This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
This article is pretty terrible, clearly not written from a NPOV, and based on the username of the editor who first created it, written by the subject (or someone related) herself. I'm not sure how to go about getting it into shape, and have little knowledge of the subject myself (the reason why I navigated to the page in the first place!) but it's pretty obviously unacceptable in its current state.
Right from the very first sentence, "Ann Louise Gittleman PhD, CNS, (born June 27, 1949 in Hartford, Connecticut) is an award-winning New York Times bestselling author of over 30 books on natural health, beauty, internal cleansing, and weight loss always on the cutting edge of research.", it's obvious that this material hasn't been written from a neutral POV. It gets worse, here are some more clearly non-neutral sentences:
"Dr. Ann Louise is undoubtedly one of the most highly respected and visible nutrition experts who has empowered consumers everywhere to become thier own health advocates"
"Her warmth, conviction, and passion have served her well as a keynote speaker."
"The first to connect diet and detox, Dr. Ann Louise has changed the way millions worldwide look at weight loss. By her efforts to understand her own life experiences through research, she may change the way we come to understand and cope with electromagnetic pollution too."
Danweasel ( talk) 19:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to address the neutrality of the article by removing much of the previous material which was pretty clearly based on promotional material provided by Gittleman herself. This significantly shortened the article but I believe this is for the best as she is known almost entirely for the Fat Flush plan books and much of the biographical information was unnecessarily detailed and unverifiable. Many of the groups and events that were detailed in the previous version of the article appear only in Gittleman's promotional material and are of dubious encyclopedic value.
Captainspacecadet ( talk) 10:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The article now contains criticism of the subject's work, based on coverage in reliable sources. A newly registered account and an IP editor have attempted to remove the criticism without discussion. Removing all of the critical content must be discussed on the talk page, and has to be the result of consensus. I encourage all interested editors to discuss the matter here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
An IP user (
User:97.93.180.67) decided to remove the templates that tag the article for issues related to
WP:BLP lack of sources and not meeting
WP:GNG. The explanation left in the edit summary is that best selling authors are considered notable. This is not true. According to
WP:AUTHOR, the following criteria should be met these serve as additional guidelines to
WP:BIO:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I do not see enough third-party coverage of Gittleman to pass GNG. There are thousands of best selling authors, but they are all not considered notable enough to include in WP. I see that this is disputed by at least the IP user noted above, so let's talk about it. Delta13C ( talk) 07:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability has been confirmed by multiple sources and seemingly agreed upon in this conversation. Yet the tag continues to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsune78 ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Added as the sole edit by an ip [1]. As used, I think it should be removed as sourcing promotional trivia. I'm wondering if anything encyclopedic is in the reference. Anyone have access to it? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I moved the following from the article for discussion. The first paragraph is entirely self-published sources, so no encyclopedic value is demonstrated, while clearly there is promotional value which should be avoided.
Is there any mention of Gittleman directly in the references for the following paragraph? It's not written as if there is, which is a problem. If there's none, then we need to trim it, maybe place some of the info in a footnote, to avoid POV and OR problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
She sits on the medical advisory boards of the Health Sciences Institute, [1] Your Future Health, [2] and The National Institute of Whole Health. [3] In addition, she is an honorary board member of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation [4] and on the advisory board of the Nutritional Therapy Association. [5]
Many of these organizations have been criticized by consumer watchdog and scientific advocacy groups. Quackwatch lists The Health Sciences Institute, Your Future Health, Nutrition Therapy Association, and the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation (formerly the Weston A. Price Foundation) as questionable organizations. [6] Your Health Now is reported to have sold dubious urine pH and blood tests, included the debunked live blood analysis. [7] The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation has a long history of issuing problematic health advice, including homeopathy, muscle testing, hair analysis, detoxification, and controversies surrounding water fluoridation and vaccines. [8] [9] The Nutritional Therapy Association is reported to teach its students how to use nutritional therapies to treat fictitious diseases, including toxic overload and adrenal fatigue. [10]
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. There has been no discussion activity for a while. If you would like to continue discussing, you can reopen this request by removing everything in the curly brackets of this template except "request edit". |
In an effort to address the neutrality issues in the Career section, I propose the following insert be made after "The Early Show," in the second paragraph as a new sentence: Her books have also repeatedly been on the New York Times Best Sellers List [1] [2] covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, including detoxification, [3] [4] weight loss, [5] and women's health [6] in addition to electromagnetic radiation. [7] [8] Mnh429 ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303266.html</ref> her books have also repeatedly been on The New York Times Best Sellers list, including The Fat Flush Plan
[9] and Before the Change
[10], covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, such as detoxification
[11]
[12], weight loss
[13], and women’s health
[14] in addition to electromagnetic radiation.
