Talk:Earl Mindell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeEarl Mindell was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
February 19, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

GA Criteria 1. It is well written. - Weak Pass

  • Overall the article passes this criteria with no glaring MOS violations but there are some areas that could be improved.
  • I would merge the Trivial detail into a relevant section of the article. There is no need for a one line section, especially on that should be actively avoided.
  • I do like the Bibliography table but the particularly coding of it doesn't link the ISBN to Wikipedia's Booksource program. See WP:ISBN. This greatly aids the curious reader in being able to track down a particularly book of interest. Admittedly, I'm not most knowledgeable when it comes to tables and codes but I would strongly encourage the editors of this page to try and find a way to incorporate the ISBN links to the bibliography table. I will note that this is not a precursor for GA attainment, just an improvement suggestion.
  • There are several cases of redundant "Wiki-links" like the multiple linkings to Multi-level marketing and Pacific Western University. These items only need to be wiki-linked on their first appearance in the article. I would also look at the "See Also" section which includes items that have already been linked in the article and is simply not needed in this section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable - Weak Pass

  • Overall the article passes this are because as the whole it is well referenced with reliable sources. However, there are some areas for improvement.
  • I would be leery of "over tagging" in a few cases, both for aesthetic as well as practical reasons. For example, is 5 in line citations really needed for the 3 lines of text under Education. Judging from the rest of the article it looks like the citation style incorporated is to bunch them up at the end of the paragraph. In accordance to WP:MOS and WP:CITE standards that is acceptable. But in practice with sections like Education, it still looks a little like overkill. Even highly controversial claims need no more then 2 cites from reliable sources and some editorial discernment should be leverage to pair down that list to the sources that best attribute the pertinent claims. As a reader, there is some practical disadvantages to seeing a trail of cites at the end of the paragraph in that I don't immediately know exactly which claim is the controversial one that requires so many cites. Is it his North Dakota degree? The Master Herbalist diploma? The fact that Pacific Western University is unaccredited? An excess burden is placed on the reader to then fish through all the cites to try and figure out what the issue is. In seeing so many cites, there is a sense that "Something is up" here and that the reader needs to be more discerning about the verifiability of what they are reading. In some cases, especially of controversial figures, that is skepticism is welcomed and needed for NPOV standards. However, I would encourage you to pinpoint those cites to those controversial statements so that the reader doesn't have to search all over the place to find out exactly what they should skeptical about.
  • In a slightly similar vein, there are "In wiki" references to "See above" in the case of the unaccredited Pacific Western University. In spirit, in wiki referencing should be avoided. In practice, its redundant since the reader most likely has already "seen above" and not only has the in-line cites to verify but also the wiki link article to Pacific Western which includes those details and more referencing. At its worse, the "see above" breaks up the flow of the prose in a unneeded manner.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Needs Improvement

  • A couple questions that popped into my mind while reader the article is "What lead Mindell to this field in the first place?" What motivation or interest in his early life might have set him on this path. The second question, and the area most needed to be expanded, is Mindell's reaction to the controversy and questioning of his claims and practice. Was any of his 45 books done in response to the CBC expose? There are some brief mentions of types of reaction-Not citing a discredit study, the trivia note about the apothecary in his garage. I think these items would be better suited in a summary paragraph titled to the effect of "reaction",

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

  • This article has the challenge of presenting an NPOV portrait of a subject that is neither "hostile nor sympathetic" as well as presenting due weight to the scientific aspect (and challenges) involved. In certain areas this articles excels. Example: In the lead
Mindell has previously promoted oral supplements of an "anti-aging" enzyme, superoxide dismutase (SOD). There is currently no evidence for the supposed benefits of SOD, and it is well known that the enzyme would not survive the digestive process if taken orally.

That is a very well done and NPOV presentation of Mindell claim and the scientific communities skepticism of the matter. In addition to the source citation, there is no pre-set conclusion being foisted upon the reader. The reader can decide for themselves, the weight and value they should assign to Mindell's claim.

  • However, there are some times that the desire to "dispel" myths cross the POV line with such buzz words like "In truth". Example: In the Controvery section
Mindell claims that eating foods that are high in DNA and RNA will help reverse the aging process. In truth, these nucleic acids are digested and never reach human somatic cells in such a form that would directly benefit the consumer.

