it was before becoming entrepreneur that he had a notable academic career. Furthermore, I am surprised at the use of obituaries. Since when is times online the best source for obituaries of scientists? One obituary from C. Richmonds might have been enough. Personally I found the lancet obituary quite good to shed some light on his research career, getting insight that is impossible to get when reading obituaries written by mainstream (not to say nearly illiterate) journalists. Richiez (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

These are all good points. But it's important to understand what goes into a Wikipedia biography, which is based not on what you or I find logical or chronological, but on reliable sources as defined here. The Wikipedia editor must ask, "For what is this individual known according to the reliable sources?" not "...according to his publication record or the views of his friends or associates in the natural oils industry, etc.". Secondary source coverage of Horrobin (as in newspaper articles and other reliable sources) places great weight on his entrepreneurial activities. Thus, the Wikipedia article must also place weight on them.

You may vehemently disagree, but for Wikipedia, the Richmonds obituaries and the Lancet obituary would be roughly on equal footing. Except that the Richmond obituaries generated their own controversy that led to further, significant media coverage of Horrobin and the controversies surrounding the man and his work. Hence the prominent use of these obituaries (although not to the exclusion of the Lancet obituary).

By the way, in the interest of civility, I would encourage you to strike your comment about Richmonds as "nearly illiterate". Showing that you're so strongly partisan that you're willing to make personal remarks of this sort is quite counterproductive when you're the one who's arguing that the article is POV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My "nearly illiterate" remark was not targeted at Richmonds whom I do not perceive as a mainstream journalist and who got her share of criticism by others. Excuse if that was misleading.

It is frequently amusing when journalists write about science, it is less amusing when it is in an obituary. I do not want to go over all of them again and attribute literacy to particular newspaper redactions but one of the obituaries triggered my remark. Is it allowed to say that some of the obituaries were really mind boggling for me?

There are clearly obituaries that are better than others and might be used in preference to form the basis of the article. I did not read every single one but is there any reason why the Telegraph and the Lancet obituary should not get the main role? One for the mainstream facts, the other for the more technical details of research and academic career. As far as I can see they are of the more detailed and less controversial ones while hardly any kind of hagiography. The Richmonds obituary and the controversy surrounding it certainly deserves an own section and can supplement the article with controversial quotes.

Regarding the opening sentence, why should it be based on Times online which managed to reduce his biography to a short overview of his business career - is this considered balanced? There may be people who would like to deny that he was part of the academic circus but he was, and perhaps his career is very illustrative to show how the modern academic circus works. Richiez (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that the lede is based upon more than one source, and that the lede is in fact based on the entire article and the weight of the sources cited therein. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but some have even made the argument that the lede should not be cluttered with sources at all (as anything in the lede should after all be found in the article, too), and should simply be a summary of the rest of the article.

It's clear that you have well formulated ideas about the academy, Horrobin and science journalism. I would suggest, though, that you would do better to make your case for modification of Wikipedia's definitions of reliable sources at this talk page. Cheers. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Horrobin. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1125856.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1428907/David-Horrobin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410023936/http://www.aocs.org:80/member/awards/award.cfm?awd=chang to http://www.aocs.org/member/awards/award.cfm?awd=chang

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)