This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If anybody wants to add refs to this or any other article, please read WP:CITE. A lot of the refs are using the "cite web" template when they should be using the "cite journal" or some other template; a "cite web" template is used for internet-only sources, because as a rule they won't include the author's name, even if it's in the template. I am changing them out to the simplest format, which uses no template but only cites the information in a consistent order: author, beginning with last name, date, name of work with an external link if available, publisher, and when accessed, if an external link is provided. If no author is known then begin with the name of the work.
Also there is no reason to cite umpity-million sources if they repeat the information in another source. Nothing is to be gained in credibility or usefulness. I also am exchanging the pay-wall sources for free sources, if available, to make it easier for the reader (and other editors) to check the citation. If a pay-wall source is being used to ref a statement, and if the information is in another non-pay-wall source, it is much better to cite the free source for the sake of transparency. Also, for any article, not just this one, if the subject's web site is used to source a fact, that fact should be confirmed by an independent source (and that does not mean a source that quotes the subject or the subject's web site). That is why I cut the reference to Cousens being the captain of the team; the only independent source I have been able to find states that there were two other co-captains during the undefeated season. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There are scientific claims made in the article and I have pointed out their problems with this edit: [1] We need solid scientific sources to support scientific claims and language. Jesanj ( talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"...Dr. Gabriel Cousens, MD(H) was licensed by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical Examiners in 1987, six years prior to any complaints filed with the California Medical Board. Dr. Cousens currently holds license #30 in Arizona and is in good standing. As of today in 2012, Dr. Cousens’ California medical license is in good standing and never has been revoked or suspended. He did not “escape” to Arizona as others have claimed. The Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical Examiners in a thorough, thoughtful and extended investigation, which included reviewing all three pathology opinions, two of which disagreed with the diagnosis of the county pathologist and one of which felt the report of the county pathologist was below standard of care. Based on all these considerations the Board completely cleared Dr. Cousens of any cupabilty, malpractice, or medical wrong doing in the Levy case. In its investigation, the Arizona Board found that only minute injected doses of homeopathic adrenal were used, which are completely legal to use in Arizona under the homeopathic license, and is also listed as a legitimate homeopathic remedy in the national homeopathic pharmacopeia developed in the 1930’s. The Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical examiners told Dr. Cousens, 'the Board found no fault with the care you provided and determined you were in compliance with accepted standards of Homeopathic care and dismissed the complaint against you.'" [2]
I think the article already summarizes this incident sufficiently and in appropriate detail, but if there are points that could be added we can discuss them here. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm summarizing from a discussion with a representative with Gabriel Cousens's office, objecting to the language in the controversy paragraph
Discuss? Ocaasi t | c 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me like Cousens has a problem with the published source. I don't see a conflict between what our article said (prior to YRC's edit) and what is in the source, and my sense is that that edit needs to be reverted. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This article "sourced" a statement that Cousens is an ordained Rabbi. However, that source, source #5, said nothing about him even claiming to be a Rabbi. What that article did say, however, is that he practices his own combination of Christianity and Judaism. This, along with a whole bunch of other stated facts about Cousens, makes it impossible for him to be an "ordained Rabbi."
If anyone would like to put back the ludicrous statement that Cousens is an ordained Rabbi, please cite exactly which institution he is ordained by and provide a source. Thank you. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 03:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Cousens was ordained pastoral Rebbe in 2001 and fully ordained Rabbi in 2008 by Rabbi Gershon Winkler. Here's an article: http://azjewishpost.com/2010/modern-jewish-pioneers-flock-to-patagonia/ HoneyBadgerCowboy ( talk) 03:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain? (about ordained rabbi not Winkler) HoneyBadgerCowboy ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This statement doesn't spell it out enough?
