Talk:Neal D. Barnard/Archive 1

Lead

I was asked to comment here about the different versions. [1] Looking at the lead first, it might be best to remove "vocal" advocate, and I see no harm in including "low-fat." I also see no harm in including "is a scientific advisor to the Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation, and is a former board member of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection," which have been replaced with "former board member of the PETA Foundation" — unless the previous two are the PETA Foundation? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than going back and forth, could User:NealBarnard say here what the issues are that he objects to? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with those changes, though a source for Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation would be appropriate. Also, it should probably be expanded on in the main body if it is important enough for the lead. Rockpocket 07:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got more time to look at this page now, if anyone still wants me to. If you do, please let me know what the problematic areas are. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make clear, in that case, that much of the criticism stems from them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi SV. I had tried to address the concerns in the lead and research section, and added a few more positive comments on his books from notable people, for balance. The major concern now appears to be the entire activism section, which Barnard sees as pushing the industry agenda. Based on the 3rd party sources, which tend to focus on his activism rather than his research, I think this gives a fair and balanced overview of his notable activism and the controversy surrounding it. He particularly objects to the mention of Kjonaas' arrest. I can understand that, but at the same time, it is the illegality of SHAC's actions that makes his involvement with them controversial, according to the source. That is also acknowledged in PCRM's response. If we leave it out is not really clear why it is controversial. Your thoughts would be welcome.

The other aspect is the removal of the AR template (which I have done on his wishes, though it appears to be based on the fact he would rather the article focus on his research than an ideological statement that he is not pro-AR. I'm not sure whether that is an appropriate reason for not having a nav-template, but my thinking is that if it causes the subject distress, its something we should consider) Finally, Barnard requested we remove Vlasak from the see also section. I haven't done that because I think it is a very appropriate see also, based on the fact the are/were the two most notable members of PCRM. Rockpocket 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that maybe there is a slight pro-industry flavor to that section. There's a very slight "and he's done this, and this, and look at THIS" tone. It really is very slight though.

I would say first of all that we should try not to use the Center for Consumer Freedom, unless their particular criticisms have been published by a mainstream source. As for the Jonas thing, perhaps we should just use the Beauty and the Beasts article in the Observer, and attribute the criticism to the newspaper. Something like:

"In an article examining the relationships between animal rights organizations in the U.S. and UK, The Observer criticized Barnard in 200x for having co-signed a letter with Kevin Jonas of SHAC — a campaign that has seen several of its leading members, including Jonas, jailed in connection with their activism. Barnard responded that he co-signed the SHAC letter many years before the incident that saw Jonas jailed, and that he had no further interaction with SHAC."

We could then go on:

"Similarly, Barnard attracted criticism in 200x when Jerry Vlasak suggested in a speech that .... as a result of which, Vlasak's membership of PCRM was cancelled. Barnard has stressed that PCRM does not tolerate illegal activity." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Incidentally, CCF isn't currently used as a primary source, simply mentioned as the source of much criticism according to pretty much all of 3rd party sources. This includes pro-AR sources such as Best's book. Rockpocket 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should highlight that a lot of the criticism stems from CCF, in that case. I'll take a look at this tomorrow, because I just realized I'm going to have to do quite a bit of reading, which I don't have time for right now. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it probably does, originally, with some stemming from the FBR. Barnard complains this is the industry agenda, and it is of course, the problem is the Nature article and the Observer pick up on the associations without directly attributing it, so its no longer only the CCF that is highlighting the criticisms but third party sources are reporting it too. Whether that is due to the success of the industry tactics is somewhat beside the point. Its the same as stories about alleged animal abuse in the media, I suppose, we don't query sourcing them as promoting the AR agenda, just because PETA has a good PR department in getting the story out. Rockpocket 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Observer does acknowledge CCF as one of its sources, and I would guess its main source, judging by the way the story's written. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was, but my point was that it doesn't just couch its report in terms of "CCF claims Barnard does X, Z, Y", it says "Barnard did X, Y, Z". I think there is a key difference. CCF has an agenda, no doubt, but that does not negate the neutrality of any third party that uses material they have provided. Rockpocket 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. I think we just need to bear in mind the enormous amount of money that is involved for the people CCF represents, which is indeed why CCF was set up -- to protect that money against the likes of PCRM. So I think we should carefully attribute at each stage, even more so than usual. While PCRM is a lobby group too, it has a wide variety of things it lobbies for and against, and there's no clear financial motivation. CCF, on the other hand, lobbies for one reason only: to protect its sponsors' financial interests, and together with not knowing who's behind it, or who really runs it, that makes it the weakest kind of source for me. I would be saying this regardless of POV, by the way. The combination of powerful, corporate interests and anonymous lobbying is obviously a red flag, regardless of POV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on principle, but I think we get on very shaky ground, policy wise, when we start adjusting for the political or financial clout that goes into collecting and promoting primary material that are used by otherwise reliable secondary source. Just because a distasteful source identifies and promotes questionable material, it doesn't mean any other reliable source that uses the same arguments is automatically questionable. Personally I find that article in The Observer a bit "attacky" (The Nature article is much more balanced in my opinion), but I'm not sure we should get to favor one source over another based on personal interpretations. A reliable source is a reliable source, is it not? Rockpocket 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But I've had to cope with this kind of objection for the last three years in writing animal-rights related material. If the ALF breaks into a lab and finds an animal in a certain condition, takes video, releases it to the media — then no matter what the newspapers write, no matter how they express what happened, we are always at Wikipedia forced to say "here is an image of the animal as the ALF say they found him."

