Talk:Allan Markin

Edits surrounding Pure North S'Energy

To avoid an edit war, I am providing more context why I think the review by Alberta Health should be included in this Wikipedia article. The edits that I made on April 13, 2017 were reverted by a very new editor under the justification The Emery Report was published AFTER the department's review, so they could not possibly have been reviewing a study that had not yet been published. Whether the review by Alberta Health came before or after the Emery report was submitted online, is not relevant to whether the review should be included in this Wikipedia article. I took a review of the Emery report and noticed that it was never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or even a non-partisian professional magazine. It was submitted online through the University of Calgary, which as noted by the editor who submitted the Emery Report to this Wikipedia page noted, Allan Markin has "donated the largest gift in the history of the University of Calgary – $18 million". This is a huge conflict of interest and may be a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources

Regarding the review by Alberta Health, it is mentioned in a CBC article and those articles meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. The actual citations in the CBC article states that Alberta Health reviewers were evaluating Pure North S'Energy cost-saving claims, which could have been made many times and in many ways. In fact, the review could have been done at many times. The fact that CBC doesn't do a complete breakdown of where and when the review took place, doesn't mean the review didn't take place. We are relying on the investigative skills and reputation that CBC has to keep this citation in the Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia is about collaboration and compromise. Some editors could see removing the link to Emery Report and just keeping the link to the CBC article. However, keeping both links in the Wikipedia article is an attempt to avoid an edit war. This also allows readers to read both links and make a decision for themselves as to what the correct information is. Now, the way you have been commenting, it seems you have inside information about Pure North S'Energy. If that's true, that can't be used to justify editing Wikipedia articles. If additional information becomes available, such as a lawsuit against the CBC for their investigation, then we can always add and edit this article in the future. However, we need reliable links, and not just the heresay of someone who may work for Pure North S'Energy.DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I don't work for Allan Markin or Pure North, nor am I a member of their program. However, I am aware of the philanthropic work that he does for the homeless, addicted, seniors and other under-served groups in our society. You have chosen to post the CBC story which is incredibly one-sided. I have chosen to post material that balances the CBC story, so that this entry maintains a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia's objectives.

The Emery study, by a respected University of Calgary economist and posted on their website as part of the body of work of the School of Public Policy, is AT LEAST as credible (if not more so) than a news story. The University has academic standards that its researchers must adhere to, at risk of their careers. Reporters are free to publish a hatchet job, or in this case, a highly one sided opinion-editorial (op-ed). So post both, fair enough. I think it should be noted, however, that the Alberta Health bureaucrats reviewed the Pure North cost numbers in 2013; the Emery Report came out in 2016. That's not inside information. It is on the public record. It is entirely possible that Emery had more up to date information, or more information, or using his education as an economist, had a better analysis than the bureaucrats at Alberta Health. So yes, let the reader decide. The phrasing should not imply, however, that AHS was reviewing Emery's academic work. Who knows what they were reviewing. That's not in the story. But let the reader see both sides. Your implication in this note that University of Calgary academics might have written a report sympathetic to Allan Markin because of his philanthropic donations to the university is a huge accusation against the university's integrity and the academic community's professionalism. Are you honestly suggesting that an academic would risk his career because somebody gave money to the university he works for? Anyway, you didn't post that allegation, so I'll leave it be. It's the university, anyway, that would want to respond to that. (PS - I am not the editor who put the $18 million donation into this article. That was already there when I arrived).

I also note that you have removed the research I cited in support of Pure North's program. Earlier, in response to a post I made referencing research, you challenged me to cite that research. So I cited it, and you still removed it. That research balances the CBC's claims that Markin's program is "unproven" and "experimental". Again, neutral point of view. CBC's words are inflammatory and accusatory, and surely there should be an opportunity to balance that strong accusation with a credible response. Although they are easily available online (I found them) CBC did not mention a single published study in support of what Markin is doing - NOT ONE (which goes to my argument that the CBC story is not balanced. They also did not interview a single supporter of Markin's program, someone the program has helped (like the example I cited - again, easily found online), the administrators at the Drop In Centre or Mustard Seed or AARC - not a single positive interview, against several negative ones. Not balanced. Not even well researched, if I can so easily find supportive material online and they didn't.) Again, why won't you let the readers decide if the CBC is right, or if literally hundreds of peer-reviewed, published studies (of which I cited just a handful) are correct?

Maybe I'm a new editor, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be trying to ensure a neutral point of view in this article. I have made many modifications to my entries in response to your criticism, but your resistance to acknowledging that there is legitimate material that balances the CBC story you posted leads me to wonder if you work for the CBC.

Have a good weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RylieTheRottie (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, I think we have come to some concensus of the edits on this page. The point of Talk pages on Wikipedia pages is to flesh out the reasons for the edits with more rationale.

