Talk:Ann Louise Gittleman

Neutrality

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)

Recent attempts to remove criticisms

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)

Notability

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)

No idea if she is notable enough, but you are misrepresenting WP:AUTHOR. It doesn't say these criteria should be met, it's part of the "Additional criteria" section of WP:BIO, to be considered when the basic criteria are not met. Basic criteria:

• People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Prevalence 23:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing that out. I corrected my original remark. Delta13C (talk) 08:04, 2 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)

McCall's ref

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)

Potential refs

• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/fashion/22skin.html --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Diet/story?id=1444212 --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410202,00.html --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• http://www.badscience.net/2004/01/friendly-bacteria/ --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Career and questionable organizations

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, Your Future Health, and The National Institute of Whole Health. In addition, she is an honorary board member of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation and on the advisory board of the Nutritional Therapy Association.

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. Your Health Now is reported to have sold dubious urine pH and blood tests, included the debunked live blood analysis. 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. 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.

Yea, there are problems, I agree. She seems to be a member of those organizations, based on their respective websites and even on her own site, in addition to the bios in her books. Perhaps there is value in presenting her as a member of these organizations alongside the information that these organizations are problematic, which does come from reliable sources. Since she does possibly pass notability, although it might be close in a AfD, perhaps it is more appropriate to show that she is associated with questionable and quacky orgs. Delta13C (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Working from third-party sources that mention both Gittleman and any of the organizations should be relatively easy. Is it safe to assume we have no such sources yet? --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be the ideal scenario, which is probably unlikely to be possible given the depth of coverage in reliable sources. She seems to be just barely above notability, but frustratingly too low-profile to sketch a bio on her. Delta13C (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposal

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 covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, including detoxification, weight loss, and women's health in addition to electromagnetic radiation. Mnh429 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current version of the section should be trimmed to remove the promotional bit at the end about appearances sourced with primary sources.

Identifying specific books and specifics about their being on best seller lists might be WP:DUE.

Identifying the topics she promotes outside their fringe nature probably shouldn't be allowed, especially when using in-world sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Thank you for your response. Based on your suggestions, would the following be acceptable: "Gittleman has written numerous books on alternative health and nutrition. While her books have been criticized for promoting incorrect notions about medicine, diet, and electromagnetic radiation,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 and Before the Change, covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, such as detoxification, weight loss, and women’s health in addition to electromagnetic radiation.”

@Ronz: Could you please clarify which topics you are referring to by your comment: “identifying the topics she promotes outside of their fringe nature probably shouldn’t be allowed, especially when using in-world sources.” Mnh429 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reaching out to the editors again on my request for edit. I have revised it to remove the reference to electromagnetic radiation (a topic which is discussed in the Controversy section). The sources that I have used are from the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Publisher's Weekly, LA Times, and Nutritional Therapy Association. I have preserved the sources from Maureen Callahan (Health.com) and Juliet Eilperin (Washington Post). Gittleman's television appearances are a part of her career, so it seems that they should be included, but I have moved them to the end and revised it to be less promotional.

I think this requested edit, as revised, has verifiable sources and is fair and balanced and also addresses the issues Ronz raised. I proposed that this replace the last paragraph in the Career section. Please let me know if this can be accepted, and if not, please proposed a revised edit. I would like to work with the editors to reach a consensus:

"Gittleman has written numerous books on alternative health and nutrition. While her books have been criticized for promoting incorrect notions about medicine, diet, and electromagnetic radiation, her books have been on The New York Times Best Sellers list, including The Fat Flush Plan and Before the Change, covering a variety of nutrition and health topics, such as detoxification, weight loss, and women’s health. Gittleman has also been interviewed on television programs to discuss health and nutrition topics. Mnh429 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to close this COI request, as there hasn't been any discussion for a good 2 months. Once discussion picks up, the request can be reopened. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Citations

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)

Some proposed changes to first paragraph

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.

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 and the New England Chapter of American Medical Writers Association. Mnh429 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

References

The first two sources are in-world sources, which I don't believe are reliable for the proposed content. The next is a primary source that is highly promotional. The fourth is similar. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I am unclear what you mean by in-world sources. Could you please site to Wikipedia’s policy regarding in-world sources?