My point about CCF is that it is at least as extreme as any animal rights organization (in terms of the ferocity of its ideas; I'm not suggesting its spokesmen are running around with incendiary devices). And it is possibly even less trustworthy, because animal rights activists don't stand to gain billions of dollars if their ideas are believed. CCF's clients do. So all I'm saying is that we have to treat those kinds of sources with equal skepticism, or distance, especially when it's a BLP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats a fair point, and I can appreciate the comparison. Rockpocket 06:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Activist links

I am concerned about the strict accuracy of saying that "the Center for Consumer Freedom, the American Council on Science and Health and Foundation for Biomedical Research have accused PCRM of being a front organization" for PETA activism. The reference to CDC shows that they do say exactly that, but the reference to ACSH does not. ACSH cite the evidence of CDC showing the close relationship of PCRM and PETA and say that what PCRM are about is animal rights maquerading as science. The ACSH are saying that PCRM's claim to be purely motivated by science is a front for an animal rights agenda; but they don't say that PCRM are a front for PETA, rather they both share the same agenda, one hidden and the other open. There's a difference. The point is that PCRM may be funded by PETA and share its philosophy without directly being PETA's puppet. Also I can't see which reference shows that FBR consider PCRM to be PETA's puppet - as opposed to being connected to and sharing an animal rights agenda with. What the exact nature of their relationship is, is unknown - as far as I know - but I only see the CDC making the claim that PCRM are under PETA's direct control.Leighxucl (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this came about from trying to condense the locus of criticism into a single sentence, rather than list exactly what each groups said, per WP:UNDUE. The idea was to explain that PCRM is accused of doing PETA's bidding from a (pseudo)-scientific perspective. I think the FBR's spokesperson makes a similar "front" allegation in the Nature Medicine article (but I don't have access to that at the moment, I'll check tomorrow.) Whether "front" is the best way of explaining that, I don't know, but the article appears to include other lobby groups (such as the CCF itself) as front organisations. It seems to me that these groups are different sides of the same coin: each accuses the other of being a front for corporate/AR interests. Also, my understanding of a front organisation is not that it is under the "direct control" of another body, simply that its purpose is to further the agenda of that other body while attempting to portray itself as a third party. Rockpocket 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I apologize for this tardy response. The Nature article has the president of the FBR saying of PCRM: "its connection to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is evidence of its radical animal rights agenda". This is very similar to what ACSH have said. PCRM, in response, point out the connections of ACSH and CCF to the food industry. I still believe it would be better to drop the CCF's language of "front organization"; this is a rather loaded term whose meaning isn't absolutely clear. What is clear is that PCRM and their opponents all share the same agendas as their wealthy patrons. The difference, arguably, is that PCRM's true agenda is not stated, whereas with PETA, CDC, FBR and ACSH what you see is what you get. I would change the article to say "opponents of PCRM point to its close connection with the animal rights organization PETA as evidence of its undeclared animal rights agenda".Leighxucl (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Neil Barnard

Formerly, Neil Barnard was a redirect to Neal D. Barnard. Now, it's stub about Neil Barnard, former head of South Africa's National Intelligence Service, who had a large behind-the-scenes role in preparing Nelson Mandela and the South African government for Mandela's 1990 release from prison.

