Talk:Gabriel Cousens/Archive 2

Ref formatting and citing sources
If anybody wants to add refs to this or any other article, please read WP:CITE. A lot of the refs are using the "cite web" template when they should be using the "cite journal" or some other template; a "cite web" template is used for internet-only sources, because as a rule they won't include the author's name, even if it's in the template. I am changing them out to the simplest format, which uses no template but only cites the information in a consistent order: author, beginning with last name, date, name of work with an external link if available, publisher, and when accessed, if an external link is provided. If no author is known then begin with the name of the work.

Also there is no reason to cite umpity-million sources if they repeat the information in another source. Nothing is to be gained in credibility or usefulness. I also am exchanging the pay-wall sources for free sources, if available, to make it easier for the reader (and other editors) to check the citation. If a pay-wall source is being used to ref a statement, and if the information is in another non-pay-wall source, it is much better to cite the free source for the sake of transparency. Also, for any article, not just this one, if the subject's web site is used to source a fact, that fact should be confirmed by an independent source (and that does not mean a source that quotes the subject or the subject's web site). That is why I cut the reference to Cousens being the captain of the team; the only independent source I have been able to find states that there were two other co-captains during the undefeated season. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific claims
There are scientific claims made in the article and I have pointed out their problems with this edit: We need solid scientific sources to support scientific claims and language. Jesanj (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some mainstream opinion for balance. I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to rewrite the first part of that graf without violating WP:OR. You can read the introduction I cited from Cousens [ http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Greens-Live-Food-Approach-Children/dp/1583941371 here] (it's only two pages). Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we should summarize the sentences that contain the problematic words to something like "Cousens has advocated a raw food diet for babies and children." That's all there seems to say, without having scientific sources. Jesanj (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that. Maybe, "tried out and advocated raw food diets for babies and children", would work too. Ocaasit &#124; c 13:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we could make the observation that the study was not scientific and a classic example of ecological fallacy, but WP:OR forbids doing so. I should finally finish my taxes today and then I'll do some research on similar WP articles to see how they handle it. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "study" was a survey done by one of his students. It was never done at the center.174.30.165.41 (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought I don't doubt that you're being honest, that's not what the source says, and we typically follow the source. Ocaasit &#124; c 01:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Arizona Homeopathic Board blog publishes a clarification:
"...Dr. Gabriel Cousens, MD(H) was licensed by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical Examiners in 1987, six years prior to any complaints filed with the California Medical Board. Dr. Cousens currently holds license #30 in Arizona and is in good standing. As of today in 2012, Dr. Cousens’ California medical license is in good standing and never has been revoked or suspended. He did not “escape” to Arizona as others have claimed. The Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical Examiners in a thorough, thoughtful and extended investigation, which included reviewing all three pathology opinions, two of which disagreed with the diagnosis of the county pathologist and one of which felt the report of the county pathologist was below standard of care. Based on all these considerations the Board completely cleared Dr. Cousens of any cupabilty, malpractice, or medical wrong doing in the Levy case. In its investigation, the Arizona Board found that only minute injected doses of homeopathic adrenal were used, which are completely legal to use in Arizona under the homeopathic license, and is also listed as a legitimate homeopathic remedy in the national homeopathic pharmacopeia developed in the 1930’s. The Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical examiners told Dr. Cousens, 'the Board found no fault with the care you provided and determined you were in compliance with accepted standards of Homeopathic care and dismissed the complaint against you.'"