However, it seems you don't agree with removal of comments regarding Pure North's research. You have said that they have supported research in the past. Then provide me links on www.pubmed.gov to the research, and I will help you add them to the page. I think you also had problems we me removing the sentences regarding Pure North using "peer-reviewed, published research to support its claim". Well, every scientific or medical company does that. I mean, we can also say that Allan Markin pays his taxes, keeps his yard clean, and doesn't kick puppies, but that can be said about almost ever person in Wikipedia. We have to figure out what is relevant to this article and what isn't. Wikipedia editors should be summarizing the main points of the topic and not turn articles into an editorial or opinion piece.

Remember this is an article about Allan Markin, not Pure North. There isn't an expectation that we will go into a lot of details about Pure North. The reason that I added that citation about the CBC article was that it was a fairly big investigative piece. CBC put out multiple articles and even as I went looking for Pure North, I did find some other criticisms from The Globe and Mail but I chose to limit the citation to just CBC, for the sake of keeping the article brief and focused on Allan Markin. I chose to put it CBC investigation in the Wikipedia page about Pure North had been in for quite some time and the CBC investigation seem to link the activities of Pure North with their overall governence.

The CBC investigation is very well done and balance. You say that CBC should give Pure North "an opportunity to balance that strong accusation with a credible response." Who's to say that that CBC didn't try to get a response? I mean Pure North hasn't even put a response on their own website. The media can't legally force anyone to respond to their articles or request for a response. That's a choice that companies make. Has Pure North put out a response anywhere, even in another news agency? You also say "They also did not interview a single supporter of Markin's program", then you say mention Drop In Centre or Mustard Seed or AARC. I suggest you re-read the investigation. This is about a suspicious $10 million dollar grant which was given for a potentially harmful treatment that was provided to poor and vulnerable population without appropriate supervision. The fact that Markin supports a drop-in centre doesn't mean that every other thing he does is justified. For example, if a person holds the door for an elderly person at a mall, that doesn't preclude him from being a shop-lifter. You mention "Again, why won't you let the readers decide if the CBC is right, or if literally hundreds of peer-reviewed, published studies". No, there were no peer-reviewed published studies on Pure North or on Allan Markin on www.pubmed.gov . We are talking about Pure North, right? Well, we should be talking about Allan Markin, because he is subject of this Wikipedia page, right?

Regarding who works for what organization or not is a argument that we will drop. However, as I read through your edits, it seems that you have an emotional connection to Pure North. I suggest you take a read through some of the Wikipedia guidelines, and maybe get some peer review or perspective before any more emotional edits.DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The thing is that Allan Markin is NOT being accused of not paying his taxes, not keeping his yard clean, or kicking puppies. He IS, however, in your posting, being accused that his "program was not adequately supported by scientific evidence, could not prove the health and economic benefits it claimed, and could cause adverse health effects in participants." The latter accusation, in particular (could cause adverse health effects) is a SERIOUS accusation. He is being accused of potentially hurting people, without the CBC citing any evidence that anyone has been harmed (I'm certain, given the tone of the CBC story, that had they found someone who had been harmed, CBC would have included that in the story.)

Some of the criticism is directed at the government for how they made their decision. I have no knowledge of how the government made this decision and they can defend their own decision making process if they want to.

But I can see with my own eyes that Markin is being accused of operating a program not adequately supported by scientific evidence (hence the need to post some scientific evidence, in order to return to a neutral point of view), could not prove the benefits it claimed (which I think is balanced off by posting the Emery study), and potentially causing harm (and I don't know how you prove something didn't happen. It's like trying to find a document that says no flights crashed today. It only gets reported if something goes wrong, and neither I, nor apparently the CBC, can find any document that says Pure North caused harm to anyone). Perhaps you could advise me of the best way to balance those accusations. When I have a bit more time, I will compile a list of research that I think should be posted, and accept your offer of help on how best to post it.

On your point about this page being about Allan Markin, I couldn't agree more. However, I did not post the story about Pure North on the Allan Markin page. If you are going to hold him personally accountable for the accusations against Pure North, then you must also acknowledge that any balancing material must also appear in the same place.

RylieTheRottie (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the Talk pages are to flesh out the edits for the main page. We seem to have come to a consensus on the current edits and I think the edits are as balanced as they could be, so normally the discussion would end. However, I would like to address your concerns, in case you feel like additional edits are warrented.

Overall, you seem to think the CBC investigation articles was biased and unsupported. I suggest you read the article I cited, as well as http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bc-health-shuts-down-wellness-program-1.4048095 , and http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/unproven/, and http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-alternative-health-1.4047517%7Cthis one. The fact that CBC printed several articles with different slants and perspectives, suggest that they had a lot of confidence in the investigation. The reason that I only posted one link was because the article was generally about Allan Markin and his involvement with the Pure North Program, although I guess I could have posted to more articles.