"Cousens received an M.D. degree from Columbia University and completed his residency in psychiatry in 1973. His professional life takes him around the world, as a spiritual healer and raw, or live-food, nutritionist and a medical researcher and developer of a natural treatment for diabetes and a sickle-cell screening program. He’s also done humanitarian work in Central Harlem and with Chicago gangs and he is a rabbi ordained by Rabbi Gershon Winkler, founder of the Walking Stick Foundation in New Mexico."
HoneyBadgerCowboy ( talk) 19:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
. Despite the medical examiner's report and testimony, the board found in that 2001 meeting, then Board Chairman Dr. Bruce Shelton said he "found no medical fault with Dr. Cousens' care of" Levy and "
The above edit was added as cited from The Arizona Republic. It will be returned in 24 hours if there is no justifiable objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.145 ( talk) 01:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The website Science-Based Medicine reviewed the film, calling it "highly effective propaganda." [1]
The above edit is from an Internet blog is not RS by Wikipedia standards. It will be removed in 24 hours unless an RS is established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.145 ( talk) 01:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless it can be established that the blog is wiki RS the edit will be removed in 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.18 ( talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not an RS by wiki standards. It is a self published blog. The site is not evidence based by it's own statement of purpose. The quoted 'expert' is not expert in the field of commentary. The commentary at the site is not neutral and allows postings by other non-expert persons with no editorial control. The cited material should be removed until a consensus is formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 08:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Removing the film's website POV and leaving Cousens' participation in the film as biographical seems like good logic. The link of Simply Raw to the wiki article about the film seems the proper place to for such film reviews of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
For clarity, the suggestion to remove the film's website POV is sound and the proper place for any film review is at the wiki Simply Raw article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors should not take positions of 'weak', edits must remain neutral and balanced and not reflect or have the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Clarifification the above was intended for the MD section. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Tree of Life segment involves a medical debate on raw food. It is essential for a balanced article that Cousens is an M.D. As is represented in the cited RS sources.
The reference to the M.D. Credentials will be restored in 24 hours to restore balance to the segment of the article effected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.29 ( talk) 02:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no "we" at Wikipedia only various editors who act in good faith . This segment of the article is about a debate in the medical community about the medical impact of raw food . Cousens engages in that debate as a medical doctor . The medical credentials need to be mentioned for a balanced article. The edit will be restored in 24 hours. I am open to other phrasing that restores the proper medical credentials in the proper perspective. 166.137.210.24 ( talk) 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not clear at all that Cousens is a medical doctor in the debate section of the of the Tree of Life segment as the segment only mentions his religious credentials in the opening statement. The Tree of Life is a medical center per the RS sources. The way the segment currently reads it looks as though Cousens advocacy of a medically based diet is from his religious credentials. The RS cited mentions Cousens medical qualifications and so should the segment for balance. Cousens is not clearly positioned as a medical professional as are the other persons in the debate section who the article properly credits with medical credentials. The segment is not wiki neutral or balanced without citing that all persons have medical credentials that are cited per the RS.
Ahem , to the fellow editor about consensus. You could bring a million editors who wanted an edit that said Cousens was Santa Claus but it only takes logic and good faith plus wiki RS standards of balance to make the proper edit from a wiki RS source, so please make a useful contribution in phrasing rather than lecturing fellow editors about wiki policy that is already known. Editors of an encyclopedia article about a living person's biography need to be neutral and balanced in the edits made. Editors are to build a consensus by wiki standards. Editors are not running for mayor of wiki town. 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
To show good faith here is a suggested edit: "Cousens has advocated a medically guided raw food diet for babies and children." 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk)
No one is asking to 'slather' anything in the article Cousens medical credentials as an MD have only recently been added to the article. Only his medical degree was mentioned before and the suggested edit is about how he approaches a raw food diet from a medical perspective. I suggest you stop copping an attitude toward a fellow editor and suggest a way to help balance this segment of the article so it doesn't read like Cousens is presenting an opinion based on his religious credentials. And again just a reminder there is no imperial 'we' at wiki just various editors co-operating together. 166.137.210.24 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It is good to see that a fellow editor agrees that a Borg like 'we' that implies an elite status is not a good idea and the obvious statement of a wiki policy without an implication that it is bolstered by the seniority of an editor is positive.