The relative merit of the claim aside, the phrasing "In truth" is a directly hostile stance to Mindell's claim with the article being the bearer of "truth" to his falsehood. A much more NPOV approach would be to heed the examples elsewhere in the article by simply stating the lack of evidence for Mindell's claim instead of pitting it as a dynamic of "truth".

  • I'm not the biggest fan of the inclusion of "Quackwatch" in the see also section. Coming at the end of the article it reads like a "Wikipedia Indictment" or summary of the article. It is obvious that some folks think Mindell is indeed a quack, but that type of linking should be done in the article with a source attributed to someone who thinks he is a quack. It's placement in the See Also section is almost weaselish.

5. It is stable - Pass

  • The article is not in the current midst of any edit war or significant change in content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

  • Image:Dr earl mindell.jpg, Image:Mindellcbc.jpg needs detailed fair use rationales. See WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale for more details.

In assessment, I think this article is close to attaining GA status and I want to applaud the editors for their work in getting this article up to this point. I think the areas of improvement are quiet scalable and I strongly encourage the editors to resubmit for GA status once these concerns have been addressed. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Before this entry attains GA status it needs to be updated. Mindell is no longer associated with FreeLife.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I removed the reference from the CBC Exposé section as it looks like linkspam to me. For a start it links to pages where you can buy Goji juice and it doesn't contain any new information that isn't available in the original citation (i.e. the Marketplace program). If there's a good reason to include it, please correct me, but surely we can get quotes from the program somewhere else (that isn't promoting Goji)? Famousdog 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Only included it to round out the sources. Probably best leave it out, though. SERSeanCrane 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find where they were selling the Goji Juice outside of a link to alternative places the juice can be purchased. Replaced link for reference until another source is found. Sheeplight 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments[edit]

I don't know about the conflict over his degree date (and you're right to point that out), but it's normal practice if you want to obtain a copy of a thesis to contact the conferring university (PWU - good luck with that!) or go to another university library and request an inter-library loan of the offending (sorry, relevant) tome. I don't think that where he lived while "doing" his PhD is relevant as PWU is a distance-learning institution (diploma mill). Hope that answers your questions. Famousdog 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, is a database of UK and Ireland PhD theses. Perhaps somebody knows of a North American version? Here's an FAQ from about finding theses.
So "we" don't know the answers to any of these normal questions. WorldCat (the database you're recommending, and which I've just searched) has no master's thesis or Ph.D. dissertation listed for Mindell in any library. There are, however, 600+ listings for Mindell's published books. Badagnani 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's very interesting that WorldCat lists 45 theses/dissertations from Pacific Western University, by a variety of authors and on a variety of subjects (all held by libraries of other universities). Badagnani 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well done. How about adding that information to the article? I'm not surprised that you can't find a thesis for Mindell. Its probably in a PWU bunker where nobody can ever see it! Mindell is a quack and PWU aren't a proper university. My question is, why are you attacking the other users and asking rhetorical questions (that you apparently already know the answers to)? Finally, please discuss stuff here, not in the text of the article! Famousdog 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You said: "why are you attacking the other users and asking rhetorical questions (that you apparently already know the answers to)?" Neither of these statements is true. I did the research after no one responded (and my editing comments were removed). All of the information I inquired about does still need to be verified. Badagnani 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

There is no reason to have a external link to a company site, especially one with it's own Wikipedia article that's already linked. See Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #5 & #14. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the coi allegation[edit]

Your user page mentions that you are civil. However, I saw cursing and a WP:COI allegation. Please take those back. Badagnani (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're commenting on the things I've already removed, correct? I removed it about 10 minutes before you made the above remark. Sorry that I didn't apologize about them when I removed them. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments were quite clear. You made them less than 1 hour ago, and now you're claiming to have forgotten them? The first edit summary contained cursing, and the second implied a COI on the part of another editor. Both of these were wrong and un-Wikipedian. I ask again that you withdraw them. Badagnani (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"I removed it about 10 minutes before you made the above remark." --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with ref please[edit]

The following link is dead. I'm unable to find any mention of the article outside of references to Earl Mindell, so I'm concerned that the reference might be in error. Can anyone confirm it, find a copy somewhere else, or find another article to source the same material?