At the top of the stub, I've replace the redirect with an about. This is just a "heads up". I think I wrote a statement that is useful for anyone who has misspelled Neal Barnard's name and really wants to be here, but if you think it can be improved, please go ahead. --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be Disambiguation at the top of each of these pages? MaynardClark (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

a biography which gives no indication of the docytor's age, birth date or length of time as a physician. Good work for an encyclopedia biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.130.18 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit/improve the article yourself. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Animal Research Article Controversy

This [2] article in The Scientist could be incorporated into this article. I do not have a lot of extra time to make substantial edits. So I may not get to including this into the article. If I get to it great, if someone else gets to it before I do, even better. VViking_TalkEdits 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace

There is no source for the birthplace. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.128.2 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography section has been removed, but Wikipedia's biography template (Template:Biography) includes a bibliography section. Other food and nutrition writers have bibliography sections (Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan). What's more, Neal Barnard is likely best known through his work as an author. Is there a valid reason this page should not have a bibliography section?PaperHydrate (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Other articles may have faults. Is there any indication (i.e. good sources) to show any of these works are significant? Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the bibliography? It seems PaperHydrate has a COI and wishes to promote the subject, and listing the bibliography without context is just publicizing his books - not what this article is here for. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Do you happen to know of a strong bibliography I could check out, so that I can see what good sources for an exemplary bibliography look like? If not, I'll keep exploring. Thank you very much. PaperHydrate (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Proper authors like J. D. Salinger get bibliographies, where it is obvious that his writings are subject to in-depth numerous secondary sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Ah, that is helpful to see. But nearly all of those works are notable enough to have their own separate articles. Do you know of any example bibliographies that include works worth mentioning in a biography but not notable enough to have their own separate articles? Or is that precisely the condition that must be satisfied for a bibliography to be warranted? Or do you know of where I could go to learn more about guidelines on bibliography sections? Thank you very much once again. PaperHydrate (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about guidelines. General practice for people who write books but are not (in the Salinger sense), "authors" is that works get listed if they have garnered secondary attention, as in the Deepak Chopra article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Paid PaperHydrate, check out what Alexbrn did at the end of January at Dean Ornish. Talk about blowing up bibliographies and such. This has occurred at many if not most of the vegan physician articles here, bibliographies or any writings by vegan-leaning doctors seem to have no basis in existence or fact here on Wikipedia. How that started or continues, I have no idea. Randy Kryn 17:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Source to Add

Could someone add this source (Pasewicz, Margaret. Cultural encyclopedia of vegetarianism. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood, 2010. Print.) to the Physicians Committee section? The second sentence could be rewritten to "The organization promotes a low-fat, plant-based diet and advocates for biomedical research that prioritizes human-based models over animal models," or something to that effect. Thanks! PaperHydrate (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A source has been requested for this section, and I suggested one above. Will it work? PaperHydrate (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Added to lead, quickly reverted?

I added 'praise' to the 'drawn criticism' wording in the lead. Surely the editors of the page have the ability to find a source that praises Barnard and his organization. Very undue weight to just leave it at 'criticism'. And who is the major contributor mentioned in the new top tag, was it someone quickly reverted (if so, not major, and the tag should be removed). Randy Kryn 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, PaperHydrate is a paid employee of the group. Should be an article on Barnard's one or two most major books, then they can more easily be listed here. Earn your money by doing that? Are paid employees able to start and write pages here? Randy Kryn 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Barnard has drawn "praise" in the sense you mean from reliable sources; quite the opposite. Bombing such claims into the lede and expecting others to find sources for you is a pretty poor way to proceed.Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually the sources are probably on the page already. If I found ten and added them to the 'praise' mention I would still expect to be reverted by you again, so that's why I asked if you can do so because you are very good at sourcing and could likely find one or a few that satisfied your concerns. Randy Kryn 18:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to violate policy is not a wise path. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This is not an RS for a BLP (per WP:BLPSPS) or for a medical claim (per WP:MEDRS). The solution is to use only MEDRS-compliant secondary sources for any of the medical claims, for or against any position. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Puffery

We really shouldn't be adding lists of claptrap books to Wikipedia ("Power Foods for the Brain" indeed). This is a serious encyclopedia, not a shop front for such nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not sure if you're intentionally making the article worse or just forcing editors to invest their time into discussions over nothing. Either way, it's the definition of being disruptive.