Regarding your comment on primary sources, I believe under Wikipedia’s policy, they may be used with care - “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” WP:PRIMARY - I believe the proposal is a straightforward statement of facts and therefore abides by Wikipedia policy.

With respect to the fourth citation, e-commerce citations are valid under WP:Reliable (“inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times.” Here, we propose the source which verifies the name of the award). Mnh429 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

By 'in-world' Ronz is referring to the fact that just about every fringe theorist has their disciples who think he/she is the best thing since sliced bread, but this is inherently biased. To say that she is 'The First Lady of Nutrition' and a pioneer, we need mainstream nutritionists saying this, not just other members of the same fringe community. Agricolae (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I disagree with your characterization of Ann Louise Gittleman as a “fringe theorist.” Mark Hyman refers to Gittleman as a “pioneer and the lone voice in promoting the importance of the right facts.” (See Mark Hyman’s Wikipedia article confirming his credentials (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hyman_(doctor). Dr. Hyman is the Director of the Cleveland Clinical Center for Functional Medicine. The Cleveland Clinic is a top tanked medical institution (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic). Mnh429 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "promoting the importance of the right facts" is so imprecise I don't know what to make of it - it is hard to know what it means without context. Are you sure that didn't say fats? What is the source for this quote? Agricolae (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He did say fats, not facts. That she thought the right fats are important doesn't mean that her Fat Flush Plan isn't fringe or that we should take the opinions of her disciples as representing the scholarly consensus. Agricolae (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

• I do not think it is appropriate to classify her as a nutritionist. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, as the term is not regulated. Since Gittleman has a fake PhD degree, which is incredulously listed in the Fox News article, how is she a qualified nutritionist exactly? Mnh429, your paid efforts on this article are bothersome. Please familiarize yourself with WP:PROFRINGE. Delta13C (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• I added that she promotes herself as a nutritionist but has a diploma mill degree. I hope this satisfies your editorial drive. Delta13C (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing for the same reason as above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

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. 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. Mnh429 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That would violate WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your first proposed sentence about her diet gives a false equivalence. The experts are addressing different things. As you have written it in the subsequent sentences, Stern is condemning the diet itself as pseudoscience, but Bowden and Hyman are simply agreeing with her view that fats are an integral part of nutrition, which is not the same as giving acclaim specifically to her call for detoxification and her Fat Flush Plan, as the proposed edit states. Agricolae (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

References

@Agricolae: This controversy section notes the responses by experts to Gittleman’s work. You raise the point that agreement with her view “is not the same as giving acclaim to her call for detoxification and her Fat Flush Plan.” If we change the proposed edits to reflect that the experts agree, would the following edits be acceptable? Here is a revised version of the proposed edits per your comment: "Nutritionists and medical doctors have both agreed and disagreed with Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify as part of the Fat Flush Plan. Dr. Mark Hyman, MD, the director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine and Dr. Jonny Bowden, PhD, CNS, have agreed with Gittleman’s view that the inclusion of fats, a step in her detoxification plan, are 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." Please let us know if the editors can reach a consensus on this proposed edit. Mnh429 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that still links Hyman/Bowden with her plan. If you want to establish context, you have to do it separately: 'She proposed plan, an aspect of which focuses on dietary fats. Hyman/Bowden agree fats important in healthy diet.' It can't be massaged into suggesting support for the Plan. Saying 'Nutritionists and medical doctors have ... agreed ... with Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify' is a distortion of the Hyman/Bowden opinion. They are not agreeing with detoxifying, they are agreeing that healthy diets shouldn't ignore fats. WP:BLP doesn't just apply to Gittleman - we could damage the reputation of these physicians if we aren't careful. To say 'some agree and some disagree', you need an established nutritionist saying (specifically) Gittleman's Plan is a good idea. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I disagree that the sources do not support the Plan. These sources clearly link Hyman/Bowden with her plan. Mark Hyman’s Wikipedia article also confirms he is a proponent of detoxification (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hyman_(doctor). Additionally, BLP does indeed apply to Gittleman as the top of this Talk Page states that “This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy . . . .” Mnh429 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hyman never mentions detoxification nor her Fat Flush Plan when talking about Gettleman, only her being a proponent of dietary fats. As to BLP, you need to reread what I said - it doesn't JUST apply to Gittleman - it also applies to Hyman, whom we need to accurately summarize, not put words in his mouth and not use a general support of dietary fats to indicate support for anything more specific. (Bowden does directly address it, but he is not a department chair at the Cleveland Clinic, and his self-description gives me pause in terms of how mainstream he really is.) Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Agricolae's comment regarding Bowden: Although he is not a department chair at Cleveland Clinic like Dr. Hyman, Bowden also has impressive credentials: see http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2010/08/dr-jonny-bowden, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/dr-jonny-bowden. Taking Agricolae's points into consideration I have simply inserted a quote from Dr. Hyman. Can we reach consensus on the following to replace the first paragraph in the Controversy section?:

"Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify as part of the Fat Flush Plan has made her diet the subject of support and criticism from some nutritionists and medical doctors. [[2]][[3]] 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." [[4]] [Insert sentence re Dr. Stern]. Mnh429 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There are some red flags in those 'impressive' credentials. For example, many accounts stress his Masters in Psychology while usually not indicating the field in which he got his PhD, and for apparently obvious reasons: 'holistic' nutrition, via an on-line degree program from the defunct Clayton College of Natural Health, which "never held educational accreditation from any agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation", but did claim accreditiation from the American Association. of Drugless Practitioners and the American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board, which is all decidedly dodgy - indeed, if our own page on the institution is to be believed, "use of degree titles granted by Clayton may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions." Holistic Nutrition has been characterized as "weak on science, strong on selling supplements."[5] Likewise, that Bowden calls himself a life coach, and has nicknamed himself "The Nutrition Mythbuster"[6] again is cause for concern - while I'm sure many mainstream physicians (especially surgeons) and perhaps even nutritionists give themselves grandious nicknames, most don't use them in public. This does not paint a picture of a mainstream practitioner to me. Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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." Mnh429 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: This statement is discussing the response to Ann Louise Gittleman’s book Zapped, not the topics electromagnetic radiation. I believe the proposal falls under WP:PARITY - Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review.

Also, under WP:PROFRINGE, the inclusion of the proposed statement helps to maintain neutrality of the article. I don’t believe its inclusion gives Ann Louise’s beliefs on cell phones and electromagnetic radiation undue weight.

Also, would linking “electromagnetic radiation” to the Wikipedia article be acceptable? Mnh429 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem to be taking this personally, but I'm an electrical engineer who has spent my life fighting against the kind of unscientific crap Gittleman is peddling.

Anyway, NUETRALITY doesn't apply to your argument. Gittleman's views are considered pseudoscience by every reputable academic, and therefore Wikipedia policy states we must reflect that.

End of story. It doesn't matter how many books she sells. 2600:1017:B002:16FB:4ECB:2A49:85CD:2F31 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@2600:1017:B002:16FB:4ECB:2A49:85CD:2F31: Wikipedia policy does not require that fringe theories must be excluded, especially for BLP pages (see WP:FRINGEBLP). Wikipedia’s policy on the Treatment of living persons who hold fringe viewpoints is as follows: “Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame, but the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance).”

Our proposed edit (and as revised) factually represent responses that experts have given to Gittleman’s work. The proposed edit also reflects the balance of these viewpoints consistent with WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia has an article on electromagnetic radiation. To the extent that linking this article to the term “electromagnetic radiation” would help to explain that topic, we propose doing so and would like to reach consensus on this proposed edit.

Personal beliefs of editors is not a reliable source (WP:RELIABLE). Your personal beliefs should not influence refusal to achieve consensus.