[15]
[16]”References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It has been suggested that more citations are needed for this page. I would like to help add the needed citations but need to know what specific content requires citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsune78 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. There has been no discussion activity for a while. If you would like to continue discussing, you can reopen this request by removing everything in the curly brackets of this template except "request edit". |
The first paragraph seems to lack a neutral point of view. I have requested edits here to address neutrality issues. I propose to insert the following after "books by the same name": Ann Louise Gittleman has been referred to as “The First Lady of Nutrition” for her work in traditional and holistic health. She has been recognized by other nutrition experts as a pioneer in the field and for being one of the first in the country to write about the importance of incorporating healthy fats into one’s diet. [1] [2]
I also propose to insert after "and one-sided manner" in the first paragraph: She has also received awards for her work in nutrition by the Cancer Control Society [3] and the New England Chapter of American Medical Writers Association. [4] Mnh429 ( talk) 22:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Noting that Ann Louise Gittleman is a nutritionist was removed from the first paragraph of the article, could the editors please add nutritionist back in? The Callahan article notes that she is a nutritionist. Additionally, she is referred to as a nutritionist in the following sources: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/06/06/4-embarrassing-health-problems-and-how-to-treat-them.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/fashion/22skin.html (already cited in the BLP page), https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/eating-fat-does-not-make-1363769542926390.html Mnh429 ( talk) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. There has been no discussion activity for a while. If you would like to continue discussing, you can reopen this request by removing everything in the curly brackets of this template except "request edit". |
In an attempt to have the Controversy section reflect a more neutral tone, I propose the following changes:
Insert before "is a fantasy" in the 1st paragraph: Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify as part of the Fat Flush Plan has made her diet the subject of acclaim and criticism from some nutritionists and medical doctors. Dr. Mark Hyman, MD, the director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and Dr. Jonny Bowden, PhD, CNS, have praised Gittleman for her work on the importance of fats as an integral part of nutrition. [1] [2] But Dr. Judith Stern, vice president of the American Obesity Society, has called the Fat Flush Plan "pseudoscience" that promises everything, but is "a fantasy."
Additionally, I propose to insert after "evidence in a biased manner" in the 2nd paragraph: Zapped has been referred to as a comprehensive guide to electromagnetic radiation and the potential impact it may have on one’s health. [3] [4] Mnh429 ( talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Responding to Agricolae's comment regarding Jonny Bowden as a source. If we do not use Bowden as a source, can we reach consensus on the following revised, proposed edit (to be inserted in last sentence of the first paragraph of the Controversy section):
"However, Dr. Mark Hyman, MD, the director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine has acknowledged Gittleman for being "a pioneer and the lone voice in promoting the importance of the right fats. [1]" Mnh429 ( talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The list is too long. The Fat Flush Journal and Shopping Guide, wow! Xx236 ( talk) 06:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Mnh429 is apparently using BLPN to make new edit requests. That's not what the noticeboard is for, but regarding the verification of "fad diet", I think http://healthtools.aarp.org/health/fat-flush-diet would suffice. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The Healthline article calls the diet a “fad diet,” but as I stated before, this article is not credible because it contains falsehoods about basic attributes of the Fat Flush Plan, which suggest that the author did not actually read the book. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I am copying requested edits I originally posted on the BLP Noticeboard[ [14]]. I am a newbie, so thanks for your patience while I navigate the appropriate forums for discussion. My prior comments are copied here, but my main question is, can the sentence be revised to be neutral, verifiable, and moved to the controversy section?
Later on I wrote:
As with most fad diets, the Flat Flush Plan highlights convoluted science and gimmicky logic to sell its products (and Gittleman's books), and doesn't really explain the basic truth of the diet — that any plan involving lower calories and increased exercise is going to cause weight loss. Critics of The Fat Flush Plan have pointed out that there is no credible evidence that proves "detoxing" the liver results in weight loss or that the liver has anything to do with weight loss. Experts also warn that mixing supplements with certain medications can be a dangerous recipe for some dieters.-- Ronz ( talk) 21:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I do not think we have reached consensus on the Healthline article yet (see Fad diets section above), but Delta13C went ahead and used it as a source for a separate, new statement which is in the first paragraph: "According to Healthline, the plan is a fad diet that relies upon "convoluted science and gimmicky logic to sell its products".[1]"
Delta13C--I suggest that this sentence be removed or that it be edited to accurately represents the article and be moved to The Fat Flush Plan section. Mnh429 ( talk) 20:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not think we have reached consensusI believe we have. Consensus is not a vote. Granted, it doesn't present the perspective that Gittleman wants for her marketing, but we're not here to satisfy anyone's marketing needs. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The Healthline article contains inaccuracies about the Fat Flush Plan and does not appear that the author did any fact checking. Further, it is cited as a source in an attempt to give credibility to the statement “Gittleman is a noted promoter of pseudoscientific ideas,” but nowhere in the article does the author make this claim, convoluted science is not pseudoscience. Additionally, the articles states that “There’s no doubt that this diet works in the short run,” - WP:BLP pages must be balanced and should include criticism and acknowledgment of the subject of the BLP article. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it's not. It is neither entirely negative, nor are the supposed 'negative' comments unreferenced. This is nothing but a COI editor trying to carry out a content dipute through other means. -- Agricolae ( talk) 22:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagreeIt's difficult to see that respect. You don't like that you've been unable to change this article to align with Gittleman's marketing - something you are being paid to do. Trying to delete it out of frustration indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the policies required to work in such difficult circumstances (working with a financial conflict of interest on a biography of a living person that falls under general sanctions). We've seen this before. The next step is usually to publish something blaming Wikipedia for being unfair and unsympathetic to your need to change this article to Gittleman's liking. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ronz My attempts at requesting changes to the article have always been made with the intent to strengthen the article by presenting a fair and balanced point of view of Gittleman. I have attempted to identify the portions of the article that do not reflect a WP:NPOV or that do not accurately reflect what is stated in the cited sources. I appreciate that you and many other editors do not agree. I posted my FCOI because I have been and am continuing to do my best as a new editor to abide by Wikipedia policies. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Anachronist moved the controversial statements from the first paragraph to the Controversy Section, but I think accidentally forgot to delete this sentence from the first paragraph: "She has been criticized for promoting pseudoscientific views that do not reflect the best understanding of health and nutrition." Should this be deleted since the sentence is now in the Controversy Section? Thank you. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
Admin help}}
I have been attempting to request edits to make the
Ann Louise Gittleman BLP page fair and balanced (see Talk page). However, for the past month, no substantive changes have been made to resolve the negative tone of the article. I have incorporated feedback by the editors and offered revised edits per their comments. There has been no progress made to present Gittleman's biography with a fair, unbiased, and neutral point of view. As currently drafted, the article is littered with unfair treatment of Gittleman, is demeaning of her education and career, and associates Gittleman with criticisms that are irrelevant to her biography.