I can think of no other explanation for you having done the following:

• Removed my capitalization of the name of the occupation of Barnard from the infobox, even though almost every if not every article on Wikipedia has that.
• Removed the birth date and age template, even though that's what the Template:Infobox person guidelines suggest for use.
• Removed the Bibliography and Filmography sections, thus going against MOS:WORKS that says "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles." and "[Filmographies] are included for actors, directors, producers and other people who have a list of contributions in film".
• Restored the link to www.nealbarnard.org, which is nothing but a redirect to Barnard's page on the PCRM website.

I'd advise looking at your own behavior from the perspective of neutrality instead of making baseless threats.--Rose (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't categorize Barnard as an "author" - for the likes of J. D. Sallinger okay, but not here for works unless there is specific secondary coverage of them. (Similarly to how we do it at say Deepak Chopra or Michael Greger). Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think he is not an employee of the physicians' organization? Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's redundant if the infobox says he's the president of the organization. In any case, you're back to fully reverting, and this time on the basis of what you described as me adding his birthday to the article, even though it was already there and I just re-formatted it again. This is extremely disruptive and getting nowhere, and it's technically impossible to win alone against two biased editors where one always miraculously appears after the other whenever there's a dispute.--Rose (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I made this edit which consisted of mostly cosmetic improvements - in the infobox, I capitalized the first letter of the occupation, I added the birth and date template to the existing date of birth and put the date of birth from the infobox to the body of the article, I moved the individual's place of work to the title section, as suggested in the guidelines, I created the sections Bibliography and Filmography as per the MOS to give more visibility to some of the works that were already in the article, I removed the link to the doctor's website because it was a redirect.

I also added some new information that I believed was not questionable at all - the city of birth which could be found at the organization's website, two more films he's been in, some of the books he's written, and the fact that the person was vegan (I saw a video where he said that but I wasn't sure if it would be a great source, so I didn't back it up and instead added the article to my watch list, so that I would find a better source if anyone questions it, which I did eventually).

Minutes after that, the edit was fully reverted by Alexbrn (talk · contribs). As WP:ROWN reasonably says, this can be disruptive because it does nothing to improve the article. Instead of removing or asking for references for the things that were questionable, all of the cosmetic changes were removed as well. Multiple edits later, there were still no attempts to point at the parts that were questionable and keep the cosmetic ones. Instead, Jytdog (talk · contribs) appeared (the user has a long history of showing up whenever Alexbrn needs to be backed up) and made a full revert as well. After I explained my edits again on the talk page and made a different edit that contained the same cosmetic improvements and a source, Jytdog fully reverted that again and accused me of adding the individual's unsourced date of birth to the article, even though it was there before I made the first edit. --Rose (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This is an improper RfC: it doesn't ask an answerable question that corresponds to the current state of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The current state is that you both revert everything I add, so it would be good if more people were to contribute. --Rose (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that's not really true, as the article now has different content (and better refs) somewhat mirroring what you wanted to add. Launching an RfC such as this is a waste of the community's time; I suggest either re-working it to ask a specific content question, or withdrawing it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• would be nice to have a source for his birthday. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I concur that RfCs should usually address a single issue (e.g., a particular content dispute) at a time regarding the current state of the article. This allows other editors to make coherent comments on one issue at a time. Each content dispute ought to have its own RfC. That makes it easier to see where consensus is breaking down and who, if anyone, is editing contentiously. loupgarous (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This never was a proper WP:RFC, and so the RfC designation and template were removed on August 25: [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Request from the subject of the biography

I am the subject of this biography, and would like to suggest some edits to ensure that it is correct and helpful to readers. May I provide those suggestions here? I am new to the editing process and although I have been reading the “Biographies of Living Persons” policy page, I will value your guidance if there is a better way to handle this and remain grateful for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NealBarnard (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! We worry about impersonation here in Wikipedia - would you please see your talk page and go through the process in the note there? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I consider that ticket number #2017102310011681 coming from the @pcrm.org domain is sufficient verification of Mr. Barnard's identity, and will leave a note to that effect on this talk page and the user's talk page. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Practicing?

