Talk:Patrick Holford

• Talk:Patrick Holford/Archive1

Can I just edit something?

One of the links in the external links section should be in a "see also" section. Could I create one?--Jazzwick 09:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I already fixed this; it was recently reverted, and I can't figure out why. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I please create a See Also section? I don't think it was fair for it to be protected in the first place...

Would the editor who wrote the above please sign their contribs with 4 "~" Wilmot1 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert

What on Earth was that for? I don't see any discussion on this revert. The only part of any particular controversy is the para I added to the intro, which appears to follow talk consensus.

Further to that, it's now randomly been protected. I don't see this having even been requested. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please stop reverting before making any edits. If you have particular issues with edits then they should be addressed by editing sections, not by just going back to some old version. I didn't spend time copyediting this to be overruled because you disagree with an external link. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep reverting others, so you can't complain when someone else does the same. You're making controversial changes e.g. that he only calls himself a nutritionist, rather than simply is one (what would it be to be called one, and not be one?). Please discuss your proposed changes on talk before making them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time you've deigned to bother giving a response. This has previously been discussed (see the archives), and consensus appeared to suggest that this was an acceptable change. The majority of other edits were copy-edits. I'm restoring the un-reverted version, minus both sections about being a nutrionalist for the time being. Chris Cunningham 11:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said on another talk page last month, the article on nutritionists makes it clear that it's not a regulated profession, and that being a nutritionist does not imply any expertise or training (though neither does it rule them out). So there is absolutely no reason to deny or question that Holford is a nutritionist. He practises as a nutritionist; he makes money from giving advice about nutrition. It doesn't mean he's a good or bad nutritionist; it doesn't mean he's reliable or unreliable. Just leaving it as "author" means that the first impression people will get is that he's a novelist. I know that author doesn't have to mean novelist, but it is the first thing that people think when they hear or read the word. ElinorD (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As nutritionists are unregulated i would be against reversing this edit. He is an author (he has written books that have been published = author) Wilmot1 12:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And he is a nutritionist (he advises people on dietary matters relating to health, well-being and optimal nutrition = nutritionist). That the profession is unregulated doesn't indicate (to me at least) that we shouldn't say he is a nutritionist. It does indicate that we shouldn't say he's a dietician, which is regulated. But then, nobody's arguing that we should say that. ElinorD (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that nutritionists are regulated in other countries. If, say, doctors aren't regulated in Botswana, and I'm a practising doctor in that country, it would make sense for Wikipedia to note that I practise as a doctor but in a country which does not regulate that profession. Chris Cunningham 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The nutritionist article (to which we wiki-link) is very clear that the profession of nutritionist is an unregulated one. I have never heard that it is regulated in other countries. If that is the case, then someobody should update that article, giving a list of the countries where it is a regulated profession, with sources. In any case, Holford makes his money by advising people on what to eat and what vitamins to take in order to live healthily. Therefore, according to the standard definition, he is a nutritionist. Not all teachers are qualified, but if somebody works as a teacher, you don't start removing the information that he's a teacher, just because his country doesn't regulate that profession. People don't normally think of "author" as someone who writes books about nutrition; they think of it as "novelist". ("Who's your favourite author?" "Dickens.") ElinorD (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd debate that, actually; I don't see any "negative" connotations to the term "author" in this way and refer to non-fiction instructionalists as authors all the time. But your point about teachers is a salient one and I'm fine with this being kept as-is now. Chris Cunningham 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog

Would people please stop adding the blog? Blogs must never be used as sources in biographies of living persons. See WP:BLP and WP:A, which are policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. :-) ElinorD (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Elinor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, guilty of adding the blog as an external link (once). WP:BLP doesn't seem quite clear on this, though - "Information found in ..blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject". This clearly means you can't include info from the blog in the article; however, does this mean you can't add blogs as an external link to BLP articles, too? Jon m 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem of adding it as an external link would be that there seems little need to link to a blog that has criticised Holford once. WP:EL also covers this one, and generally no, blogs etc shouldnt be used as external links. Robdurbar 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WL says that blogs and personal webpages should be linked to unless written by a recognized authority. I think Goldacre, as a practicing medical doctor, contributor to both the Guardian and the Lancet, and an award winning journalist is a recognised authority Wilmot1 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No third-party blogs may be used on BLPs, and BLP is policy, which trumps anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Badscience.net is not a blog. And I also support what Wilmot1 pointed out. (I added the link back, it is highly relevant) --Uriel 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a self-published source and the policies don't allow self-published third-party sources in BLPs. See WP:A#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources and WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Claims that Holford's PR agent edited his article

The last paragraph of the article currently reads:

In January 2007, a Guardian article written by Goldacre detailed how Fuel PR, a public relations firm working for Holford, had anonymously removed all criticism from his Wikipedia article. Holford says this was not his intention: he had intended for the PR firm he employed to add a defence to the criticisms.

The source given is this Goldacre article. I have definite doubts as to the appropriateness of including this.