I need administrator assistance to make edits to the following statements to achieve neutrality and to create some credibility for this article:
In addition, the edit that removed "nutritionist" from the first line of the article should be undone. Gittleman is notable precisely for being a nutritionist as supported by multiple sources in the article. The removal of this term illustrates the non-neutral attempt to discredit her career as a nutritionist.
Thank you for your attention to my requests. Mnh429 ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Here is a source for the request for a citation for the following sentence: "In 1977 Gittleman received her M.S. in Nutrition Education, Teachers College, Columbia University." [1] Mnh429 ( talk) 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If you are to accept a Healthline.com article, how can you not accept a Webmd.com article? They are similar providers of online medical information and are competitors. [ [17]]. There are numerous sources online that identify Gittleman's academic credentials. [2] [3] [4] [5] Mnh429 ( talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The above sources are cited merely to establish Ann Louise's educational background/credentials - these sources directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. (WP:RSCONTEXT) Further, self-published sources may be used as a source of information about that person. (WP:SELFSOURCE) Mnh429 ( talk) 18:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've offered the sources to clarify basic information about Gittleman receiving an MS from Columbia. Mnh429 ( talk) 19:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328 I believe the editors agreed that the WebMD citation and annlouise.com/credentials could be used to cite to her education and credentials. Could you please undo your change? Mnh429 ( talk) 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Gittleman’s educational background including that she received her M.S. in Nutrition Education, Teachers College, from Columbia University has been removed, apparently due to lack of “credible” sources. I reiterate that the sources I provided are in line with WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SELFSOURCE. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this discussion has convinced me that the disagreement over the content in question would not be an improvement to the article. Request declined. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 02:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
New York Times bestseller: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/08/books/paperback-best-sellers-june-8-2003.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/bestseller/hardcover-advice.html Mnh429 ( talk) 20:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"She followed up the The Fat Flush Plan with...": https://www.amazon.com/Fat-Flush-Fitness-Plan/dp/0071423125 (citing to an e-commerce page is acceptable in order to verify such things as titles and running times, etc.) Mnh429 ( talk) 00:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If we could eliminate that section by moving the contents to the other sections, it could be an improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The Callahan article (source no. 2) does not support the statement: “inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition.” I agree that the Callahan article is critical of the Plan, but the statement on Gittleman’s page goes beyond the Callahan article. In addition to the critiques, the article also states that “There’s nothing wrong with advising people to get exercise, gent plenty of sleep, and record their daily progress. In fact, these are great overall health and weigh-loss strategies.” Additionally, the BLP article gives the Callahan source WP:UNDUE as it is cited 4 times. Further, Maureen Callahan appears to be a competitor of Gittleman ( http://maureencallahanrd.com/about-me/) in which case her article may pose a personal bias against Gittleman. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Right now the lede looks good, except for the fact that it makes no mention of the fact that her ideas are criticized by every reputable institution. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 01:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a biography, not a "subject" page. The topic is not "pseudoscience," but is instead the information ABOUT a living person. The wording of the current post is slanderous and derogatory, in violation of the rules. I tried to edit it, but it was reverted because I added a significant about of text. I am BRAND NEW to this, and ONLY joined Wiki when I came across this bio in some unrelated research about a different topic. I was so shocked by what it said that I decided to fix it.
For example, "proponent of alternative medicine, especially fad diets. She promotes herself as a nutritionist, while having a degree from a diploma mill." Written by user KolbertBot. Gittleman's is a PhD and has a degree from Columbia University (hardly a diploma mill). See http://annlouise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bio.pdf Even if my full edit isn't reinstated, PLEASE consider allowing for removal of the slanderous statements, as they are in violation of the rules for a biography - They are biased and negative. Based on my research, the woman has appeared on numerous television shows and her work has been cited in number of media outlets. She's a best selling author and the list goes on.