So this New York Times article from 2004 says "Dr. Neal Barnard is a nonpracticing psychiatrist who is the president and founder of the physicians' committee." If that was always incorrect, or if that situation has changed, reliable sources stating the situation would be very helpful. The NYT is generally considered very reliable here in Wikipedia... Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 please see above. If you are aware of sources that provide other information, please make bring them so we can discuss. There are lots of nonpracticing doctors; this is not a big deal Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

User:MPS1992, here is the place to discuss the actual issue. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for jumping in. The BLP policy points out “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, 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.” A newspaper article cannot be considered a reliable source as to a physician’s practice, and neither could any other decade-old source. As the subject of this biography, I would therefore ask that the word “non-practicing,” which is incorrect, be removed. I appreciate your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NealBarnard (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A NYT article would usually be assumed to be correct in the absence of contradictory sources, but a guideline holds that age matters when determining the reliability of a source, and 13 years is long enough to qualify as "poorly sourced" by now.

However, I can't find a newer source we can cite instead; this 2017 article from the Detroit Free Press has Barnard is a psychiatrist with a focus on nutrition research, but doesn't state whether that means "currently practicing."

So, in accordance with the BLP policy, I'll remove non-practicing from the lede (because "psychiatrist" is correct in any case), but keep As of 2004 he was not practicing medicine... in the body. FourViolas (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Not acceptable. If you want to remove "psychatrist" as well that would be fine. People have this bizarre notion that "nonpracticing" is pejorative. The CEOs of many hospitals are nonpracticing doctors. This is not a big deal. What is kind of big deal is describing someone as a "psychiatrist" who doesn't do that. But removing "nonpracticing" only from the lead is nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Btw nothing in BLP says that if the subject of the article objects, that is determinative. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, I don't see the policy problem. Many RS (including the Detroit Freep in 2017) describe him as a "psychiatrist", and only older ones as "non-practicing".

Removing "psychiatrist" addresses Dr. Barnard's concern, and seems to fit his present activity better, but I'm concerned about the WP:NPOV implications: it seems like Barnard's critics often emphasize that he is trained as a psychiatrist rather than an internal medicine specialist (e.g. [4] [5]), and simply calling him a "clinical researcher" might suggest the latter. If others are okay with it, though, it's a good way to settle the argument. FourViolas (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah many sources go off WP and what google does with WP. What critics make hay of, is not relevant to this discussion - we need to accurately summarize the well-sourced content in the body of the article. fwiw his publisher has him as "a nutrition researcher, author, and health advocate" which isn't bad. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest some edits?

May I please ask your help? As the subject of this BLP, may I respectfully offer some suggestions to make this page more helpful and objective? Please forgive my inexperience if this is too much or is presented awkwardly. I will value your guidance. I’ll number each suggestion here:

1. In the first line of text, may I suggest adding degrees after my name (“Neal D. Barnard, MD, FACC”)? Later on, I will provide links showing that I am indeed an MD and a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology; it might not be necessary to add superscripts verifying these additions here.

done SpeakingUpForNonHumanAnimals (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Instead of the text saying that I am the “founding president of the vegan and animal rights activist group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)[1] I would suggest using WebMD’s description of PCRM: a “nationwide group of physicians that promotes preventive medicine and addresses controversies in modern medicine. PCRM also conducts research studies, and education and advocacy programs on diet and health.” https://www.webmd.com/neal-barnard

   An alternate would be the description provided by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, in which PCRM is described as “a nonprofit organization that promotes good nutrition through education and advocacy, conducts clinical research, promotes higher ethical standards in human and animal research, and provides direct medical care.” https://www.lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients

   By way of explanation, PCRM’s work includes education, scientific research, advocacy, and medical care (as noted later in the article). PCRM’s nutrition work does more than support vegan diets (although that is important) and promotes awareness of issues related to fat, sugar, alcohol, foodborne pathogens, the Glycemic Index of foods, food sensitivities, and hormonal effects of foods, among others. Examples are at http://www.nutritionmd.org/health_care_providers/index.html. PCRM also provides direct medical care, through its subsidiary, Barnard Medical Center. While PCRM does promote alternatives to animal research, “animal rights” is a philosophical issue that PCRM does not address to a significant degree. For these reasons, the WebMD and ACLM descriptions are broader and more helpful in this context.