If you actually read the articles, you would see that CBC had proper justification for the claims that they were making. For example, when the CBC article states the treatment could potentially cause harm, they then support this claim by saying that "Some supplements were several thousand per cent above RDA(Recommended Daily Allowance) levels and some were several hundred per cent above the upper level." The supplements were distributed in clear bags without any labelling to what was in them, which may be a concern to doctors who want to know if the supplement would interfere with elderly patients' medication. The supplements were also not approved by Health Canada, and the CBC cited evidence of lack of medical supervision. The CBC also got a quote from Jayne Thirsk, director, Dietitians of Canada that "Some supplements were several thousand per cent above RDA levels and some were several hundred per cent above the upper level." That is pretty strong evidence for their claim that there is a safety risk. The fact that part of the evidence that CBC has isn't an ancedotal report about a patient being injured or dying, doesn't mean that there wasn't any evidence. Since the population taking these supplements were the elderly, any injury could ultimately mean death. If the government waited until a study showed an increase rate of elderly people dying with this treatment, before the government took action, then the government could be extremely liable, and it would be too late. In general, we shouldn't wait until we have people dying before we recognize a potential risk to health.

The thing is if you want any other edits to be made to this page, then try and find something that contradicts this CBC investigation. Even Pure North hasn't come out with a statement that contradicts this. If there is a lawsuit, then great. We can put this on the Wikipedia page at a future point. I have taken a look at this from a critical eye and the only place on the internet that I have found criticism is from you and on Wikipedia. Yes, there is the Emery report, but I have already explained the potential bias and have kept it in the Wikipedia article to avoid an edit war. We need something other than your personal opinion on this matter. If this issue develops, I am all for adding more articles or links or lawsuit links or something, but we need something more than your opinion.DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pure North section

May 9: I wonder if we should agree that this page is not about Pure North, but about Allan Markin, and remove all references to Pure North (both positive and negative) other than that this is the organization which Markin founded and went to work at full time after his departure from CNRL (which would be a career reference only). We are treating CNRL in that manner - the only references to CNRL are about Markin's career there; any references to CNRL's success have been removed. Should we not treat Pure North the same way? This page is becoming, in part, an analysis of Pure North, as apart from a review of Markin's career. You are worried about the page becoming a tribute to Markin's philanthropy, but I am worried that it is becoming an attack on the organization he works for. I think we should remove it all, other than as a reference to where he works now. Wikipedia is not the right place to engage in a debate about an organization, on the biography page of a living person. Your thoughts?

No, I would disagree with this plan.

First, CNRL has a whole Wikipedia page and Pure North doesn't. One of the things to consider when adding information to Wikipedia is "what page is this information best put on?". You chose to put the success of CNRL on the Alan Markin page, but not on CNRL's page. Why is that? In this case, the investigation of Pure North is best put on the Alan Markin page, since there is no other Wikipedia page that it belongs on. Unless, you can recommend some other page.

Further, there is a lot of details about CNRL on the Alan Markin page, so I don't understand why you would want to remove so much about Pure North, when you want to keep a lot of details of the philanthropy of CNRL on this page. In terms of my edit to remove CNRL's success from this page, I would be for adding details of his success with CNRL, if you could tell me what Markin specifically did that contributed to its success. Sure, CNRL was successful under Markin's leadership, but provide specific details as to what Markin did that was different or unique. An example of this would be Steve Jobs pushing for the introduction of the iPod which directly contributed to Apple's place in the marketplace. Another thing you could provide is an example of an innovative leadership plan or financial strategy that was different than other companies.

You say this is becoming an analysis of Pure North, and that a Wikipedia page is not the place to debate an organization. I agree, that is why I removed a lot of your edits about Pure North. All the edits that you made about Pure North was to promote it as an organization, and wasn't really relevant to Alan Markin. I do think that my edits for Pure North are fair. The edits I have made are based on the CBC investigation which is about a suspicious $10 million dollar grant given for a potentially harmful treatment that was provided to poor and vulnerable population without appropriate supervision. My edits were not to analysis Pure North as a supplement company. There were multiple CBC articles covered by the investigation, without any dispute from Pure North (even on its own website). This mention of Pure North belongs on this page, because Alan Markin is mentioned throughout the CBC investigation, and, more importantly, because on the www.purenorth.ca website, Alan Markin is prominently featured on the website. There is even a five minute video profile of Alan Markin on the Pure North website.