It is a violation of the good faith policy to insinuate a fellow editor has taken a position on an argument in a wiki article. It is further violation of a neutral and balanced editing to say that any side of a debate is a "weak" position and to edit that bias into the article. It also helps to not use words like 'slather' when addressing a fellow editor's content. It is suggested you read the whole section here as a solution for an edit that does not require Cousens M.D has already been proposed and the edit was drawn from the RS materials. Again,as suggested, it was requested fellow editors suggest edits rather than copping attitudes toward fellow editors who maybe new to wiki. Thank you for being informative. 166.147.89.161 ( talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
To avoid any future food fights it might be proper to link the words 'raw food' in this biographical article to the wiki article page on Raw Foodism where the subject is explored in some greater depth. On the contrary there has been a useful exchange about what an edit might consist of. Wiki is not about 'winning'. As long as the' final word' is a good encyclopedia worthy edit all the editors prosper by the exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors should not take positions of 'weak' (or strong for that matter), edits must remain neutral and balanced and not reflect or have the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of errors in the "Works" section. Publication dates are way off (check http://www.bookfinder.com for correct dates) and titles are incorrect as well. For starters, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet was published in 1986, Conscious Eating was published in 1993, and so on. Softlavender ( talk) 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello
This statement was removed from the article as a 'red herring' yet it was part of a cited RS article that offered balance to statements made about vegan nutrition.
"But a 2005 study in Archives of Internal Medicine found no major deficiencies when comparing the bone health of adults on raw diets with those who ate a typical cooked diet. While the raw food group had lower weights and bone mass, they had normal vitamin D levels."
The item will be restored in 24 hours .
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lead Song Dog
Suggest you read the cited RS as the entire section of the wiki article in question comes from the same RS. The statement is from the RS and provides balance. It is not a 'red herring' grafted into the wiki article, again it is from the primary RS. Wiki reports from RS sources and is not about single editors cherry picking to declare one part of an RS ok and another part that offers balance a 'red herring. The removal of the RS portion that creates balance is vandalism of the articles content as originally represented in the RS .
The balance item will be restored in 24 hours to repair the vandalism.
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lead Song Dog
The Archive of Internal Medicine cited in the RS article is itself an RS.
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
Both CNS and AOIM are RS. The statement is critical for balance. There is no copyright on the material. There is nothing arbitrary about 24 hours, it is quite specific and is sometimes the only way to get a response that otherwise can drag on for days or weeks damaging an article by a lack of balance, this important when the article is about a living person.
Arbitrary removal is vandalism of the original balance in the RS and by extension the wiki article.
Will post a suggested edit soon, open to suggestions.