2. May I also please suggest a minor edit to the following current text:

   “He grew up in a cattle-ranching family in North Dakota, started to explore vegetarianism in medical school at George Washington University School of Medicine, and later became a vegan.[1][2]”

   I would suggest changing “became a vegan” to “adopted a vegan diet.” It is a useful practice to use words like “vegetarian” and “vegan” to refer to foods and dietary patterns, rather than to people, for whom they conjure up images that may not be accurate. For example, rather than saying “he was a carnivore and is now a vegan,” one could say “he switched to a vegan diet.”

3. The text says, “As part of his vegan ethics….” I would suggest simply deleting the words “As part of his vegan ethics” because these words are not supported by the source cited, are not accurate, and lack a clear meaning.
4. The current text states: “he came to oppose animal testing in biomedical research and he founded PCRM in 1985 out of his apartment in New York City to lobby against animal testing and to lobby for changes to USDA nutrition guidelines.[1][3] “

   May I please suggest changing this text to the following: “he founded PCRM in 1985 out of his apartment in New York City to work for changes in USDA nutrition guidelines and to promote alternatives to the use of animals in research”? The reason for this suggested edit is that lobbying is a regulated activity; we did not lobby at that time, and the sources cited do not support the current description.

   I would suggest deleting the words “PCRM and Barnard have maintained close connections with PETA; Barnard wrote a regular column for PETA's magazine.[1],” as the words “close connections” are ambiguous and not supported by the citation, and a citation from 2006 cannot support a statement about current matters in this regard.

5. I would suggest deleting the phrase “As of 2004 he was not practicing medicine,” as the source cited is old and cannot be considered authoritative on my medical practice, and is not correct. This text appears to have been borrowed from some earlier (and inaccurate) source. As discussed elsewhere on the Talk pages, I am still practicing medicine, as is briefly described at this citation: https://www.lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients

done SpeakingUpForNonHumanAnimals (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1. In the phrase “By 2006 he had become well-known as a vegan advocate and an activist against animal testing,” I would suggest changing “a vegan advocate and an activist against animal testing” to “an advocate for vegan diets and alternatives to animal research” because the word “activist” has meanings that could be considered pejorative and do not apply.
2. I would respectfully suggest adding the following text that may be helpful for readers:

   He is a graduate of the George Washington University School of Medicine where he is currently an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine (https://www.lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients/).

   In 2003, he was funded by the National Institutes of Health to compare the effects of a plant-based diet and a conventional diet for type 2 diabetes. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779; https://www.lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients/) He later completed two studies that implemented a similar diet at GEICO (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594095; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23695207), among many other studies. In 2017, he published a JAMA article raising concerns about the misuse of meta-analysis techniques in nutrition research (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28975260).

   In 2015, Barnard was named a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology (https://www.pcrm.org/media/experts/neal-barnard-acc-fellow; https://www.lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients/). In 2016, the American College of Lifestyle Medicine presented him with its Lifestyle Medicine Trailblazer Award. (http://www.lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients)

   Music. A lifelong musician, Barnard was described by actor Alec Baldwin as “Eddie Van Halen with a medical degree.” https://www.gwhatchet.com/2017/03/05/medical-professor-breaks-boundaries-with-cheese-book-rock-album/. In 2017, he had 2 songs in the Top 20 of the national radio FMQB Adult Contemporary radio chart (http://www.groundsounds.com/2017/07/11/premiere-carbonworks-end-world-part-1-video/). He has released three albums with various bands (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brick-brick/201703/the-chaos-neal-barnard; https://www.gwhatchet.com/2017/03/05/medical-professor-breaks-boundaries-with-cheese-book-rock-album/): Pop Maru (1984), Verdun (2004), and CarbonWorks (2016), playing with notables including blues guitarist Chris Thomas King and Italian singer Naif Hérin.