I think the article already summarizes this incident sufficiently and in appropriate detail, but if there are points that could be added we can discuss them here. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the incident needs work myself, as well as other parts of the article, but since I got busy in RL I haven't had time to do much of anything besides work and sleep. I do intend to get back to it when I can. I don't know that any of the above would be useable or necessary, and I am not aware of exactly what three other pathology opinions it refers to (or how the volume or content of an injection relates to contracting gangrene). It sounds to me that somebody solicited a "clarification", although I'm at a loss as to what documents posted on Wikipedia they're referring to or what confusion those said documents are supposed to have caused. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy Board, "Despite"
I'm summarizing from a discussion with a representative with Gabriel Cousens's office, objecting to the language in the controversy paragraph
 * The word "despite" is used in that PNT, not a model of objective journalism. Using the same language as the PNT article only aligns the Wiki article with the PNT in both bias and expression. The reason for "despite" was that there were two other pathology reports providing considerably different perspectives on the matter. In other words, the county pathologists report wasn't simply dismissed as the article implies, but was rather weighed against a great deal of other evidence. The decision was made in a different context than PNT implies. The PNT language and the language on Wikipedia, assumes the authority and relevance of the county pathology report. Neither mention the other reports that were in conflict, and so without that information the AZ Hom Board appears to be rogue.  There were three reports submitted by 3 Board certified pathologists.  The prosecution (Levy) presented a pathology report stating one view (the view that was published in the PNT and AZ central) - This was the County Medical Examiner.  The defense (Cousens) presented two pathology reports stating two other views (these views are conveniently ignored and unreported on, although the AZ Homeopathic Board ruled based on the evidence found in these reports that Cousens was innocent). These reports were submitted by a pathologist from a Phoenix hospital and a pathologist who was also a medical lawyer.  Again, to state that "despite the County Medical Examiner's report" without citing the reason for the "despite" implies that the AZ H Board is rogue, which is exactly what the PNT article wanted to paint them as.

Discuss? Ocaasit &#124; c 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the Osteopathic Medical Board's finding? Ocaasit &#124; c 19:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read this and the article and a couple of externals and made a bold edit to address what appeared to me to be leading assertion of a opinion presented as if fact. - I didn't add any content at all to the article, I just attempted to present the disputed content in a more neutral and wikipedia policy compliant manner. diff of my edit You  really  can  20:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Cousens has a problem with the published source. I don't see a conflict between what our article said (prior to YRC's edit) and what is in the source, and my sense is that that edit needs to be reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor do I see any conflict, and I reverted the change pending the outcome of the discussion.
 * It is a shame that no reliable published source brings out the points in the message above from Counsens' office, because they bring up more questions than answers. I, for one, would like to know who the pathologists were who did the reports conflicting with the ME's, and what their relationship was to the investigation, and it would be interesting to know what the "great deal of other evidence" that the homeopathic board considered that was evidently ignored by the ME and the osteopathic medical board.
 * I would also like to get away from the kind of language used by Cousens' office concerning the incident, specifically, they say "the AZ Homeopathic Board ruled ... that Cousens was innocent". Neither the homeopathic board, Cousens's office, nor this article is a court, nor are we trying to determine guilt or innocence of a criminal complaint or trying to right a great wrong done to the parties. We are here to report in a neutral manner what the published, reliable sources say, balanced in conformity to those sources.
 * I propose that we hash this out over the next week and get the article in something close to its final form and then take it to biographies of living persons noticeboard for review and comments from disinterested editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ordained Rabbi" Claim
This article "sourced" a statement that Cousens is an ordained Rabbi. However, that source, source #5, said nothing about him even claiming to be a Rabbi. What that article did say, however, is that he practices his own combination of Christianity and Judaism. This, along with a whole bunch of other stated facts about Cousens, makes it impossible for him to be an "ordained Rabbi."

If anyone would like to put back the ludicrous statement that Cousens is an ordained Rabbi, please cite exactly which institution he is ordained by and provide a source. Thank you. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I left the qualifier but cut the synthesis. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Cousens was ordained pastoral Rebbe in 2001 and fully ordained Rabbi in 2008 by Rabbi Gershon Winkler. Here's an article: http://azjewishpost.com/2010/modern-jewish-pioneers-flock-to-patagonia/ HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're telling us that "ordained rabbi" has a different meaning than what traditional Judaism means when it refers to "ordained rabbi"? The Winkler article is in even worse shape than this one was. This is the problem with covering fringe religions, and there should be some type of designation so that readers can be warned that claims in such articles should be read critically. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain? (about ordained rabbi not Winkler) HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This statement doesn't spell it out enough?