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
To be clear you are correct that the quote is from an RS. There is no direct copyright attached to the article itself. Simple fair use would allow for the quote verbatim or otherwise. Raising the Leviathan of 'plagiarism ' with a fellow editor is a bit of overkill. The statement having come from the RS provides balance both in the original RS article and the wiki article, it's removal is vandalism of both. A simple edit can deal with the verbatim quote and restore the balance now lacking in the wiki article. A suggested edit will be made soon. Thank you for your comments. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 12:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
It seem there is just adding layer upon layer of nonsense about nonexistent issues. The quote will be restored with proper acknowledgement. If you think otherwise would suggest you get a ruling from more objective folks. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 07:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
Another layer that no ruling has been made on. Here is a suggestion , why not actually read the RS and make rhe edit yourself. That would be something actually useful. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray It seems a check of the edit history shows that cherry picking from the CAN RS news item continues to vandalize the wiki article. CAN is an RS and is properly cited for a fair use quote that was used in the CAN RS article . To remove and not restore it based on arguments presented by Lead Dog's OR ( He is not even certain he has the right item) leaves the wiki article open the appearance of pseudo skepticism or worse the original concerns it is a hit piece about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray glad to see you finally coughed up that ACZ is an RS . There is no quote mining going on as ACZ is the RS for the entire wiki article section being reviewed about the raw food issue, core to Cousens and the critical perspective offered for balance. It seems doubtful that you have read the ACZ article otherwise you would know it relates to Cousens and the fair use quote directly, such being the case why not make a suggested edit your self instead complaining about non- existent 'quote mining'. Even if the edit is not used it might be instructive as to what it should look like in your opinion. At least more instructive than accusations of non-existent plagiarism and premature threats of banning for non existent war editing. You will note that you did indeed rubber stamp Lead Dog' s guess as to what study was referenced. Further if the fair use quote is good enough for the medical debate on veganism it then stands it must be reliable as a quote in context to it original RS about Cousens position in the ACZ RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray The edit history shows the fair use quote was removed tagged as a 'red herring' with insinuations it was 'inserted' into the wiki article so a wiki editor could make 'sweeping' medical claims all show ignorance that the fair use quote came directly from the RS that the entire section of the wiki article is based on. Then came layers of lectures about non-existent plagiarism etc. At that time two simple requests were made, a request of how an edit might look and that more objective editors look at the Med issue as one editors OR is speculation and the other merely rubber stamps that. The request here is still for those two requests rather than murmurings about being banned. 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray Big of you to admit that the wiki article section is from an RS and not 'inserted' by a wiki editor to make 'sweeping' medical claims. The fair use quote (yes it meets fair use standards) is in the context used in the RS which is to provide balance and when the RS cited is the Arizona Republic and that news agency is citing the Archives of Internal Medicine, a peer reviewed medical journal, it seems that more than meets MEDRS. You could bring in a million editors who said Cousens was Santa Claus and it would not be the case. Your help as a wiki editor is being asked for in two simple areas clarity on how reliable the RS are by getting a ruling on the matter and help shaping a proper quote should should the RS ruling favor restoring a proper edit. A third request can now be added, simple aid in getting a ruling from MEDRS, so there would be no delay in a proper edit. Wiki is not a debating society, it is to be a co-operative effort among editors for the best article. Playing dog in the manger is not what wiki is all about. Will you help in the areas mentioned? Looking forward to your response and co-operation. 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The observation here is that it is not edit warring to repair obvious vandalism of an RS fair use quote to the biography of a living person. Good to see you finally acknowledge it is just your opinion and your "objections" are subjective. Now why not be more objective and take the quote over to WP MEDERS and get a ruling on it, or is that to much to request from such a knowledgable editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope no confusion here at all, the Arizona Republic is RS. Refusal to correct obvious vandalism is the height editorial capitulation. Why not show a little humility swallow false pride and get a consensus ruling from WP:MEDERS... If the consensus there favors your currently subjective opinion that would be the end of the matter... Or is that to much to ask of such a knowledgeable editor. Or will there continue to be a refusal to co-operate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 02:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
So WP MEDERS does not matter to you....just your subjective opinion ???? 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you understand that WP MEDERS is a group of people writing the articles there. Do any of these experienced editors have any medical credentials that qualify them to over ride several RS one of them being The Arizona Republic, which has a medical editorial staff. Editors are here to co-operate to write the best possible article. If an editor has such a vast amount of experience why not take the disputed item to the proper suggested sources for review as requested. Yes that is called helping out with the work. The article is about a living person and has been vandalized in a way that makes article appear as a the hit piece it has been accused being in the past. A balance needs to be achieved. 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I added a fringe tag to this article. The content needs to be de-fringed. Delta13C ( talk) 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
All fringe theories must always be given at least equal weight to the "mainstream" view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 ( talk) 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Cousens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
If anybody wants to add refs to this or any other article, please read WP:CITE. A lot of the refs are using the "cite web" template when they should be using the "cite journal" or some other template; a "cite web" template is used for internet-only sources, because as a rule they won't include the author's name, even if it's in the template. I am changing them out to the simplest format, which uses no template but only cites the information in a consistent order: author, beginning with last name, date, name of work with an external link if available, publisher, and when accessed, if an external link is provided. If no author is known then begin with the name of the work.
