Talk:Uffe Ravnskov

16 March 2007: Query re the application of POV tagging
Peter G Werner, could you please clarify why you have flagged this article as POV? I have emailed Dr Ravnskov to ask permission for Wikipedia to use his photo (which was granted), and he has read the article and proposed only two small changes, which I duly made. Thus as far as the subject of the article is concerned, he is satisfied with its factual accuracy.

The only things that I can see that might have raised your hackles are


 * 1) the first paragraph sentence: "In recent years he has gained international recognition for his research into numerous scientific studies which prove the widely popularised Lipid Hypothesis to be scientifically invalid." I concede the sentence could be fine tuned, and will amend it to a more accurate and objective "In recent years he has gained international recognition for his research into numerous scientific studies, leading to the publication of a book which stated that the widely popularised Lipid Hypothesis is scientifically invalid."
 * 2) Dr Ravnskov's quote about cholesterol. If so, then I would remark that this is not the article in which to enter into a debate on the cholesterol controversy. The quote was made by Dr Ravnskov and published by the online media. It is a fact which has occurred, and is reported because it is a statement made by the subject of this biographical article which is relevant to his present activity and illustrates his point of view. A distinction should be made between POV of an article author (agreed, a Wikipedia no-no) and a reported POV as expressed by the subject of a biographical article.

If I am guessing incorrectly and there is a different reason for your tag, please advise (reasons for tagging should be added to discussion page when tag is applied). If nothing heard, I will assume that my changes as per point (1) were satisfactory and will remove the POV tag after a few days. Bezapt ( USER | TALK 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) )
 * No reply and NPOV tag removed from article.  Bezapt  ( USER | TALK 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC) )

20 March 2015:
I am not making a revision. However I would like to point out that this article has aged, and to be accurate, it needs revision concerning a 'scientific consensus' about the Lipid Hypothesis. It has been eight years since the page was last edited. Example statement in current page: "In recent years he has gained notoriety for questioning the scientific consensus regarding the Lipid Hypothesis." This statement "recent years" and also the idea of an actual "scientific consensus" for the Lipid Hypothesis should be addressed. I am not a writer, but I hope someone who sees what I am pointing out, can rewrite toacknowledge change about "scientific consensus" and various tenses in the article. Cobangrrl (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Cobangrrl

Unacceptable article
Practically every reference on this article was written by Uffe Ravnskov. Too many primary sources. The entire article may have to be re-written to apply to policy. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've just done a significant copy edit that removed material supported by references written by the subject himself. Striker force Talk 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but where's the notability? EEng 02:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't address that. I focused on removal of the self-published and/or self-written references. Striker force Talk 15:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you'd agree there seems to be a notability issue. EEng 15:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, from what I've been able to look at so far, I would agree. Striker force Talk 16:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever we may agree on regarding issues, there is zero notability issue. Please don't waste time. Carl Fredrik  talk 11:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Did not see this had been discussion in a deletion review. Closing.  Carl Fredrik  talk 11:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)