"Cousens received an M.D. degree from Columbia University and completed his residency in psychiatry in 1973. His professional life takes him around the world, as a spiritual healer and raw, or live-food, nutritionist and a medical researcher and developer of a natural treatment for diabetes and a sickle-cell screening program. He’s also done humanitarian work in Central Harlem and with Chicago gangs and he is a rabbi ordained by Rabbi Gershon Winkler, founder of the Walking Stick Foundation in New Mexico."

HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "A "Rabbi" without qualified is assumed to be Orthodox, and hence, legitimate." Tom Reedy (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're getting at, Tom, but linking to that article doesn't help us much, I think. For one thing, that section is unsourced, clearly the product of someone's WP:OR, and in this case it's completely wrong.  By equating Orthodox with "legitimate", it implies that non-Orthodox rabbis are illegitimate; I hope you're not embracing the statement in that respect.  Apart from that, Modern Orthodox is simply a type of Orthodox.  My own view is that this source (a Jewish newspaper, after all) is acceptable for supporting the claim here that Cousens is an ordained rabbi.   I do have questions about it -- who is Winkler, for example, and how is he able to "ordain" rabbis on his own.  But In this instance I think we should go with what the source says.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already states that Cousens claims he's an ordained rabbi, and I don't know that this source is RS for such a claim, especially since it appears that the biographical information about Cousens obviously comes from himself and the main thrust of the article is not about Cousens. Because of my non-participation in WP for the past few months, my interest in this article is approaching zero, especially after reading the Winkler article. There's only so much a person can read of this kind of stuff before realizing what a waste of time it is to try to bring it into compliance with good encyclopedic practices. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's been tiresome. But I think we can use the article HoneyBadger has produced here as a source for that currently unsourced claim.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arizona Republic
. Despite the medical examiner's report and testimony, the board found in that 2001 meeting, then Board Chairman Dr. Bruce Shelton said he "found no medical fault with Dr. Cousens' care of" Levy and "

The above edit was added as cited from The Arizona Republic. It will be returned in 24 hours if there is no justifiable objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.145 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Film Review
The website Science-Based Medicine reviewed the film, calling it "highly effective propaganda."

The above edit is from an Internet blog is not RS by Wikipedia standards. It will be removed in 24 hours unless an RS is established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.145 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * David Gorski is a highly regarded expert. While his blog is self-published, I see no reason to consider it unreliable. See the discussion above. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless it can be established that the blog is wiki RS the edit will be removed in 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.18 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable Sources Noticeboard Discussion, please watch and/or comment. Ocaasit &#124; c 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an RS by wiki standards. It is a self published blog. The site is not evidence based by it's own statement of purpose. The quoted 'expert' is not expert in the field of commentary. The commentary at the site is not neutral and allows postings by other non-expert persons with no editorial control. The cited material should be removed until a consensus is formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 66. The site is self-published, however, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  Gorski is an established expert on scientific research who has been published by multiple third-party publications such as mainstream press and peer reviewed academic literature.  WP:SPS also notes "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."  So what we have may be reliable; it's at least in that gray area.


 * Considering that Cousens' film did not receive much mainstream attention, Gorski's website appears to be the most reliable scientific commentary on the film. This is a common problem in areas of alternative medicine because many mainstream scientists simply do not comment on claims made by CAM practitioners.  Yet, if we are going to include those claims I think we should provide noteworthy criticism of them where such exists.  For that reason, and for Gorski's established expertise as a scientist and researcher, with medical training, academic credentials, and a history of published work, I believe it may be appropriate.  For details, see the above discussion providing evidence for these assertions.  Please comment on those points or others you think are relevant.