Also there is no reason to cite umpity-million sources if they repeat the information in another source. Nothing is to be gained in credibility or usefulness. I also am exchanging the pay-wall sources for free sources, if available, to make it easier for the reader (and other editors) to check the citation. If a pay-wall source is being used to ref a statement, and if the information is in another non-pay-wall source, it is much better to cite the free source for the sake of transparency. Also, for any article, not just this one, if the subject's web site is used to source a fact, that fact should be confirmed by an independent source (and that does not mean a source that quotes the subject or the subject's web site). That is why I cut the reference to Cousens being the captain of the team; the only independent source I have been able to find states that there were two other co-captains during the undefeated season. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There are scientific claims made in the article and I have pointed out their problems with this edit: [1] We need solid scientific sources to support scientific claims and language. Jesanj ( talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"...Dr. Gabriel Cousens, MD(H) was licensed by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical Examiners in 1987, six years prior to any complaints filed with the California Medical Board. Dr. Cousens currently holds license #30 in Arizona and is in good standing. As of today in 2012, Dr. Cousens’ California medical license is in good standing and never has been revoked or suspended. He did not “escape” to Arizona as others have claimed. The Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical Examiners in a thorough, thoughtful and extended investigation, which included reviewing all three pathology opinions, two of which disagreed with the diagnosis of the county pathologist and one of which felt the report of the county pathologist was below standard of care. Based on all these considerations the Board completely cleared Dr. Cousens of any cupabilty, malpractice, or medical wrong doing in the Levy case. In its investigation, the Arizona Board found that only minute injected doses of homeopathic adrenal were used, which are completely legal to use in Arizona under the homeopathic license, and is also listed as a legitimate homeopathic remedy in the national homeopathic pharmacopeia developed in the 1930’s. The Arizona Board of Homeopathic & Integrated Medical examiners told Dr. Cousens, 'the Board found no fault with the care you provided and determined you were in compliance with accepted standards of Homeopathic care and dismissed the complaint against you.'" [2]
I think the article already summarizes this incident sufficiently and in appropriate detail, but if there are points that could be added we can discuss them here. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm summarizing from a discussion with a representative with Gabriel Cousens's office, objecting to the language in the controversy paragraph
Discuss? Ocaasi t | c 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me like Cousens has a problem with the published source. I don't see a conflict between what our article said (prior to YRC's edit) and what is in the source, and my sense is that that edit needs to be reverted. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This article "sourced" a statement that Cousens is an ordained Rabbi. However, that source, source #5, said nothing about him even claiming to be a Rabbi. What that article did say, however, is that he practices his own combination of Christianity and Judaism. This, along with a whole bunch of other stated facts about Cousens, makes it impossible for him to be an "ordained Rabbi."
If anyone would like to put back the ludicrous statement that Cousens is an ordained Rabbi, please cite exactly which institution he is ordained by and provide a source. Thank you. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 03:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Cousens was ordained pastoral Rebbe in 2001 and fully ordained Rabbi in 2008 by Rabbi Gershon Winkler. Here's an article: http://azjewishpost.com/2010/modern-jewish-pioneers-flock-to-patagonia/ HoneyBadgerCowboy ( talk) 03:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain? (about ordained rabbi not Winkler) HoneyBadgerCowboy ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This statement doesn't spell it out enough?