I am okay with leaving the stuff that says "so and so called her such and such," but to DEFINE this LIVING, BREATHING person by he opinion of an anonymous writer, with no backing beyond a few Wordpress blogs to support the claim, is a discredit to Wikipedia.Analyst737 12:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[1]
Jump up ^ /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
WHY hasn't anyone addressed this yet? Analyst737 ( talk) 13:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now bled away my Saturday to read ALL of the "reputable sources" on this list and, wow, most of them having nothing to do with the lady in the bio at all. They have to do with OTHER subjects cited in the piece and are written in a defaming tone without providing proof.
There is no public info citing this lady a quack beyond opinion, and if we use opinion as a reputable source, then what is the point of any of this? I have no intention of whitewashing anything, but the current bio makes claims that can't possibly be substantiated without citing the subject's own material.
As a researcher, I chose to cite the ONLY AVAILABLE SOURCES, regardless of locale, as there simply isn't enough info to substantiate the other claims. For example, How does the writer of the current post KNOW where Gittleman got her education if not pulling from her own material? There's a flat remark about it, but no citation. How did the writer know where she graduated from if he/she didn't get it from her own material? So, Just so I'm clear -- I'm wrong for citing where the educational info came from, because it came from the subject's own material, but the current writer is okay to make statements that have no citation at all? There's NOTHING under education and career citing her degree from Columbia, her awards, her speaking, nothing like that. And the only "citation" doesn't say anything about Gittleman, it only points to the school. Also, the statements like "She has been criticized...' are untrue. No one has criticized HER the person, they may have criticized her ideas - but there are thousands of other people who agree with her. To label her based on the opinion pieces is slander.
The tonality of this piece is completely biased and not journalistic. If my corrections went too far the other way, fine. I don't want to white wash, but we DO need to make this more neutral. Flat journalism. If we're going to include her critics, then we need to include her fans (they apparently number in the tens of thousands based on her book sales.
But THIS current bio is, well, it's not good. And it is out of control that the talk history notes years of other people who have tried to fix this same issue too. It's clear to me that there's some bias somewhere in the ranks. As a total outsider here, I find this exhausting.
The bottom line, if this lady's bio is going to stay on Wiki, it needs to be rewritten and the citations will HAVE to come from her stuff because there simply aren't enough sources to provide info about her from other places. Otherwise, delete it altogether - because she's not mainstream enough to substantiate all the defaming content that's on there now.
The balance is way off here. It either needs to be corrected or the page needs to be deleted altogether. Analyst737 ( talk) 16:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://annlouise.com/credentials. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 11:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Due to recent COI disruption by anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts, I have extended-confirmed protected this article indefinitely. Any substantive changes by editors with a COI should be proposed on this talk page for review, not made directly in the article. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 07:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In response to Anachronist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Anachronist&action=history) who apparently thinks I have engaged in "COI editing" despite the fact that I have removed NOTHING from prior submissions, I took the liberty of contacting this Hot Mess Press to find out if they fact check. THEY DO: I was emailed this link in response to my question:
http://hotmessanonymous.com/submission-validation-policy/
So, I am requesting that my edits to the page be reinstated. Since I'm not a 'regular' around here, I am probably more aghast by the processes than I should be. But, wow.
My prior submission to this Talk page was apparently deleted by someone - However, I have a copy of the same commentary on my own talk page:
Hot Mess Press is an online news magazine (see https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheHotMessPress/about/?ref=page_internal) NOT a personal blog. The author of the article is a medical professional (see bio). NOTHING was removed from prior edit(s). If the suggested source is considered uncredible, the Gizmodo source written by non-expert, layman freelance writer Kate Knibbs (who also wrote for The Onion, by the way) is also uncredible. (See Knibbs' LinkedIn) (See comments on Gizmodo piece). That said, the Gizmodo piece uses this article ( https://goop.com/wellness/food-planet/ann-louise-gittleman-on-protecting-yourself-from-wifi-cellphone-toxicity/?irgwc=1&utm_campaign=10079_OnlineTrackingLink&utm_source=impactradius&utm_medium=affiliate) as ITS source, and this article is in no way bias or discreditive of Gittlamn. Also, while on the subject of sourcing, there it no citation on the current Clayton College statement. Where is the source for that? This source addresses it.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
<Hello - I could really use some help. I have provided valid proof of the credibility of the aforementioned source, which publicizies it's fact checking process at this link: ( http://hotmessanonymous.com/submission-validation-policy/) Further, I have provided only new information from the source here: ( http://hotmessanonymous.com/noteworthy-nutritionist-and-author-ann-louise-gittleman/). I have deleted nothing from prior submissions and I have added credibility to the Wiki bio of this person. I am TOTALLY CONFUSED as to why my changes were a. removed, b. called "coi edits?" and c. why this person's bio can't be edited for the addition of new material. If this source is invalid, then the Gizmodo source is also invalid. I respectfully request your input.>
-- Analyst737 ( talk) 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages
As far as I can see, http://hotmessanonymous.com is a website run by http://vertu-marketing.com and http://www.tylieeaves.com , used for promotions and finding clients. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
This article is pretty terrible, clearly not written from a NPOV, and based on the username of the editor who first created it, written by the subject (or someone related) herself. I'm not sure how to go about getting it into shape, and have little knowledge of the subject myself (the reason why I navigated to the page in the first place!) but it's pretty obviously unacceptable in its current state.