 * A compromise here might be to remove the quote after touts, which just voices the film website's own POV. I personally think it's reasonable to either use both or neither.Ocaasit &#124; c 14:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing the film's website POV and leaving Cousens' participation in the film as biographical seems like good logic. The link of Simply Raw to the wiki article about the film seems the proper place to for such film reviews of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the suggestion to remove the film's website POV is sound and the proper place for any film review is at the wiki Simply Raw article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not take positions of 'weak', edits must remain neutral and balanced and not reflect or have the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifification the above was intended for the MD section. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

M.D. Credentials in Tree of Life segment
The Tree of Life segment involves a medical debate on raw food. It is essential for a balanced article that Cousens is an M.D. As is represented in the cited RS sources.

The reference to the M.D. Credentials will be restored in 24 hours to restore balance to the segment of the article effected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.29 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We clearly mention Cousens' medical training in the introduction as well as the education section. It does not need to be repeated in every section and indeed to do so would not be NPOV.  The article does not hide the fact that Cousens is an MD, but nor should it broadcast it next to every claim or fact about his life. Ocaasit &#124; c 21:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no "we" at Wikipedia only various editors who act in good faith. This segment of the article is about a debate in the medical community about the medical impact of raw food. Cousens engages in that debate as a medical doctor. The medical credentials need to be mentioned for a balanced article. The edit will be restored in 24 hours. I am open to other phrasing that restores the proper medical credentials in the proper perspective.166.137.210.24 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CONSENSUS. If you restore it without the agreement of other editors here, it will very likely be reverted out again.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Time would be better spent on working on a phrasing consensus rather than blustering about reverts that have yet to occurr. The medical credentials should be restored to a segment about a medical issue . For example in the RS Cousens is not offering a religious  opinion even though the wiki article mentions earlier he is an ordained Rabbi. He is mentioned in the RS cited as a medical doctor. This is not  'broadcasting " it is offering an informed balanced perspective from a wiki RS . That is what an encyclopedia does.  10:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.23 (talk)
 * Ahem -- you too have indicated you intend to revert. There are now two editors who have indicated disagreement with the edit you propose.  To reiterate: I don't find your reasoning persuasive.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I too disagree with its inclusion. It's clear the Cousens is an MD and that this is a medical issue.  Mentioning it again appears to be an attempt to bolster Cousens' authority. -- Daniel  (talk)  16:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear at all that Cousens is a medical doctor in the debate section of the of the Tree of Life segment as the segment only mentions his religious credentials in the opening statement. The Tree of Life is a medical center per the RS sources. The way the segment currently reads it looks as though Cousens advocacy of a medically based diet is from his religious credentials. The RS cited mentions Cousens medical qualifications and so should the segment for balance. Cousens is not clearly positioned as a medical professional as are the other persons in the debate section who the article properly credits with medical credentials. The segment is not wiki neutral or balanced without citing that all persons have medical credentials that are cited per the RS.

Ahem, to the fellow editor about consensus. You could bring a million editors who wanted an edit that said Cousens was Santa Claus but it only takes logic and good faith plus wiki RS standards of balance to make the proper edit from a wiki RS source, so please make a useful contribution in phrasing rather than lecturing fellow editors about wiki policy that is already known. Editors of an encyclopedia article about a living person's biography need to be neutral and balanced in the edits made. Editors are to build a consensus by wiki standards. Editors are not running for mayor of wiki town.66.235.12.74 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To show good faith here is a suggested edit: "Cousens has advocated a medically guided raw food diet for babies and children." 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk)