NealBarnard (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! No problem at all.

I hope you are in turn willing to take some time to understand how Wikipedia works. It is kind of bizarre, especially for people who are used to writing scientific articles and other kinds of texts. This, is nothing like that. Really. I wrote a thing at User:Jytdog/How that tries to explain it, but in general, we aim to provide the public with articles that express "accepted knowledge" (or at least the most common perspectives on things, in a given field) and we get there, by building articles as much as possible from independent, secondary sources. We summarize what they say. That is a really hard thing for people to wrap their heads around in general. It is even harder for people thinking about an article about themselves.

That's all I will say for now, but if you take that in, you will see that a bunch of the stuff above, is not following that method -- that way that we do things. Others will chime in here, I am sure.

But the most helpful thing you can do, is propose independent sources about you and your work that express "accepted knowledge" (or the most common/prevalent views on it) in your field. And since you are a public figure due to your advocacy work, high quality publications like the New York Times are super valuable, on that wider activity. Those kinds of things.

Please avoid citing websites affiliated with you, or your own works, as much as possible. Thanks again. Dialogue is always great. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Want to chime in here to commend Jytdog for his helpful post here. This is the Wikipedia Community at its best. Being constructive and helpful and not accusatory or bent on excoriating reasonable contributions. I'll be using your explanation User:Jytdog/How in my edits and suggestions to fellow users! Cheers! Grama24 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Started on the requests. Maybe overkill on the sources for one sentence, but seems necessary given the back and forth on this page.SpeakingUpForNonHumanAnimals (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to work on this page. I looked at some other living physician pages and am modeling this one after those. Please let me know of any issues.SpeakingUpForNonHumanAnimals (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

This is entirely unsourced - it makes a biomedical assertion, which would need a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. I am not going to continue the edit war, but unless a source is forthcoming (and the prose tidied up), this section needs to go. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve requested page protection Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy. I wasn't sure PP would be needed, since all the disruption today seemed to be coming from one IP - looking back through the edit history, I see that's it's been ongoing for a while from different IPs, so good call. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

... and the user was blocked for misbehaviour on another page at around the same time. Imagine that. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Hello, could you please add his new book :

• Barnard ND. Your Body in Balance (2020: Grand Central, New York).ISBN 1538747421

thanks लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done WorldCat listing substantiates existence of this book. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Eating Healthy

Hi, my edits are being removed? It is well known if you eat healthy, then you get healthy. Going vegan is a very healthy way of eating to attain good health. Simple meals like rice and saty tofu and bok choi can be very healthy. Yet these edits are removed. Why? Healthy eating is a great way to get healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:1DFF:B651:536C:4CF0 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

They are being removed because A) It is not written in a WP:NPOV tone, B) its WP:Soapboxing, and C) its not relevant to the page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Update and new sources proposed for article on Neal D. Barnard

Hi, I’d like to suggest some updates and corrections. I would be most grateful if independent editors would consider these proposals given that I have a conflict of interest. I am an employee of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, where Neal Barnard is the president. I very much appreciate your time and efforts in giving these requests your attention.

Item 1: In the Early life and education section, please replace the second sentence with the two sentences proposed below. The existing sentence’s source does not support all the facts in the sentence. The proposed new sentences are accurate, based on reliable sources, and contain relevant details which are missing in the current version.

Existing second sentence:

He received his medical training degree at George Washington University School of Medicine and completed his residency at the same institution in psychiatry, where he began to explore vegan diets.

Suggested new sentences:

He received his medical degree at George Washington University School of Medicine in 1980. He also completed his residency at the same institution.

Excerpt: One of the older sources is not available for free. I have pasted in the pertinent paragraph below.

Vancouver Sun, 26 Dec 2001:

Neal Barnard said that when he graduated from medical school at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in 1980, almost all U.S. schools used animals.

Item 2:

In the Neal D. Barnard#Career section, please replace the first two sentences in the second paragraph, which are based on questionably reliable sources. I propose replacing these with the following two sentences that are more accurate and fully supported by better sources.

Existing sentences:

Barnard serves as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine. He founded the Barnard Medical Center in 2015 as part of PCRM, and it opened in 2016 with him as president; the center provides primary care and emphasizes diet and preventive medicine.