Right from the very first sentence, "Ann Louise Gittleman PhD, CNS, (born June 27, 1949 in Hartford, Connecticut) is an award-winning New York Times bestselling author of over 30 books on natural health, beauty, internal cleansing, and weight loss always on the cutting edge of research.", it's obvious that this material hasn't been written from a neutral POV. It gets worse, here are some more clearly non-neutral sentences:
"Dr. Ann Louise is undoubtedly one of the most highly respected and visible nutrition experts who has empowered consumers everywhere to become thier own health advocates"
"Her warmth, conviction, and passion have served her well as a keynote speaker."
"The first to connect diet and detox, Dr. Ann Louise has changed the way millions worldwide look at weight loss. By her efforts to understand her own life experiences through research, she may change the way we come to understand and cope with electromagnetic pollution too."
Danweasel ( talk) 19:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to address the neutrality of the article by removing much of the previous material which was pretty clearly based on promotional material provided by Gittleman herself. This significantly shortened the article but I believe this is for the best as she is known almost entirely for the Fat Flush plan books and much of the biographical information was unnecessarily detailed and unverifiable. Many of the groups and events that were detailed in the previous version of the article appear only in Gittleman's promotional material and are of dubious encyclopedic value.
Captainspacecadet ( talk) 10:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The article now contains criticism of the subject's work, based on coverage in reliable sources. A newly registered account and an IP editor have attempted to remove the criticism without discussion. Removing all of the critical content must be discussed on the talk page, and has to be the result of consensus. I encourage all interested editors to discuss the matter here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
An IP user (
User:97.93.180.67) decided to remove the templates that tag the article for issues related to
WP:BLP lack of sources and not meeting
WP:GNG. The explanation left in the edit summary is that best selling authors are considered notable. This is not true. According to
WP:AUTHOR, the following criteria should be met these serve as additional guidelines to
WP:BIO:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I do not see enough third-party coverage of Gittleman to pass GNG. There are thousands of best selling authors, but they are all not considered notable enough to include in WP. I see that this is disputed by at least the IP user noted above, so let's talk about it. Delta13C ( talk) 07:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability has been confirmed by multiple sources and seemingly agreed upon in this conversation. Yet the tag continues to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsune78 ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Added as the sole edit by an ip [1]. As used, I think it should be removed as sourcing promotional trivia. I'm wondering if anything encyclopedic is in the reference. Anyone have access to it? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I moved the following from the article for discussion. The first paragraph is entirely self-published sources, so no encyclopedic value is demonstrated, while clearly there is promotional value which should be avoided.
Is there any mention of Gittleman directly in the references for the following paragraph? It's not written as if there is, which is a problem. If there's none, then we need to trim it, maybe place some of the info in a footnote, to avoid POV and OR problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
She sits on the medical advisory boards of the Health Sciences Institute, [1] Your Future Health, [2] and The National Institute of Whole Health. [3] In addition, she is an honorary board member of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation [4] and on the advisory board of the Nutritional Therapy Association. [5]
Many of these organizations have been criticized by consumer watchdog and scientific advocacy groups. Quackwatch lists The Health Sciences Institute, Your Future Health, Nutrition Therapy Association, and the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation (formerly the Weston A. Price Foundation) as questionable organizations. [6] Your Health Now is reported to have sold dubious urine pH and blood tests, included the debunked live blood analysis. [7] The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation has a long history of issuing problematic health advice, including homeopathy, muscle testing, hair analysis, detoxification, and controversies surrounding water fluoridation and vaccines. [8] [9] The Nutritional Therapy Association is reported to teach its students how to use nutritional therapies to treat fictitious diseases, including toxic overload and adrenal fatigue. [10]
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. There has been no discussion activity for a while. If you would like to continue discussing, you can reopen this request by removing everything in the curly brackets of this template except "request edit". |
In an effort to address the neutrality issues in the Career section, I propose the following insert be made after "The Early Show," in the second paragraph as a new sentence: Her books have also repeatedly been on the New York Times Best Sellers List [1] [2] covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, including detoxification, [3] [4] weight loss, [5] and women's health [6] in addition to electromagnetic radiation. [7] [8] Mnh429 ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303266.html</ref> her books have also repeatedly been on The New York Times Best Sellers list, including The Fat Flush Plan
[9] and Before the Change
[10], covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, such as detoxification
[11]
[12], weight loss
[13], and women’s health
[14] in addition to electromagnetic radiation.