 * You might want to read the wp:NAMES section of wp:MOSBIO. We don't slather repeated instances of peoples credentials/titles/honorifics throughout articles. We state them once, up front, then dispense with them for the balance of the article, using just the surname from there on except where that would cause confusion. That is not specific to the individual described, but a general guideline for all biographical articles. LeadSongDog come howl!  07:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is asking to 'slather' anything in the article Cousens medical credentials as an MD have only recently been added to the article. Only his medical degree was mentioned before and the suggested edit is about how he approaches a raw food diet from a medical perspective. I suggest you stop copping an attitude toward a fellow editor and suggest a way to help balance this segment of the article so it doesn't read like Cousens is presenting an opinion based on his religious credentials. And again just a reminder there is no imperial 'we' at wiki just various editors co-operating together. 166.137.210.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is, after the first mention in an article, sufficient to refer to a person by their surname except where that would cause confusion (e.g. with family members). This is a widespread practice in journalism that has been adopted on Wikipedia. You do so yourself in the above para. I'm sorry if my use of the word "we" was too confusing to you, it was intended to mean "the community of editors on the English-language Wikipedia", but that's a little verbose for regular usage. Most editors here understand that, not any "imperial" intent. Perhaps "we" need to state that explicitly in wp:TPG, but after years of editing here, yours is the first such interpretation that I can recall seeing. If you think that section's text implies Cousens' opinion is based on religious credentials, then the reasonable thing to ask is whether that was a central implication in the cited sources. If it was not, then the response to take is to separate the discussion of his school's "religious" teachings from the discussion of its dietary teachings. In any case, bolstering of a weak argument by the application of repeated mention of the credentials of its speaker is a type of argument by authority, which does not improve an article. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It is good to see that a fellow editor agrees that a Borg like 'we' that implies an elite status is not a good idea and the obvious statement of a wiki policy without an implication that it is bolstered by the seniority of an editor is positive.

It is a violation of the good faith policy to insinuate a fellow editor has taken a position on an argument in a wiki article. It is further violation of a neutral and balanced editing to say that any side of a debate is a "weak" position and to edit that bias into the article. It also helps to not use words like 'slather' when addressing a fellow editor's content. It is suggested you read the whole section here as a solution for an edit that does not require Cousens M.D has already been proposed and the edit was drawn from the RS materials. Again,as suggested, it was requested fellow editors suggest edits rather than copping attitudes toward fellow editors who maybe new to wiki. Thank you for being informative.166.147.89.161 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be reading a different meaning into my words than they carry. I did not speak of any elite status for the simple reason that there is no such status here. I also did not address "a fellow editor's content", because there is effectively no ownership of content once it has been released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. It is Cousens' position that is "weak", and any version of text that bolsters that by wp:UNDUE emphasis of his credentials should be avoided. That was in no sense a comment on a WP editor, but on content. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that the proposed edit is going nowhere. I suggest letting the IP editor have the last word in this section.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To avoid any future food fights it might be proper to link the words 'raw food' in this biographical article to the wiki article page on Raw Foodism where the subject is explored in some greater depth. On the contrary there has been a useful exchange about what an edit might consist of. Wiki is not about 'winning'. As long as the' final word' is a good encyclopedia worthy edit all the editors prosper by the exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not take positions of 'weak' (or strong for that matter), edits must remain neutral and balanced and not reflect or have the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lots of errors in the "Works" section
There are a lot of errors in the "Works" section. Publication dates are way off (check http://www.bookfinder.com for correct dates) and titles are incorrect as well. For starters, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet was published in 1986, Conscious Eating was published in 1993, and so on. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Restore Statement From RS
Hello

This statement was removed from the article as a 'red herring' yet it was part of a cited RS article that offered balance to statements made about vegan nutrition.

"But a 2005 study in Archives of Internal Medicine found no major deficiencies when comparing the bone health of adults on raw diets with those who ate a typical cooked diet. While the raw food group had lower weights and bone mass, they had normal vitamin D levels."

The item will be restored in 24 hours.

A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:MEDRS and wp:MEDDATE. This is not close to being a reliable source for medical assertions. The 2005 study seems to refer to . This is a small study (N=18), not blinded, primary, and barely recent enough to consider. That a journalism student at CNS thought it worth commenting on hardly constitutes a serious secondary source. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lead Song Dog

Suggest you read the cited RS as the entire section of the wiki article in question comes from the same RS. The statement is from the RS and provides balance. It is not a 'red herring' grafted into the wiki article, again it is from the primary RS. Wiki reports from RS sources and is not about single editors cherry picking to declare one part of an RS ok and another part that offers balance a 'red herring. The removal of the RS portion that creates balance is vandalism of the articles content as originally represented in the RS.

The balance item will be restored in 24 hours to repair the vandalism.

A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lead Song Dog

The Archive of Internal Medicine cited in the RS article is itself an RS.