Suggested new sentences:

By 2003, Barnard was serving as an adjunct professor of medicine at George Washington University School of Medicine, a position he still held as of April 2022. In January 2016, Barnard founded the Barnard Medical Center in Washington, D.C., which provides primary care with a focus on nutrition guidance.

Excerpt: One of the older sources is not available for free. I have pasted in the pertinent paragraph below.

Courier Journal (Louisville, KY), 21 Aug 2003, Page G1:

"When you understand that it's chemistry at work, you can stop blaming yourself and start getting on a path that really will solve the problem better than blame will," Barnard, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at George Washington University School of Medicine, said in an interview.

Item 3: Please add a new “Research” section to this article. This will help to improve the organization and structure of the article.

Item 4: In the new Research section, please add the following sentences to make a new first paragraph about a study by Barnard concerning the relationship between diet and menstrual pain. I have provided the secondary source describing the study, as well the WP:PRIMARY citation to the study. The study has been cited 119 times according to Scopus. [6] Scopus is one of the two citation metrics databases acceptable for counting citations, according to WP:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics.

Suggested new sentences:

Barnard conducted a randomized control trial, the results of which were published in 2000, that investigated if a low-fat vegetarian diet helped reduce menstrual pain in research participants. His study found that among participants, a low-fat vegetarian diet was associated with higher sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentration, and lower pain, although a 2006 review paper by Proctor and Farquhar argued that the study’s results were not “conclusive” because there were only 33 participants in it.

Item 5: In the new Research section, please add the following sentences to make a new second paragraph. The study discussed in the paragraph below has been [7] 264 times, according to Scopus. The sentences are sourced with two reliable peer-reviewed sources in high impact factor journals: New England Journal of Medicine and Obesity Reviews.

Suggested new sentences:

In a 2006 study on vegan diets and patients with type 2 diabetes, Barnard found that participants randomly selected into the vegan diet group showed improved optimization of glycemic control and lipid control measures after 22 weeks compared to the control group, which instead received a diet based on American Diabetes Association guidelines.

Item 6: In the new Research section, please add the following sentences to make a new second paragraph about a paper Barnard published in JAMA that critiques misuse of meta-analyses in the nutrition and epidemiology field. The paper has been influential in methodology and policy discussions, evidenced in its being in the 99th percentile in Scopus citation measures.

Suggested new sentences:

In 2017, Barnard critiqued the way that meta-analyses were used in nutrition research at that time, in a paper he co-authored in JAMA. He argued that meta-analysis techniques, while increasingly relied upon in policies and diet guidelines, often have shortcomings because they are prone to the same biases as the studies they are based on.

Item 7:

Please move the following from Career to a new section entitled “Personal Life”.

Barnard plays cello, guitar, and keyboards, and has been a member of the bands Pop Maru, Verdun, and Carbonworks.

Thank you again for your kind consideration. PaperHydrate (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Don't much care about the other stuff, but all the proposed 'Research' changes based around primary sources are not acceptable. Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply 22-OCT-2023

 Clarifications needed. There are a few items that need to be taken care of before the request is ready for review.

1. There are several instances where more than one reference is placed at the end of a section of text. That always indicates that both references verify all of the information in the sentences. In those situations where two references are doing the work that only one is needed for, the COI editor is asked to ensure that the other one is deleted. Please note that situations where the double referencing is because there is a primary source from the subject and a secondary reliable source talking about the exact same subject, these are of course exempted, and may remain in your proposal.
2. As User:Bon courage stated above, any instances where reliable, independent, secondary sources could not be provided to act as a source, then the proposed text should be deleted from the request. Please note that sources which contain information provided by the subject to a third party, such as through an interview or other such given statements, will likely not be viewed as independent sources.
3. Any significant terms mentioned in the article which have their own Wikipedia pages should be WikiLinked. Currently your request mentions several schools that the subject attended, but none of the text where those schools are mentioned includes WikiLinks. It may be the case that some of these wikilinks already exist in the current article. Nevertheless,, the WikiLinks still need to be carried over into the text that you're proposing to be added. The COI editor is kindly asked to make these necessary changes and submit them below this reply post as a new edit request at their earliest convenience. If you have any questions about the items/changes I've asked for, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)