"Cousens received an M.D. degree from Columbia University and completed his residency in psychiatry in 1973. His professional life takes him around the world, as a spiritual healer and raw, or live-food, nutritionist and a medical researcher and developer of a natural treatment for diabetes and a sickle-cell screening program. He’s also done humanitarian work in Central Harlem and with Chicago gangs and he is a rabbi ordained by Rabbi Gershon Winkler, founder of the Walking Stick Foundation in New Mexico."
HoneyBadgerCowboy ( talk) 19:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
. Despite the medical examiner's report and testimony, the board found in that 2001 meeting, then Board Chairman Dr. Bruce Shelton said he "found no medical fault with Dr. Cousens' care of" Levy and "
The above edit was added as cited from The Arizona Republic. It will be returned in 24 hours if there is no justifiable objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.145 ( talk) 01:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The website Science-Based Medicine reviewed the film, calling it "highly effective propaganda." [1]
The above edit is from an Internet blog is not RS by Wikipedia standards. It will be removed in 24 hours unless an RS is established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.145 ( talk) 01:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless it can be established that the blog is wiki RS the edit will be removed in 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.18 ( talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not an RS by wiki standards. It is a self published blog. The site is not evidence based by it's own statement of purpose. The quoted 'expert' is not expert in the field of commentary. The commentary at the site is not neutral and allows postings by other non-expert persons with no editorial control. The cited material should be removed until a consensus is formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 08:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Removing the film's website POV and leaving Cousens' participation in the film as biographical seems like good logic. The link of Simply Raw to the wiki article about the film seems the proper place to for such film reviews of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 13:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
For clarity, the suggestion to remove the film's website POV is sound and the proper place for any film review is at the wiki Simply Raw article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors should not take positions of 'weak', edits must remain neutral and balanced and not reflect or have the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Clarifification the above was intended for the MD section. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Tree of Life segment involves a medical debate on raw food. It is essential for a balanced article that Cousens is an M.D. As is represented in the cited RS sources.
The reference to the M.D. Credentials will be restored in 24 hours to restore balance to the segment of the article effected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.29 ( talk) 02:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no "we" at Wikipedia only various editors who act in good faith . This segment of the article is about a debate in the medical community about the medical impact of raw food . Cousens engages in that debate as a medical doctor . The medical credentials need to be mentioned for a balanced article. The edit will be restored in 24 hours. I am open to other phrasing that restores the proper medical credentials in the proper perspective. 166.137.210.24 ( talk) 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not clear at all that Cousens is a medical doctor in the debate section of the of the Tree of Life segment as the segment only mentions his religious credentials in the opening statement. The Tree of Life is a medical center per the RS sources. The way the segment currently reads it looks as though Cousens advocacy of a medically based diet is from his religious credentials. The RS cited mentions Cousens medical qualifications and so should the segment for balance. Cousens is not clearly positioned as a medical professional as are the other persons in the debate section who the article properly credits with medical credentials. The segment is not wiki neutral or balanced without citing that all persons have medical credentials that are cited per the RS.
Ahem , to the fellow editor about consensus. You could bring a million editors who wanted an edit that said Cousens was Santa Claus but it only takes logic and good faith plus wiki RS standards of balance to make the proper edit from a wiki RS source, so please make a useful contribution in phrasing rather than lecturing fellow editors about wiki policy that is already known. Editors of an encyclopedia article about a living person's biography need to be neutral and balanced in the edits made. Editors are to build a consensus by wiki standards. Editors are not running for mayor of wiki town. 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
To show good faith here is a suggested edit: "Cousens has advocated a medically guided raw food diet for babies and children." 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk)
No one is asking to 'slather' anything in the article Cousens medical credentials as an MD have only recently been added to the article. Only his medical degree was mentioned before and the suggested edit is about how he approaches a raw food diet from a medical perspective. I suggest you stop copping an attitude toward a fellow editor and suggest a way to help balance this segment of the article so it doesn't read like Cousens is presenting an opinion based on his religious credentials. And again just a reminder there is no imperial 'we' at wiki just various editors co-operating together. 166.137.210.24 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It is good to see that a fellow editor agrees that a Borg like 'we' that implies an elite status is not a good idea and the obvious statement of a wiki policy without an implication that it is bolstered by the seniority of an editor is positive.