[15]
[16]”References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It has been suggested that more citations are needed for this page. I would like to help add the needed citations but need to know what specific content requires citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsune78 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. There has been no discussion activity for a while. If you would like to continue discussing, you can reopen this request by removing everything in the curly brackets of this template except "request edit". |
The first paragraph seems to lack a neutral point of view. I have requested edits here to address neutrality issues. I propose to insert the following after "books by the same name": Ann Louise Gittleman has been referred to as “The First Lady of Nutrition” for her work in traditional and holistic health. She has been recognized by other nutrition experts as a pioneer in the field and for being one of the first in the country to write about the importance of incorporating healthy fats into one’s diet. [1] [2]
I also propose to insert after "and one-sided manner" in the first paragraph: She has also received awards for her work in nutrition by the Cancer Control Society [3] and the New England Chapter of American Medical Writers Association. [4] Mnh429 ( talk) 22:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Noting that Ann Louise Gittleman is a nutritionist was removed from the first paragraph of the article, could the editors please add nutritionist back in? The Callahan article notes that she is a nutritionist. Additionally, she is referred to as a nutritionist in the following sources: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/06/06/4-embarrassing-health-problems-and-how-to-treat-them.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/fashion/22skin.html (already cited in the BLP page), https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/eating-fat-does-not-make-1363769542926390.html Mnh429 ( talk) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. There has been no discussion activity for a while. If you would like to continue discussing, you can reopen this request by removing everything in the curly brackets of this template except "request edit". |
In an attempt to have the Controversy section reflect a more neutral tone, I propose the following changes:
Insert before "is a fantasy" in the 1st paragraph: Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify as part of the Fat Flush Plan has made her diet the subject of acclaim and criticism from some nutritionists and medical doctors. Dr. Mark Hyman, MD, the director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and Dr. Jonny Bowden, PhD, CNS, have praised Gittleman for her work on the importance of fats as an integral part of nutrition. [1] [2] But Dr. Judith Stern, vice president of the American Obesity Society, has called the Fat Flush Plan "pseudoscience" that promises everything, but is "a fantasy."
Additionally, I propose to insert after "evidence in a biased manner" in the 2nd paragraph: Zapped has been referred to as a comprehensive guide to electromagnetic radiation and the potential impact it may have on one’s health. [3] [4] Mnh429 ( talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
unreliable source?
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Responding to Agricolae's comment regarding Jonny Bowden as a source. If we do not use Bowden as a source, can we reach consensus on the following revised, proposed edit (to be inserted in last sentence of the first paragraph of the Controversy section):
"However, Dr. Mark Hyman, MD, the director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine has acknowledged Gittleman for being "a pioneer and the lone voice in promoting the importance of the right fats. [1]" Mnh429 ( talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The list is too long. The Fat Flush Journal and Shopping Guide, wow! Xx236 ( talk) 06:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Mnh429 is apparently using BLPN to make new edit requests. That's not what the noticeboard is for, but regarding the verification of "fad diet", I think http://healthtools.aarp.org/health/fat-flush-diet would suffice. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The Healthline article calls the diet a “fad diet,” but as I stated before, this article is not credible because it contains falsehoods about basic attributes of the Fat Flush Plan, which suggest that the author did not actually read the book. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I am copying requested edits I originally posted on the BLP Noticeboard[ [14]]. I am a newbie, so thanks for your patience while I navigate the appropriate forums for discussion. My prior comments are copied here, but my main question is, can the sentence be revised to be neutral, verifiable, and moved to the controversy section?
Later on I wrote:
As with most fad diets, the Flat Flush Plan highlights convoluted science and gimmicky logic to sell its products (and Gittleman's books), and doesn't really explain the basic truth of the diet — that any plan involving lower calories and increased exercise is going to cause weight loss. Critics of The Fat Flush Plan have pointed out that there is no credible evidence that proves "detoxing" the liver results in weight loss or that the liver has anything to do with weight loss. Experts also warn that mixing supplements with certain medications can be a dangerous recipe for some dieters.-- Ronz ( talk) 21:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I do not think we have reached consensus on the Healthline article yet (see Fad diets section above), but Delta13C went ahead and used it as a source for a separate, new statement which is in the first paragraph: "According to Healthline, the plan is a fad diet that relies upon "convoluted science and gimmicky logic to sell its products".[1]"
Delta13C--I suggest that this sentence be removed or that it be edited to accurately represents the article and be moved to The Fat Flush Plan section. Mnh429 ( talk) 20:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not think we have reached consensusI believe we have. Consensus is not a vote. Granted, it doesn't present the perspective that Gittleman wants for her marketing, but we're not here to satisfy anyone's marketing needs. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The Healthline article contains inaccuracies about the Fat Flush Plan and does not appear that the author did any fact checking. Further, it is cited as a source in an attempt to give credibility to the statement “Gittleman is a noted promoter of pseudoscientific ideas,” but nowhere in the article does the author make this claim, convoluted science is not pseudoscience. Additionally, the articles states that “There’s no doubt that this diet works in the short run,” - WP:BLP pages must be balanced and should include criticism and acknowledgment of the subject of the BLP article. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it's not. It is neither entirely negative, nor are the supposed 'negative' comments unreferenced. This is nothing but a COI editor trying to carry out a content dipute through other means. -- Agricolae ( talk) 22:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagreeIt's difficult to see that respect. You don't like that you've been unable to change this article to align with Gittleman's marketing - something you are being paid to do. Trying to delete it out of frustration indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the policies required to work in such difficult circumstances (working with a financial conflict of interest on a biography of a living person that falls under general sanctions). We've seen this before. The next step is usually to publish something blaming Wikipedia for being unfair and unsympathetic to your need to change this article to Gittleman's liking. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ronz My attempts at requesting changes to the article have always been made with the intent to strengthen the article by presenting a fair and balanced point of view of Gittleman. I have attempted to identify the portions of the article that do not reflect a WP:NPOV or that do not accurately reflect what is stated in the cited sources. I appreciate that you and many other editors do not agree. I posted my FCOI because I have been and am continuing to do my best as a new editor to abide by Wikipedia policies. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Anachronist moved the controversial statements from the first paragraph to the Controversy Section, but I think accidentally forgot to delete this sentence from the first paragraph: "She has been criticized for promoting pseudoscientific views that do not reflect the best understanding of health and nutrition." Should this be deleted since the sentence is now in the Controversy Section? Thank you. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
Admin help}}
I have been attempting to request edits to make the
Ann Louise Gittleman BLP page fair and balanced (see Talk page). However, for the past month, no substantive changes have been made to resolve the negative tone of the article. I have incorporated feedback by the editors and offered revised edits per their comments. There has been no progress made to present Gittleman's biography with a fair, unbiased, and neutral point of view. As currently drafted, the article is littered with unfair treatment of Gittleman, is demeaning of her education and career, and associates Gittleman with criticisms that are irrelevant to her biography.
