Talk:Gary Null/Archives/2012/April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lede

I was going to suggest a compromise for the lede, but Nononsenseplease (talk · contribs) selections had no reliable source in the lede. Perhaps some of his additions to the body (but not the bibliography) could be acceptable, if supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin:
Whatever else one could say about Gary Null, that he has written a large number of books and is a prolific documentarian is merely a statement of fact. The same applies to the fact that many of his books became best sellers, and that two of his documentaries won awards. Each of these points are supported by trade publications that are more of a reliable source than Stephen Barrett of "Quackwatch". The bibliography is standard for any writer with a page on Wikipedia.
You'll notice, moreover, that I did not alter the section dealing with Barrett's indignation or with the vitamin poisoning incident. I did move the latter paragraph back to its own section in the body (where it was where I found it) because the incident is over two years old, was of little consequence, and is far from central to the subject (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The incident itself was not deleted as you claimed in your edit summary; indeed, it has an entire section of its own.
No one can say that this article is lacking in criticism against Null's work, and though the importance accorded to the subject's naysayers in this article probably violates NPOV every single sentence of negative criticism that was there when I edited the page is, as you know, still intact.
I'd revert any attempts to delete said criticism, had this happened. Moreover, I did not add any positive reviews and opinions to counter these.
Thanks.
Nononsenseplease (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, material needs to be attributed to a suitable source. That is especially true of material which is either negative or promotional. Your edits contained a great deal of promotional language, but were not backed by sources that (in my opinion) meet the bar for reliability and appropriateness for this site's biographies. I'm not opposed to describing the number of books Null has written, but that description (like other material in the article) needs to be appropriately sourced for us to include it here. MastCell Talk 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As I mentioned above I added only the mention of some of Null's work, with trade publication references, with no value judgements or anything else "promotional" and without a word of the extensive amount of censure found in the article taken out. Again, I'd revert any deletions of this latter had it happened. Nononsenseplease (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It may be worth looking again at this site's policies, particularly on biographical articles. That policy reads, in part:

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source... Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

(Emphasis in original). This material has been challenged, and needs to be attributed to a reliable, published source. Looking at the sources you've repeatedly reinserted: wnd.com is generally not recognized as a reliable source for our biographies. Nor is abetterworld.tv, nor iamplify.com. Nor is imdb.com (see WP:IMDB). MastCell Talk 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Those were pretty terrible sources, there was a fair bit of trivial promotion (that he's a runner for instance, not particularly noteworthy; that he's won several incredibly low notability awards, to the point that I can't figure out who hands them out - equally not notable, particularly given the extremity of his claims about health and nutrition). There appears to be a pretty clear consensus against these edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)