1. I think it looks a bit unprofessional to be making references to Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles, unless they are on a subject where Wikipedia is very relevant, such as the Jimmy Wales article. I can't imagine a Britannica article mentioning some story about Holford's agent editing his Wikipedia article, so I think it makes our sense of proportion look at bit funny if we do.
2. It's a bit controversial, isn't it? Do we really need stuff like that in a biography of a living person? I know it has a source, but the source is someone who seems to have an agenda of undermining nutritionists, even though the article comes from the Guardian. With ten references in the article, four coming from Goldacre is a bit much, in my opinion.
3. The article refers to Clarkeola, and speculates that the name is used on a travel website by a Stephen Clarke, and there is a Stephen Clarke who works for Patrick Holford. "Could they by any chance be related? Indeed they are, and it has now been explained to me that the deletion was a mistake (Holford says what he intended his PR to do was to add a defence of the criticism against him)." That's not the best sourcing I've ever seen. "It has now been explained to me . . ." Who explained it to him? "Holford says what he intended his PR to do was . . ." We can't just state that as a fact. If we have it at all, and I don't think we should, then at least we would have to say something like "Goldacre says that Holford says", or "According to Goldacre, Holford says", which of course would be rather clumsy. I think that section should be taken out.

ElinorD (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this should go back in. Dealing with the points above in order.

1. It is relevant to the issue of how Holford does business that he should pay a PR firm which does this.
2. If it isn't controversial that Holford did this it damn well should be. But the fact is not disputed.
3. Is an attack on other matters contained in Goldacre's article but are not relevant to this point.

Given the above I will now reverse the edit. Wilmot1 12:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really address my concerns. We're supposed to avoid controversial material in biographies of living people, unless the material is extremely well sourced, and definitely relevant. It's one of the most important policies we have here. I have doubts about how relevant it is. I just can't imagine any other encyclopaedia such as Britannica including such material, and I think it looks as if Wikipedia thinks it's particularly relevant because it relates to Wikipedia. I don't think it's well sourced. Goldacre doesn't say where he got his information. He does a little bit of speculation about whether that user could be Stephen Clarke, who works as Holford's agent, and then says "Indeed they are", without saying what the source is for his claim. He goes on to say that "it has now been explained to" him that the deletion was a mistake, and that Holford says he didn't intend it. Whom did Holford say that to? Does he give interviews to Goldacre? If so, why doesn't Goldacre say so? Much of that I said in my third point, which you just dismiss as "an attack", and "not relevant". I don't think it's an attack. Goldacre's blog shows that he has a huge interest in exposing nutritionists as unreliable. I don't have any strong opinion on whether he's right or wrong. But I'd like to see the BLP policy followed strictly, and I also think that it's a problem to have four out of nine references in Holford's article from the same critic. The only confirmation that we have of the identity of Clarkeola is Goldacre's "Indeed they are", and "It has now been explained to me" and "Holford says". There are no quotations from Holford, and there is no indication of when, where, and to whom he "said" whatever he said. Nor is there any explicit statement of who "explained" to Goldacre that the deletion was a mistake, or what source he has for "Indeed they are." Given the extreme importance of the BLP policy, I'm going to remove it again. I'm also restoring the word "nutritionist", as I have explained higher up on this page that Holford is a nutritionist, and that the word does not imply any qualifications, expertise, or regulation. ElinorD (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Optimum Nutrition Bible sales figures - accuracy?

There's a few different figures online re. how many copies of this book have sold (e.g. the publisher Piatkus books say almost 500,000 [1]). Holford's website claims that all his books combined have sold over 1million copies [2]. I'd therefore suggest either amending the reference to sales to refer to a total of over 1m sales for all books, or to refer to nearly 500k sales of this one book - unless anyone can find a better source for the 1m figure. Any thoughts on this, before I make the change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon m (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Linking to Prof David Colquhoun's criticisms of Holford?

As Elinor said, it is problematic that so many of the criticisms come from one guy. With that in mind, is it appropriate to link to some of Prof Colquhoun's criticisms too [3] - is this a sufficiently reliable source? It is on a university website, from a respected academic, etc, but given BLP policies, I thought I'd check before adding anything to the article Jon m 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Commercial interests

In the interest of declaring Patrick Holford's commercial interests for him, I'd like to get a report on his directorships and shareholdings. It's £35, though, so I've set up a pledge for £30 total to pay for it - I'll post the results somewhere public, Wikisource if they'll take them. Please sign up, and let's add some figures to this page. Motmot 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Goldacre's accusation

As much as it pains me to point this out, Goldacre is actually wrong when he claims that the paper doesn't mention AZT, see here, second paragrah from the bottom, so we mightn't want to keep that accusation in (I think pointing out that it is false would be OR). --Coroebus 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BANT is not a regulator

I've modified the main article to make clear that BANT is not a regulator, but a professional body for 'nutritional therapists' (to declare a competing interest in this, and provide additional info, I should say that I've e-mailed BANT to discuss this, and blogged about this issue [4] [5]). I know that linking to my own blog in the article would be very inappropriate - but describing BANT as a regulator is misleading. BANT does not claim to be a regulator anywhere on their website, and it's important that wikipedia doesn't give readers the inaccurate impression that BANT is a nutritional regulator. They do describe themselves as a professional body - so I think it's best that this is what we call them Jon m