I need administrator assistance to make edits to the following statements to achieve neutrality and to create some credibility for this article:
In addition, the edit that removed "nutritionist" from the first line of the article should be undone. Gittleman is notable precisely for being a nutritionist as supported by multiple sources in the article. The removal of this term illustrates the non-neutral attempt to discredit her career as a nutritionist.
Thank you for your attention to my requests. Mnh429 ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Here is a source for the request for a citation for the following sentence: "In 1977 Gittleman received her M.S. in Nutrition Education, Teachers College, Columbia University." [1] Mnh429 ( talk) 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If you are to accept a Healthline.com article, how can you not accept a Webmd.com article? They are similar providers of online medical information and are competitors. [ [17]]. There are numerous sources online that identify Gittleman's academic credentials. [2] [3] [4] [5] Mnh429 ( talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The above sources are cited merely to establish Ann Louise's educational background/credentials - these sources directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. (WP:RSCONTEXT) Further, self-published sources may be used as a source of information about that person. (WP:SELFSOURCE) Mnh429 ( talk) 18:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've offered the sources to clarify basic information about Gittleman receiving an MS from Columbia. Mnh429 ( talk) 19:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328 I believe the editors agreed that the WebMD citation and annlouise.com/credentials could be used to cite to her education and credentials. Could you please undo your change? Mnh429 ( talk) 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Gittleman’s educational background including that she received her M.S. in Nutrition Education, Teachers College, from Columbia University has been removed, apparently due to lack of “credible” sources. I reiterate that the sources I provided are in line with WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SELFSOURCE. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this discussion has convinced me that the disagreement over the content in question would not be an improvement to the article. Request declined. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 02:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
New York Times bestseller: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/08/books/paperback-best-sellers-june-8-2003.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/bestseller/hardcover-advice.html Mnh429 ( talk) 20:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
"She followed up the The Fat Flush Plan with...": https://www.amazon.com/Fat-Flush-Fitness-Plan/dp/0071423125 (citing to an e-commerce page is acceptable in order to verify such things as titles and running times, etc.) Mnh429 ( talk) 00:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If we could eliminate that section by moving the contents to the other sections, it could be an improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The Callahan article (source no. 2) does not support the statement: “inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition.” I agree that the Callahan article is critical of the Plan, but the statement on Gittleman’s page goes beyond the Callahan article. In addition to the critiques, the article also states that “There’s nothing wrong with advising people to get exercise, gent plenty of sleep, and record their daily progress. In fact, these are great overall health and weigh-loss strategies.” Additionally, the BLP article gives the Callahan source WP:UNDUE as it is cited 4 times. Further, Maureen Callahan appears to be a competitor of Gittleman ( http://maureencallahanrd.com/about-me/) in which case her article may pose a personal bias against Gittleman. Mnh429 ( talk) 00:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Right now the lede looks good, except for the fact that it makes no mention of the fact that her ideas are criticized by every reputable institution. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 01:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a biography, not a "subject" page. The topic is not "pseudoscience," but is instead the information ABOUT a living person. The wording of the current post is slanderous and derogatory, in violation of the rules. I tried to edit it, but it was reverted because I added a significant about of text. I am BRAND NEW to this, and ONLY joined Wiki when I came across this bio in some unrelated research about a different topic. I was so shocked by what it said that I decided to fix it.
For example, "proponent of alternative medicine, especially fad diets. She promotes herself as a nutritionist, while having a degree from a diploma mill." Written by user KolbertBot. Gittleman's is a PhD and has a degree from Columbia University (hardly a diploma mill). See http://annlouise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bio.pdf Even if my full edit isn't reinstated, PLEASE consider allowing for removal of the slanderous statements, as they are in violation of the rules for a biography - They are biased and negative. Based on my research, the woman has appeared on numerous television shows and her work has been cited in number of media outlets. She's a best selling author and the list goes on.
I am okay with leaving the stuff that says "so and so called her such and such," but to DEFINE this LIVING, BREATHING person by he opinion of an anonymous writer, with no backing beyond a few Wordpress blogs to support the claim, is a discredit to Wikipedia.Analyst737 12:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[1]
Jump up ^ /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
WHY hasn't anyone addressed this yet? Analyst737 ( talk) 13:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now bled away my Saturday to read ALL of the "reputable sources" on this list and, wow, most of them having nothing to do with the lady in the bio at all. They have to do with OTHER subjects cited in the piece and are written in a defaming tone without providing proof.
There is no public info citing this lady a quack beyond opinion, and if we use opinion as a reputable source, then what is the point of any of this? I have no intention of whitewashing anything, but the current bio makes claims that can't possibly be substantiated without citing the subject's own material.
As a researcher, I chose to cite the ONLY AVAILABLE SOURCES, regardless of locale, as there simply isn't enough info to substantiate the other claims. For example, How does the writer of the current post KNOW where Gittleman got her education if not pulling from her own material? There's a flat remark about it, but no citation. How did the writer know where she graduated from if he/she didn't get it from her own material? So, Just so I'm clear -- I'm wrong for citing where the educational info came from, because it came from the subject's own material, but the current writer is okay to make statements that have no citation at all? There's NOTHING under education and career citing her degree from Columbia, her awards, her speaking, nothing like that. And the only "citation" doesn't say anything about Gittleman, it only points to the school. Also, the statements like "She has been criticized...' are untrue. No one has criticized HER the person, they may have criticized her ideas - but there are thousands of other people who agree with her. To label her based on the opinion pieces is slander.
The tonality of this piece is completely biased and not journalistic. If my corrections went too far the other way, fine. I don't want to white wash, but we DO need to make this more neutral. Flat journalism. If we're going to include her critics, then we need to include her fans (they apparently number in the tens of thousands based on her book sales.
But THIS current bio is, well, it's not good. And it is out of control that the talk history notes years of other people who have tried to fix this same issue too. It's clear to me that there's some bias somewhere in the ranks. As a total outsider here, I find this exhausting.
The bottom line, if this lady's bio is going to stay on Wiki, it needs to be rewritten and the citations will HAVE to come from her stuff because there simply aren't enough sources to provide info about her from other places. Otherwise, delete it altogether - because she's not mainstream enough to substantiate all the defaming content that's on there now.
The balance is way off here. It either needs to be corrected or the page needs to be deleted altogether. Analyst737 ( talk) 16:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://annlouise.com/credentials. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 11:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Due to recent COI disruption by anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts, I have extended-confirmed protected this article indefinitely. Any substantive changes by editors with a COI should be proposed on this talk page for review, not made directly in the article. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 07:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In response to Anachronist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Anachronist&action=history) who apparently thinks I have engaged in "COI editing" despite the fact that I have removed NOTHING from prior submissions, I took the liberty of contacting this Hot Mess Press to find out if they fact check. THEY DO: I was emailed this link in response to my question:
http://hotmessanonymous.com/submission-validation-policy/
So, I am requesting that my edits to the page be reinstated. Since I'm not a 'regular' around here, I am probably more aghast by the processes than I should be. But, wow.
My prior submission to this Talk page was apparently deleted by someone - However, I have a copy of the same commentary on my own talk page:
Hot Mess Press is an online news magazine (see https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheHotMessPress/about/?ref=page_internal) NOT a personal blog. The author of the article is a medical professional (see bio). NOTHING was removed from prior edit(s). If the suggested source is considered uncredible, the Gizmodo source written by non-expert, layman freelance writer Kate Knibbs (who also wrote for The Onion, by the way) is also uncredible. (See Knibbs' LinkedIn) (See comments on Gizmodo piece). That said, the Gizmodo piece uses this article ( https://goop.com/wellness/food-planet/ann-louise-gittleman-on-protecting-yourself-from-wifi-cellphone-toxicity/?irgwc=1&utm_campaign=10079_OnlineTrackingLink&utm_source=impactradius&utm_medium=affiliate) as ITS source, and this article is in no way bias or discreditive of Gittlamn. Also, while on the subject of sourcing, there it no citation on the current Clayton College statement. Where is the source for that? This source addresses it.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
<Hello - I could really use some help. I have provided valid proof of the credibility of the aforementioned source, which publicizies it's fact checking process at this link: ( http://hotmessanonymous.com/submission-validation-policy/) Further, I have provided only new information from the source here: ( http://hotmessanonymous.com/noteworthy-nutritionist-and-author-ann-louise-gittleman/). I have deleted nothing from prior submissions and I have added credibility to the Wiki bio of this person. I am TOTALLY CONFUSED as to why my changes were a. removed, b. called "coi edits?" and c. why this person's bio can't be edited for the addition of new material. If this source is invalid, then the Gizmodo source is also invalid. I respectfully request your input.>
-- Analyst737 ( talk) 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages
As far as I can see, http://hotmessanonymous.com is a website run by http://vertu-marketing.com and http://www.tylieeaves.com , used for promotions and finding clients. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)