  • The California Pharmacists Association (3 April 2007). California Pharmacists Take Top Honors. [1]

--Ronz (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Found it on another site. Changed link. Famousdog (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference no longer has anything about Mindell and should be deleted.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've delinked the ref. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Earl Mindell. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Weak pass

Correctly spelled; all grammar seems fine; complies with the core MOS guidelines

One aspect I do not like is the selected bibliography. Having his works in a table gives them a lot of prominence which perhaps distracts from the article. I think there are too many listed here, and it would keep the article more balanced if they were in a list, cited in the standard way.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

References are good, inline citations are generally used well. (One exception is discussed in point 4.)

Note that some of the refs lack publisher info. {{cite web}} is useful (but not a requirement), see also WP:CITE. —Giggy 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Weak

I agree with the previous GA reviewer in that there is some material missing from the article and it may not satisfy the general reader's curiosity. More details on his background and how he got into the field of health and nutrition are lacking.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail

Most of the article is well balanced. However the section entitled CBC program lets the article down in this respect. This paragraph is badly sourced (for example, the first six sentences do not have any inline citations) and somewhat biased in its tone (e.g. referring to Mindell's claim as orginal research, the "clearly" in "..clearing contrary to fact.." is unnecessary, etc.) This section is given undue weight as most of it is based on the events of a single television interview. I would seriously consider deleting the entire section.

5. Article stability? Pass

No problems here.

6. Images?: Fail

The picture seems to be missing a fair-use rationale.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. MSGJ (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

CBC Section deletion[edit]

I have removed this section per the above review of this article for a GA: Most of the article is well balanced. However the section entitled CBC program lets the article down in this respect. This paragraph is badly sourced (for example, the first six sentences do not have any inline citations) and somewhat biased in its tone (e.g. referring to Mindell's claim as orginal research, the "clearly" in "..clearing contrary to fact.." is unnecessary, etc.) This section is given undue weight as most of it is based on the events of a single television interview. I would seriously consider deleting the entire section.

That says it pretty well, in my view. The section fails Wikipedia's standards of fairness, and reads like a hit piece. My previous deletion was reverted, I strongly suggest that this deletion stand. Opinions to the contrary need to address the above concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Standards of "fairness?" --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010(UTC)
Yes. An encylopedia should be neutral (fair). The section was noted as being "biased" in the GA review . You reverted it as being "notable", but I agree with the reviewer that the section gives undue weight. Jusdafax 18:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. We've had coi/pov/3rr problems with related articles, and misunderstandings of policies and guidelines with this article, so I think it best to be clear.
If it's just a problem of undue weight, then could it be solved by just incorporating key inforation from the interview into the Controversy section. Similarly, there should probably be more information from the ref in Controversy as well. FreeLife International should be reintroduced, properly.
I'm not sure if we should mention the lawsuit that was recently settled where he's a party - --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, my tuppenth: The fact that Mindell's outrageous lies regarding the benefits of Goji products and the validity of his PhD were exposed in the CBC sting operation is probably the most notable thing about him right now. More people heard of Earl Mindell via that program than buy his products or read his books. It was an impressive piece of investigative consumer journalism and I have to protest stongly against its total deletion. By all means improve that section, but just blanking it is unacceptable. The CBC piece was a half-hour long program, not as claimed in the GA review "a single television interview." The citation for all of the claims is the program itself - which, as far as I know, is available freely online. It appears that this citation tag has been lost. If it is returned to its rightful place and some of the worst excesses of POV are removed then that section should be included. I also note that this edit war stated after I included a link to FreeLife and it seems clear to me that some editors are trying to downplay Mindell's association with FreeLife. I note that in the current version there is now no mention or link to FreeLife, a company that he has in the past been intimately associated with. I'm afraid that stinks to me of conflict of interest. Mindell's association with FreeLife should be reinstated including links to the company's article. Oh, except that article is under threat of deletion because it is "orphaned" - hmmmmmmm. Famousdog (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see you responding, given all the work you've done on the article.
I agree. The CBC interview and his work with FreeLife should both be included for the reasons you give.
Deletion because it is orphaned? --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to examine your changes to the article, Famousdog, but may I ask you where the article is under "threat of deletion"? I am unable to find any such threat. Could you please give a link to support your statement? Your statement about an "edit war", by the way, in my view is not accurate or helpful to a calm atmosphere here. Jusdafax 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting for Famousdog's reply re: article being "under threat of deletion." This revamped section still needs work, I feel. To start: I've pulled out the final sentence in this section, per WP:UNDUE as it is unencyclopedic. That the interview ended is not important here. Jusdafax 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Crikey. Give me time to get back in front of my computer! Some of us have things to do. Thanks for the comments, Ronz. I admit that "under threat of deletion" was an exaggeration on my part. I was actually referring to the fact that the FreeLife article had been tagged as "orphaned" (I removed the tag here: [2]) an action which I suspect may be related to the sudden removal of the link to this page. Frankly it looked like an attempt to manufacture an orphan, although I may be wrong. Famousdog (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I've outlined above what could go in the "Controversy" section. I agree that we need a better name for the section per NPOV. That said, these recent edits [3] are the reverse of what should be done beyond attempting to find a better name for the section. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like the new section name. Keegan (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It's an improvement. I hope we can change it again to something more descriptive once we get the section together. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Touching stuff up.[edit]