A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I think LeadSongDog has it right. That source is (arguably) acceptable for a broad statement about the opinions of some medical professionals, but is not appropriate for the specific medical content you inserted. Beyond that, it's a copyright violation, since you copied the entire paragraph verbatim from the source. That is totally unacceptable. I would also ask you to avoid using arbitrary deadlines for when you will edit a page and instead continue trying to build consensus here on the talk page. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and the whole point of having a talk page is to figure these things out without having an edit-war. Most impoprtantly, though, I repeat, please do not insert copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray

Both CNS and AOIM are RS. The statement is critical for balance. There is no copyright on the material. There is nothing arbitrary about 24 hours, it is quite specific and is sometimes the only way to get a response that otherwise can drag on for days or weeks damaging an article by a lack of balance, this important when the article is about a living person.

Arbitrary removal is vandalism of the original balance in the RS and by extension the wiki article.

Will post a suggested edit soon, open to suggestions.

A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the content that you added was a direct copy of a paragraph from the source. That source explicitly states that the content is copyrighted, but even if it didn't, Wikipedia operates on the assumption that it is. If you are unclear on why this is a serious problem, I would advise you to take a closer look at Wikipedia's policies. These pages, Plagiarism, FAQ/Copyright and WP:COPYOTHERS, might clear this up for you, but the best way to avoid any problems with this is to re-state the content using your own words, not those of the source. Proposing an edit here on the talk page is a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray

To be clear you are correct that the quote is from an RS. There is no direct copyright attached to the article itself. Simple fair use would allow for the quote verbatim or otherwise. Raising the Leviathan of 'plagiarism ' with a fellow editor is a bit of overkill. The statement having come from the RS provides balance both in the original RS article  and the wiki article, it's removal is vandalism of both. A simple edit can deal with the verbatim quote and restore the balance now lacking in the wiki article. A suggested edit will be made soon. Thank you for your comments. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not say that it is an RS, I said it is copyrighted. I think you should take a closer look at what constitutes fair use, which is covered in the above links. This does not appear to me to constitute fair use. For one thing, you did not even give appropriate attribution. (A reference tag doesn't count.) Using someone else's words without giving them credit is plagiarism, plain and simple. Again, I hope you will take a closer look at the above links before making such edits in the future. Additionally, please sign your talk page posts. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray

It seem there is just adding layer upon layer of nonsense about nonexistent issues. The quote will be restored with proper acknowledgement. If you think otherwise would suggest you get a ruling from more objective folks. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "more objective folks"? Copyright violation is not nonsense, and it's not a nonexistent issue. Please don't restore the quote until it has been discussed here on the talk page. Wikipedia has a policy of Consensus. From that comes the notion of WP:BRD: Be bold, revert, then discuss. We are currently in the discussion phase. Your best bet in having a positive impact on this article is to work with us here on talk.
 * The study in question (not suitable as a source, by the way) fails WP:MEDRS. It's far too small in scope, and it needs something a lot more substantial backing it up than the short newswire article which is only tangentially related. If you want to include a mention of this study, I think you should find a better source. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray

Another layer that no ruling has been made on. Here is a suggestion, why not actually read the RS and make rhe edit yourself. That would be something actually useful. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What RS? The article? I've read it, that's why I'm saying it's not going to work here. Since I don't think that edit improves the article, I am not going to make it myself. Or did you mean the original study? That is not an RS, since it is a primary medical study. Sorry I'm not useful enough for you, but try to remain civil. If this is moving too slowly for you, you could propose an edit that meets guidelines, or add more reliable sources to the article. Grayfell (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray  It seems a check of the edit history shows that cherry picking from the CAN RS news item continues to vandalize the wiki article. CAN is an RS and is properly cited for a fair use quote that was used in the CAN RS article. To remove and not restore it based on arguments presented by Lead Dog's OR ( He is not even certain he has the right item) leaves the wiki article open the appearance of pseudo skepticism or worse the original concerns it is a hit piece about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're throwing around a lot of accusations, but I'm not totally sure what you're talking about. A check of the history will show that I'm not the one who reverted your recent edit, and neither is Lead Dog. What is 'CAN'? Do you mean the AzCentral article you've been quote-mining? The basic idea is that the more controversial the statement, the stronger the sources need to be. This is especially true for biographies of living people, and also for medical articles. The AzCentral article seems acceptable for broad, non-fringe statements. It's not an RS regarding specific medical statements. If you don't agree, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Simply reinserting the material over and over again is just going to get you banned for edit warring. Does this study you would like to include mention Cousens? If not, it might be better as a source for the raw veganism article, but again, only if you can get it to meet MEDRS.


 * I would also advise you to read up on what Wikipedia considers 'fair use' as it doesn't seem to match your personal definition. The links I have already posted are a good start. Grayfell (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray glad to see you finally coughed up that ACZ is an RS. There is no quote mining going on as ACZ is the RS for the entire wiki article section being reviewed about the raw food issue, core to Cousens and the critical perspective offered for balance. It seems doubtful that you have read the ACZ article otherwise you would know it relates to Cousens and the fair use quote directly, such being the case why not make a suggested edit your self instead complaining about non- existent 'quote mining'. Even if the edit is not used it might be instructive as to what it should look like in your opinion. At least more instructive than accusations of non-existent plagiarism and premature threats of banning for non existent war editing. You will note that you did indeed rubber stamp Lead Dog' s guess as to what study was referenced. Further if the fair use quote is good enough for the medical debate on veganism it then stands it must be reliable as a quote in context to it original RS about Cousens position in the ACZ RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * RS is not a pass-fail system. As I've said from the beginning, the source is okay for general statements, but not for specifics, such as the quote you keep inserting. I said it might be usable as a source (not a direct quote) for raw veganism only if you can get it to meet MEDRS. That's not a trivial obstacle, and one you have failed to even address, much less overcome. I am not convinced that the section actually needs the kinds of edits you are proposing, and I would rather it be left alone than be changed to misrepresent the sources or violate WP policy. I'm not threatening you, I'm telling you that continually performing the same edit over and over again is the definition of WP:EDITWARRING, which is counterproductive, and often leads to bans. Your use of terms like 'ruling' and 'rubber stamp' suggests that you may be confused about some things here. I would advise reading up on how Wikipedia works. Also, to WP:SIGN your edits properly, you simply type four tildes (~). This will include a time-stamp, which makes following the conversation easier for other editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray The edit history shows the fair use quote was removed tagged as a 'red herring' with insinuations it was 'inserted' into the wiki article so a wiki editor could make 'sweeping' medical claims all show ignorance that the fair use quote came directly from the RS that the entire section of the wiki article is based on. Then came layers of lectures about non-existent plagiarism etc. At that time two simple requests were made, a request of how an edit might look and that more objective editors look at the Med issue as one editors OR is speculation and the other merely rubber stamps that. The request here is still for those two requests rather than murmurings about being banned. 208.53.121.210 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Using the term 'fair use' over and over again will not make the quote fair use. Yes, the section is based on the AZC source. Is that enough reason to include anything and everything mentioned in that source? Of course not. Context matters with sources. You still haven't explained what you mean by 'more objective editors'. It sound to me like you mean 'editors who agree with my viewpoint'. As for the 'layers of lectures', three other editors have removed the content from this page, so if you don't want to try and work it out on the talk page, I don't know what to tell you. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gray Big of you to admit that the wiki article section is from an RS and not 'inserted' by a wiki editor to make 'sweeping' medical claims. The fair use quote (yes it meets fair use standards) is in the context used in the RS which is to provide balance and when the RS cited is the Arizona Republic and that news agency is citing the Archives of Internal Medicine, a peer reviewed medical journal, it seems that more than meets MEDRS. You could bring in a million editors who said Cousens was Santa Claus and it would not be the case. Your help as a wiki editor is being asked for in two simple areas clarity on how reliable the RS are by getting a ruling on the matter and help shaping a proper quote should should the RS ruling favor restoring a proper edit. A third request can now be added, simple aid in getting a ruling from MEDRS, so there would be no delay in a proper edit. Wiki is not a debating society, it is to be a co-operative effort among editors for the best article. Playing dog in the manger is not what wiki is all about. Will you help in the areas mentioned? Looking forward to your response and co-operation.208.53.121.210 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When did I ever deny that the section is from a single source? Please don't twist my words like that. I never said that the source was not an RS. I said, and I still say, that it's barely acceptable for broad statements, and not acceptable at all as a WP:MEDRS. The AZC bit mentions