It is a violation of the good faith policy to insinuate a fellow editor has taken a position on an argument in a wiki article. It is further violation of a neutral and balanced editing to say that any side of a debate is a "weak" position and to edit that bias into the article. It also helps to not use words like 'slather' when addressing a fellow editor's content. It is suggested you read the whole section here as a solution for an edit that does not require Cousens M.D has already been proposed and the edit was drawn from the RS materials. Again,as suggested, it was requested fellow editors suggest edits rather than copping attitudes toward fellow editors who maybe new to wiki. Thank you for being informative. 166.147.89.161 ( talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
To avoid any future food fights it might be proper to link the words 'raw food' in this biographical article to the wiki article page on Raw Foodism where the subject is explored in some greater depth. On the contrary there has been a useful exchange about what an edit might consist of. Wiki is not about 'winning'. As long as the' final word' is a good encyclopedia worthy edit all the editors prosper by the exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 13:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors should not take positions of 'weak' (or strong for that matter), edits must remain neutral and balanced and not reflect or have the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.12.74 ( talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of errors in the "Works" section. Publication dates are way off (check http://www.bookfinder.com for correct dates) and titles are incorrect as well. For starters, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet was published in 1986, Conscious Eating was published in 1993, and so on. Softlavender ( talk) 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello
This statement was removed from the article as a 'red herring' yet it was part of a cited RS article that offered balance to statements made about vegan nutrition.
"But a 2005 study in Archives of Internal Medicine found no major deficiencies when comparing the bone health of adults on raw diets with those who ate a typical cooked diet. While the raw food group had lower weights and bone mass, they had normal vitamin D levels."
The item will be restored in 24 hours .
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lead Song Dog
Suggest you read the cited RS as the entire section of the wiki article in question comes from the same RS. The statement is from the RS and provides balance. It is not a 'red herring' grafted into the wiki article, again it is from the primary RS. Wiki reports from RS sources and is not about single editors cherry picking to declare one part of an RS ok and another part that offers balance a 'red herring. The removal of the RS portion that creates balance is vandalism of the articles content as originally represented in the RS .
The balance item will be restored in 24 hours to repair the vandalism.
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lead Song Dog
The Archive of Internal Medicine cited in the RS article is itself an RS.
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
Both CNS and AOIM are RS. The statement is critical for balance. There is no copyright on the material. There is nothing arbitrary about 24 hours, it is quite specific and is sometimes the only way to get a response that otherwise can drag on for days or weeks damaging an article by a lack of balance, this important when the article is about a living person.
Arbitrary removal is vandalism of the original balance in the RS and by extension the wiki article.
Will post a suggested edit soon, open to suggestions.