Thanks for tagging the article, Ronz, because it's not neutral as previously written and still needs a little help.

The "controversies" line in the lead didn't belong there, the lead for a BLP is supposed to be the summary paragraph that we have (that reads well), and if there is a controversy that is significant to their career then that merits inclusion. This material can be included down in the retitled section, as well as other experiences with the scientific community. If the man has been elected to the California Pharmacy Hall of Fame, obviously someone likes him. Just having that information in without further material is unbalanced.

As for the DNA/RNA, happy to include it if it is sourced. Not only that, but if it can be proven to be notable to his life and/or achievements (note that achievements aren't always positive).

I look forward to working with you! Keegan (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Scientific_peer_review/Earl_Mindell. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mind the lede given the discussions here. We'll add a new summary to the lede once we get the section rewritten. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Keegan re:lede. By the way and for the record, I never heard of Mindell previous to today. I was struck by the fact that the article appears to have had serious issues for some years. Jusdafax 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Problems since very early on:
First inclusion of Schwartz - Though this is a good ref, it wasn't being used properly. Can we get a copy to start over?
First inclusion of "criticism" in lede - It was a poor summary then and now. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for giving it such scrutiny. Now that I'm looking at everything closely, I'm wondering if the article might need a rewrite, rather than a touch-up. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's what I'd do: early life and education, professional career with a subsection about the controversies mentioned, and maybe collapse the table for the selected bibliography. So yeah, partial rewrite but more of an organizational thing if any. Keegan (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping someone would have suggestions for the bibliography. I never looked into the relevant guidelines, but bibliography sections that dwarf the rest of the article look improper. Go ahead. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sections merged and table collapsed. Career needs expanded, but a better presentation, IMHO. Keegan (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If the career can be expanded to list professional accomplishments, and we can tweek the wording of the next section header, previously "controversy", then the article will flow like this: Who he is, what his background and life is, what he's done, what people think of some of his ideas, here's his books. Good, balanced article, I think. Keegan (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree Keegan, and thanks. Some improvements would be helpful. Please see my comments two sectons up. Jusdafax 09:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jan 2013 edits[edit]

Starting a discussion from the DRN request by Alannna (talk · contribs) [4]:

Earl Mindell received his Pharmacy Degree in 1963, not 1964. Pacific Western University was accredited in 1963 in the state of California. In a letter dated Feb 16,2007 from Sheila M. Hawkins, Education Administrator, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, State of California, she stated:

"Pacific Western University was granted authorization to operate as a California Degree Granting institution by the State Department of Education. Among its programs was the PH.D. in Nutrition."

With regards to SOD there are 51529 published research studies on PubMed 44247 published research studies on SOD as an antioxidant.

--Ronz (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The university under question is Pacific Western University (Hawaii). I've updated the article accordingly.
So we have two new editors that have access to this single letter? I don't believe it would count as a reliable source in any circumstances, but for now it certainly doesn't verify what the editors claim. The verified information is:

Mindell's Ph.D. was conferred in 1985 by Pacific Western University, an unaccredited institution at the time.