an unnamed study from the AIM. One single passing mention by an anonymous student-journalist in a web-only news article is downright pathetic as a source for a specific medical statement. Since we don't even know exactly which study it is (I accept Lead Dog's suggestion that it's probably, but you have questioned that) we can't cite the study itself. Even if we could, we probably shouldn't! Directly citing a study (no matter how reputable the journal) is not always that great, because it's a WP:PRIMARY source. Beyond that, it's just one study (on adults) mentioned once in passing (in an article about children), so including it at all gives undue WP:WEIGHT. There are many, many reasons not to include the quote, but if you still want to pursue this, you might consider the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get additional input on the usability of the source. There are other noticeboards you might consider (WP:PNB), but please be mindful of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I'm still not sure what you mean by 'rulings', since Wikipedia works on a WP:CONSENSUS model, but hopefully that will give you more options. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Simply ignoring the objections I've raises and inserting the quote anyway is not the mature, appropriate response. If you don't agree with the points I have raised, and you don't want to pursue any other options, your behavior is disruptive. If you really feel that I am being unfair, I encourage you to seek additional input from other editors. Edit warring is not the answer. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The observation here is that it is not edit warring to repair obvious vandalism of an RS fair use quote to the biography of a living person. Good to see you finally acknowledge it is just your opinion and your "objections" are subjective. Now why not be more objective and take the quote over to WP MEDERS and get a ruling on it, or is that to much to request from such a knowledgable editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A 2005 study is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk 19:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Once again, 208.53.121.210, you are seriously confused as to how Wikipedia works. As I've already explained, sources don't work on a pass/fail system, and Wikipedia works on a consensus model, not a 'ruling body' one. For the third and final time: you can take it up with reliable sources noticeboard if you absolutely must, but I'm not going to do your work for you, because I know it's a waste of everybody's time. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope no confusion here at all, the Arizona Republic is RS. Refusal to correct obvious vandalism is the height editorial capitulation. Why not show a little humility swallow false pride and get a consensus ruling from WP:MEDERS... If the consensus there favors your currently subjective opinion that would be the end of the matter... Or is that to much to ask of such a knowledgeable editor. Or will there continue to be a refusal to co-operate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to show a little humility, huh? If you think that's what co-operation looks like, then yes, there will continue to be a refusal to co-operate. Grayfell (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So WP MEDERS does not matter to you....just your subjective opinion ????208.53.121.210 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that MEDRS is a guideline, not a group of people? WP:MEDRS is just a shortcut to the article Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I've read WP:MEDRS, and I strongly reject the idea (my 'subjective opinion') that the quote should be in the article. Not counting myself, three other experienced editors have now removed the quote. If you want to request further input, I've already suggested several places you might want to consider. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that WP MEDERS is a group of people writing the articles there. Do any of these experienced editors have any medical credentials that qualify them to over ride several RS one of them being The Arizona Republic, which has a medical editorial staff. Editors are here to co-operate to write the best possible article. If an editor has such a vast amount of experience why not take the disputed item to the proper suggested sources for review as requested. Yes that is called helping out with the work. The article is about a living person and has been vandalized in a way that makes article appear as a the hit piece it has been accused being in the past. A balance needs to be achieved. 208.53.121.210 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe-y
I added a fringe tag to this article. The content needs to be de-fringed. Delta13C (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
All fringe theories must always be given at least equal weight to the "mainstream" view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Cousens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616135823/http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_13191323 to http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_13191323

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)