Talk:Kent Holtorf

A few ideas
There's really not an awful lot of tweaking which needs to be done! It would be a good idea to have the "Views and Controversy" section renamed to be just "Controversy", and put into that section anything bad that's been said about him in places like medical journals, mainstream media, and all the other places the detractors will usually hang out. It's important to ensure that we cover as much of the negative views as is fair (it comes under the "due weight" part of maintaining a neutral point of view). What this really means is that, for example, if 30% of the general run of thought is against him, for 70% for him, then really the article should have the same proportions - 30% of the anti-Holtorf views, and 70% of the pro-Holtorf, etc.

We need to keep the "Controversy" section for the "anti-Holtorf" material (see if you can find more instances of medical people saying "anti-Holtorf things", and if you can, name them and quote them, being sure to build in the references as you go).

It's best to keep Holtorf's defences against any detractors out of the Controversy section, otherwise it looks as though the article is trying to rebut the criticism - which is not our job! Our job is to give fair coverage to both sides, and let the reader make up their own minds.

Once we've made sure that we're giving due weight to both sides of the fence, then we need to include a bit about the controversy in the lead section, which is intended to give a précis of the whole article. I see Chzz has offered you some help (on your talk page) - he's very good, and a wonderful teacher. I've asked Sonia as well, and she says she'll be happy to chip in with some assistance.

Probably the final thing to do which will make the article much less promotional is to go through it and "weed out" where possible, any little words and phrases (which creep in to most articles!) which give away "which side the writer is on!"

Readers shouldn't be able to tell whether you, as a writer, are pro-Holtorf or anti-Holtorf. At the minute, it's very easy to tell, as the article reads like pro-Holtorf publicity material! This can all be fixed, and, in the end, it will be fine. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 05:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just had a thought! I may be able to recruit a couple of people who would be "just the job" for digging out some "anti-Holtorf" material to re-balance this article for you :) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pesky, that would be great! Zoeyeve (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Pesky, I've combed through it, made a few more "tweaks". But I gotta say, I'm struggling to pinpoint the "little words and phrases" you spoke of, which creep in and give away my stance. I think maybe I've just been looking at this too long. Perhaps you or another admin/editor could give it a fresh take and list some examples that need to be changed. That should get me rolling. Thanks for all your help! Zoeyeve (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha! One of the guys I considered for the job of devil's advocate was (errrm, how can I put this nicely?) way too extreme! (He almost exploded even at the thought of contributing in any way whatsoever ....) You gotta laugh, really. I will continue to hunt around for some assistance.  Try looking for "emotively nuanced" adjectives like "innovative" (where the detractors would call it "quackery" instead!)  Best to delete words which are more likely to come from one side of the fence or the other; the most usual suspects are generally adjectives.  When I have some spare time from patrolling new pages, I'll see if I can take a look myself; meanwhile I'll drop a reminder to one of the other people I;ve mentioned it to, who said she could pop in and help!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, I think I can guess who said devil's advocate was! :P Zoeyeve, I've removed "M.D." etc from the article text as it seems to be like "but look, he is a doctor!", a bit of justification or emphasis of his status. For complete neutrality, he should be referred to simply by his last name. I'm going to try to weed out the "little words and phrases" that give the impression. Here goes:
 * "which has been labeled at times as quack medicine" no need for "at times", seems again like justification. Who has labeled it as such?
 * "Some go so far as to call proponents of such treatments “snake oil salesmen”, after the colorful peddlers of the American West who have come to archetypally represent the popular ideal of the con artist [8][9]." This sentence, is it necessary? "Proponents of such treatments" is not Holtorf specifically. Criticism directed specifically at him can be mentioned specifically. This seems like "look at this, they're crossing a line, making emotive comparisons".
 * "put Holtorf’s views front and center" suggest change to "drawn public attention to Holtorf's views" or something like that, this seems a bit emotive but I can't put my finger on it.
 * The "Diagnosis and treatment of CFS and fibromyalgia" section. There is no need to explain these disorders. Link to their articles using , for example cat produces cat. Similarly, the medications can be linked (and basically any other technical terms etc in the article). More about Holtorf's recommendations and why they are controversial, less about what the disorders are.
 * Likewise Lyme disease-- just link it. Not a "stance" issue, linking; it just makes things tidier and more on-topic.
 * Finally, I'm a bit uneasy about the sentence in the lede that says "what could be considered controversial and complex medical conditions or disorders". I'm not sure quite how that can be changed though.
 * Whew! I know absolutely nothing about the topic (and some would argue, about the English language!), but I hope this helps somewhat. Thanks Pesky for the heads-up. This article is on my watchlist, Zoey, so I'll get updates as to what is changed, and what is added here. I'll check in later on if needed. That said, the article is in pretty good shape already :) Cheers! sonia ♫ 09:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice, Sonia! I knew you were a good choice :P  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleasure to help :) Oh, a couple more observations (very pedantic ones, we're heading for the home stretch now!): references come just after full stops, no spaces, and not before them. And, Pesky, the table of his quals- what's the appropriate infobox? sonia ♫ 08:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * cough* *cough*  Chzz  ►  15:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks Chzz :P Wasn't sure if there was a more specific one. sonia ♫ 19:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the current page (July 7 2013) is quite slanted against Kent Holtorf and mis-represents his stated views and material he has published. It reads like a hit piece. Opposing some H2N1 vaccines does not, in and of itself, indicate that a person is opposed to the general use of vaccines. The GSK produced vaccine had a squalene based adjuvant (AS01). It was administered in Canada. After several reports of a adverse events their health system ended it's use. Jackie Aldridge, Concord, CA

Some links which might help you :o)

 * Manual of Style/Words to watch
 * Ridding writing of fluff!

(I'll see if I can find some more possibly-useful pages later) Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You Guys Are Awesome!
I cannot thank you all enough, Pesky, Sonia, Chzz, for all your help. I've followed your suggestions and cleaned it up further. Sonia, did I reformat those references right? Chzz said I need to ask you, Pesky, to make the article live once you feel it's ready. Take a look and let me know if we're there yet, or anything else I can do! Zoeyeve (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs look good. Great job! sonia ♫ 19:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kent Holtorf. 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 tag to http://media.pituitary.org/newsletter/feb2011/articles.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415082258/http://www.healthandage.com/saturday-quack-bio-identical-hormone-therapy to http://www.healthandage.com/saturday-quack-bio-identical-hormone-therapy
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212132314/http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=461 to http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?id=461
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206192607/http://thyroidguidelines.net/hypothyroidism_1995/guidelines to http://thyroidguidelines.net/hypothyroidism_1995/guidelines
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126172646/http://www.ilads.org/lyme_disease/about_lyme.html to http://www.ilads.org/lyme_disease/about_lyme.html

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) 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)