As for SOD, it being an Antioxidant (a property that was once proposed to have health benefits but no longer - antioxidants can be harmful in some circumstances) is not in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
--Ronz (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

CBC essentially a deadlink[edit]

At about the 8 minute mark (actually before a number of the claims attributed to the video apparrently) the video stops. I suggest that we would need an accurate transcript for any claims about this possible scam in order to obey WP:BLP Videos are not all that good - especially when they are truncated before anything interesting is said. Collect (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The video did at one time verify the information. Remove the link, keep the reference. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of books[edit]

Is 55 the number of titles, or does it count editions as well? I rounded it down to 50 given that I believe people have been insisting it is 55 total rather than something over 55. Did I miss something? --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

links Beware of Juices that Claim to Cure[edit]

Sites requiring registration Shortcut:


Outside of citations,[4] external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers (according to Wikipedia guidelines).

This link should be removed based on wiki rules.

Thank you,


Good to see you discussing your concerns.
WP:EL doesn't apply because it is not an external link, but rather a reference, where WP:V and WP:RS apply instead. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible[edit]

His most notable publication, Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible, is a glossary of micronutrients published in 1979 has been revised 5 times, the latest update in 2011.

I would like this sentence updated to reflect the current update. The last re-release was in 2011 not 2004.

Thank you,


Can you provide a source please that it's been revised five times? From what I'm finding, it looks like the title has been changed the past few editions. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Can you provide a source please that it's been revised five times? From what I'm finding, it looks like the title has been changed the past few editions."

In 1979 Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible.  In 1985 Vitamin Bible for the 21st century. In 1999, it was called The Vitamin Bible for the 21st Century..   In 2004 the book title was changed to The New Vitamin Bible and then 2011 the latest revision ofThe New Vitamin Bible.  In 34 years, there have been changes to the title as well as the content of the book but it is the original Vitamin Bible.

I would like the last revison to say 2011 of the New Vitamin Bible as it is the latest revisoon and would be up to date.

Thank you,

~~Alannna~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talkcontribs) 00:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean that searching somehow on amazon will give the results...
That's a primary source. Without a secondary or independent source, I don't see any reason to add such information. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In giving you a secondary or independent source for the revisions, what would satisfy this requirement? Would you like letters from the publishing company to signify the changes of title/editions? I can do some research to provide that to you if that will enable the change.

Thank you,

~~Alannna~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talkcontribs) 20:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, secondary or other independent sources would almost certainly be acceptable. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When I am ready to submit the needed documentation on the Vitamin Bible revisions, what is the best way to submit it to you? It will most likely be from the publishing company in a letter or a numbe rof press releases from the publishing company. Can I scan it in this talk area or is there a way to get a hard copy of information to you?

Thank you,

~~Alannna~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talkcontribs) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you find would be best brought up here. Press releases and other information directly from the publishers would not be useful, being primary sources only. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article on The New Vitamin Bible shows that the last revision was released on Feb. 2011.

His most notable publication, Earl Mindell's Vitamin Bible, is a glossary of micronutrients published in 1979 and has been updated and re-released multiple times since,

I would like the last part of the sentence containing the Vitamin Bible book to read that it was last revised in 2011.

Thank you,

~~Alannna~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talkcontribs) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


I would like to change the picture that is on Wikipedia. How do I do that?

Thank you,

Alannna (talk)AlannnaAlannna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGES --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unaccredited School[edit]

Not to defend unaccredited schools but the University of Oxford is not acreddited in every state of the US. Food for thought. 8675309 (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Earl Mindell[edit]

Hi Ronz - Hope all is well. I was hoping that you could help me in my editing of Talk:Earl Mindell. The article appears to be well-attributed. However, it is not a well-balanced or objective portrayal of him. I've studied Wiki guidelines over and over, have referenced many other biographical Wiki entries and see that they, too, are balanced. Just a preliminary example is his date of birth, place of birth, that he's an author of about 60 books - these things are missing yet are quite pertinent and relevant. The aforementioned are constant entries in all of the biographical entries I've read.

My goal is to balance it and I need your help/advice doing it. Would you like me to submit my edits and go from there? Let me know the best course of action.

Many thanks, Fred (fpalmerinoFpalmerino (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC))