Talk:Gary Null: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
→‎NPOV: asks question
Line 31: Line 31:
==NPOV==
==NPOV==
The article, and specifically the lead, present Null in [[WP:UNDUE]] light, not adequately positioning him as he is viewed by mainstream academic health researchers. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 04:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The article, and specifically the lead, present Null in [[WP:UNDUE]] light, not adequately positioning him as he is viewed by mainstream academic health researchers. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 04:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


hello 00:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia ought not share the view of researchers, but bring to bear principles of objectivity to every subject. That would be like saying Mario Andretti fails because he cannot adequately engineer a race car. Null has a specific place that he has earned consideration due to his prolific and successful publishing track record in radio, print, and film. He is a proponent of health and wellness who has at times challenged establishment thinking, and at times advocated many tenants that establishment medicine holds dear -- that diet and exercise can make a person healthier. He does have a Ph.D. from an accredited institution, so I am not sure exactly about your argument. Kindly elaborate more specifically?

Revision as of 00:58, 11 May 2014

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


NYDN

Red Pen of Doom: You don't have a talk page so I am talking here. Why is NY Daily News "never an appropriate source" when cited as a news item? I can't believe that. It's a newspaper. hello 03:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talkcontribs)

THe NYDN is a salacious tabloid. We only use reliably published sources particularly for potentially controversial content about a living person. (and I do have a talk page, I dont have a user page.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The article, and specifically the lead, present Null in WP:UNDUE light, not adequately positioning him as he is viewed by mainstream academic health researchers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


hello 00:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia ought not share the view of researchers, but bring to bear principles of objectivity to every subject. That would be like saying Mario Andretti fails because he cannot adequately engineer a race car. Null has a specific place that he has earned consideration due to his prolific and successful publishing track record in radio, print, and film. He is a proponent of health and wellness who has at times challenged establishment thinking, and at times advocated many tenants that establishment medicine holds dear -- that diet and exercise can make a person healthier. He does have a Ph.D. from an accredited institution, so I am not sure exactly about your argument. Kindly elaborate more specifically?