Further, the most recent edit that I made was potential linking his involvement with Pure North with him leaving CNRL. That reason for departure is unique way for a company executive to leave a company (unique event that has notability). It also provides a justification for discussing Pure North's activities later in the article. I personally find a lot of your edits to be quite biased and you want to include only positive things about Markin. I have not reverted the vast majority of your edits, which were about Markin's awards and philanthropy, which shows I am not against having edits that are positive to Markin. However, you seem to want to remove any negative edits to Markin, suggesting a definite biased in your editing. Please review the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before any further edits.DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I have carefully reviewed the wikipedia guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons, and would like to note the following guidelines as it applies to speculation about why Markin may or may not have left CNRL.

1. Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit. - whether material is being presented as true: the CBC story does not claim it to be true, merely that it "appears" to have triggered his resignation. Appears to whom? If CBC had evidence of its truth, it would used those words and cited its sources. It didn't. - weasel words: "appears to have triggered" certainly qualifies as weasel words. It is just guessing. - attribute material to anonymous sources. The CBC article cites a memo stating that Markin was in a conflict because of involvement in both PN and CNRL, but does not recommend a course of action. In the event, the course of action was to resolve the conflict by CNRL replacing the PN employee health plan with a different employee health plan. There is no indication that CNRL or the memo-writer thought the conflict should be resolved by Markin resigning. Any allegation of that is either drawn from anonymous sources, or is conjecture by CBC. I also question whether it belongs in the Education and Career section, as we make no reference to his reason or timing for departing any other of his jobs.

2. Public figures[edit source]

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. - if you cannot find multiple third-party sources documenting the allegation, leave it out. Can you find any other source alleging that Markin "abruptly" resigned from CNRL because CNRL decided not to fund the PN program? First of all, who says it was "abrupt"? How does anyone know if he'd been thinking about resignation for some time? People don't typically discuss such plans openly. Second, does it not seem odd that a person would leave a multi-million dollar job over a disagreement about the employee health plan? Does this really seem likely, or should a bit more evidence be presented before it is published as fact? You yourself called it "unique" and "notable" which suggests you also find it surprising. If something seems too strange to be true, should there not be more than one source verifying it? That would be Wikipedia's policy.

The policy also makes clear that the biography page should not be the site for an ongoing dispute, and that where material is in dispute, "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back". We are at risk of reaching that stage in our disagreement about whether a fulsome debate about the merits of Pure North belongs on this page. I accept your argument that material about CNRL belongs on CNRL's page. Perhaps there should be a Pure North page, properly balanced. Perhaps that is where the research material could be posted that you removed from the Markin page.

You accuse me of bias by adding only positive material. I could make the same claim about you adding only negative material. I am adding positive material to balance the story and achieve the neutral point of view. I am also careful to use neutral language and avoid loaded words like "abrupt" which are opinionated and have a negative tone. I am going to try to rework these references to his resignation in a way that satisfies us both and maintains a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RylieTheRottie (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Point 1 (Avoid repeating gossip)First off, this CBC article is not speculation. This CBC article meets the criteria of being noteworthy, relevant, well document and well researched. The article and my edits do not contain weasel words. It seems based on past comments that you have a problem with CBC, without explaining why you don't think it is noteworthy. The fact that CBC (a very reliable news agency) used anonymous sources seems to be your main problem with the investigation. You even say "appears to whom?", as if CBC has to show to yourself personally the evidence of their article. CBC needs to prove to their editors of the validity of their investigation, and if they are questioned about it, they should respond. However, no one (other than you on Wikipedia) is disputing the investigation. So, therefore Point 1 (Avoid repeating gossip) is not applicable

Regarding Point 2 (Public figures), there is evidence that Markin made an abrupt departure from CNRL, such as from [Herald article from April 3, 2012]. There is also evidence that Allan Markin had a personal crusade that was very pro-vitamin as in [Macleans article from May 2015]. These are two different media sources, other than CBC. I am the one presenting evidence of my statements and you are just speculating that "If something seems too strange to be true....". I haven't found anything that disputes the CBC investigation, and this article is over a month long. This would give CBC time to retract the article if it was untrue, or new information was presented. As I have said before, the only person disputing this CBC article and its investigation on the internet is you and only on Wikipedia.

Personally, I feel that there is no amount of evidence that I can present that shows the relationship between Pure Source and Allan Markin. You feel that I only post negative information about Markin, yet I did not remove any of the philanthropy and awards that you have posted about Allan Markin. As a newer editor, I continue to stress that you need to read about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If need be, I suggest you look at peer review of your edits, to get another opinion on this matter. DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You simply reversed my edits without making any effort to accommodate the points I have made (including the point that speculation about his reasons for departing CNRL simply don't belong in that very neutral and fact-based paragraph on his career, unless we wish to also speculate on the reasons he left his other employment). BTW, I HAVE read the material on neutral point of view (some time ago, and re-read recently). One of its recommendations is that if material seems biased, to rewrite it in a more neutral tone. I have again attempted to do that, and trust that this time you will work collaboratively to see if there is a more neutral way to present the material in the CBC story that you feel is critical to a Markin bio.