A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
To be clear you are correct that the quote is from an RS. There is no direct copyright attached to the article itself. Simple fair use would allow for the quote verbatim or otherwise. Raising the Leviathan of 'plagiarism ' with a fellow editor is a bit of overkill. The statement having come from the RS provides balance both in the original RS article and the wiki article, it's removal is vandalism of both. A simple edit can deal with the verbatim quote and restore the balance now lacking in the wiki article. A suggested edit will be made soon. Thank you for your comments. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 12:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
It seem there is just adding layer upon layer of nonsense about nonexistent issues. The quote will be restored with proper acknowledgement. If you think otherwise would suggest you get a ruling from more objective folks. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 07:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray
Another layer that no ruling has been made on. Here is a suggestion , why not actually read the RS and make rhe edit yourself. That would be something actually useful. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray It seems a check of the edit history shows that cherry picking from the CAN RS news item continues to vandalize the wiki article. CAN is an RS and is properly cited for a fair use quote that was used in the CAN RS article . To remove and not restore it based on arguments presented by Lead Dog's OR ( He is not even certain he has the right item) leaves the wiki article open the appearance of pseudo skepticism or worse the original concerns it is a hit piece about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray glad to see you finally coughed up that ACZ is an RS . There is no quote mining going on as ACZ is the RS for the entire wiki article section being reviewed about the raw food issue, core to Cousens and the critical perspective offered for balance. It seems doubtful that you have read the ACZ article otherwise you would know it relates to Cousens and the fair use quote directly, such being the case why not make a suggested edit your self instead complaining about non- existent 'quote mining'. Even if the edit is not used it might be instructive as to what it should look like in your opinion. At least more instructive than accusations of non-existent plagiarism and premature threats of banning for non existent war editing. You will note that you did indeed rubber stamp Lead Dog' s guess as to what study was referenced. Further if the fair use quote is good enough for the medical debate on veganism it then stands it must be reliable as a quote in context to it original RS about Cousens position in the ACZ RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray The edit history shows the fair use quote was removed tagged as a 'red herring' with insinuations it was 'inserted' into the wiki article so a wiki editor could make 'sweeping' medical claims all show ignorance that the fair use quote came directly from the RS that the entire section of the wiki article is based on. Then came layers of lectures about non-existent plagiarism etc. At that time two simple requests were made, a request of how an edit might look and that more objective editors look at the Med issue as one editors OR is speculation and the other merely rubber stamps that. The request here is still for those two requests rather than murmurings about being banned. 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gray Big of you to admit that the wiki article section is from an RS and not 'inserted' by a wiki editor to make 'sweeping' medical claims. The fair use quote (yes it meets fair use standards) is in the context used in the RS which is to provide balance and when the RS cited is the Arizona Republic and that news agency is citing the Archives of Internal Medicine, a peer reviewed medical journal, it seems that more than meets MEDRS. You could bring in a million editors who said Cousens was Santa Claus and it would not be the case. Your help as a wiki editor is being asked for in two simple areas clarity on how reliable the RS are by getting a ruling on the matter and help shaping a proper quote should should the RS ruling favor restoring a proper edit. A third request can now be added, simple aid in getting a ruling from MEDRS, so there would be no delay in a proper edit. Wiki is not a debating society, it is to be a co-operative effort among editors for the best article. Playing dog in the manger is not what wiki is all about. Will you help in the areas mentioned? Looking forward to your response and co-operation. 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The observation here is that it is not edit warring to repair obvious vandalism of an RS fair use quote to the biography of a living person. Good to see you finally acknowledge it is just your opinion and your "objections" are subjective. Now why not be more objective and take the quote over to WP MEDERS and get a ruling on it, or is that to much to request from such a knowledgable editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope no confusion here at all, the Arizona Republic is RS. Refusal to correct obvious vandalism is the height editorial capitulation. Why not show a little humility swallow false pride and get a consensus ruling from WP:MEDERS... If the consensus there favors your currently subjective opinion that would be the end of the matter... Or is that to much to ask of such a knowledgeable editor. Or will there continue to be a refusal to co-operate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 02:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
So WP MEDERS does not matter to you....just your subjective opinion ???? 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you understand that WP MEDERS is a group of people writing the articles there. Do any of these experienced editors have any medical credentials that qualify them to over ride several RS one of them being The Arizona Republic, which has a medical editorial staff. Editors are here to co-operate to write the best possible article. If an editor has such a vast amount of experience why not take the disputed item to the proper suggested sources for review as requested. Yes that is called helping out with the work. The article is about a living person and has been vandalized in a way that makes article appear as a the hit piece it has been accused being in the past. A balance needs to be achieved. 208.53.121.210 ( talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I added a fringe tag to this article. The content needs to be de-fringed. Delta13C ( talk) 09:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
All fringe theories must always be given at least equal weight to the "mainstream" view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 ( talk) 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gabriel Cousens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)