Although I must assume that the reference to “unscientific crap” was not intended to violate WP:CIV, that language and tone made it seem uncivil and makes it appear that you do not want to cooperate and work towards a consensus. Please consider removing the uncivil comment (see WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL). Mnh429 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FRINGE does not require establishing an equivalence between the in-world view and that of the broader field. It is a fact that there is no reliable scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation causes the numerous problems she attributes to it. Like with saying she had been called the Queen of Nutrition (but only by her disciples), saying that her Zapped has been said to be "a comprehensive guide" (but only by those non-experts she sells her book to, and decidedly not by anyone familiar with the actual evidence) is highly misleading, and not what balance or parity is about. Agricolae (talk)

@Agricolae: I disagree with the characterization of electromagnetic radiation as FRINGE in the first place. See the Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic Radiation#Biological Effects, which cites to scientific research supporting the existence of biological effects (including damaging effects from use of cell phones), which is also supported by the World Health Organization, among others. Mnh429 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

First, semantics are important - I never characterized electromagnetic radiation as fringe. Taking it to the extreme that Gittleman does (such that she would need to write a 'comprehensive guide') - that is fringe. The WHO said 'possible' risk, meaning there is some evidence that points that way but it is not entirely convincing. Certainly the National Cancer Institute is not on board. [7] Agricolae (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae, I apologize if I mischaracterized your responses. That was certainly not my intent. Thank you for the clarification that electromagnetic radiation is not fringe. The WHO's warning that electromagentic fields (EMFs) is "possibly carcinogenic to humans" was decided by 31 scientists throughout the world.[[8]]. The WHO has established a program " to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to static and time varying electric and magnetic fields in the frequency range 0-300 GHz."[[9]]. The European Environmental Agency and other doctors recognize the possible risks associated with EMFs.[[10]],[[11]]. So, there certainly is another perspective on the issue that can be included while adhering to WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION.

Back to my initial request regarding Zapped, the requested edit was to include the other side of the "controversy." I again request that we insert as the last sentence in the Controversy section:

"Zapped has been referred to as a comprehensive guide to electromagnetic radiation and the potential impact it may have on one’s health. ." Here is another source that we can add that refers to Zapped as a "comprehensive guide": [[12]]. It seems that if we are presenting a "controversy" we should be presenting both sides of it. Mnh429 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

And the same problem remains - What are we balancing? It is not 'presenting both sides' to say that critics savaged a movie, but the director's mother thought it was 'the best film ever made'. Mainstrean opinon vs in-world fandom is not a comparison of equivalents. Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue currently presented on the BLP article is that there is a controversy about the reviews on Zapped. Let's assume that there is a controversy about the book reviews. The BLP article currently states that "Gittleman's 2010 book Zapped has been met with some skepticism by reviewers who claim the book incorporates non-scientific concepts to assert the danger of electromagnetic fields, as well as presenting evidence in a biased manner.[3][17][18]" That is one viewpoint. The implication is that there is another viewpoint to the controversy. I am requesting that the opposing viewpoint to the controversy be represented. Based on sources I've found, there seems to be a mix between positive and negative reviews of the book. Therefore, there is no majority/minority viewpoint, and it seems necessary to include both sides to this controversy. Mnh429 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting feedback from the editors on this request. Otherwise, will I need to post this on the BLP Noticeboard? Mnh429 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No discussion for at least a month. Closing. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The list of books

The list is too long. The Fat Flush Journal and Shopping Guide, wow!Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fad diet

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)

Thank you Ronz for redirecting the discussion back to the Talk page. Regarding the verification of the source Ronz provided, this source appears to be content licensed by the AARP, and so the AARP did not write this article but instead paid a third-party provider for this content. The AARP is an advocacy group for the aging community [[13]], not an academic or journalistic organization. The requisite fact-checking process was not conducted. For example, the source (1) ignores that "wheat and dairy products" are reintroduced in Phase 3, (2) refers to a "two-week juice fast" which does not exist as part of the Fat Flush Plan, and (3) the Fat Flush Plan is not a calorie-based program (although calories are provided). I do not think this would qualify as a verifiable source WP:SOURCE. I would like to hear what other editors think about this source. It still appears that "especially fad diets" should be removed immediately for lack of source (which is particularly necessary on BLP pages WP:BLP).

Additionally, Gittleman's approach to nutrition, which was first published nearly 30 years ago in 1988, confirms that her recommendations are not fads (See, e.g., http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2007/dec/20/nutritionist-says-fat-flush-a-lifestyle-not-just/, https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R13T407ZHFB04X/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_btm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0071383832#wasThisHelpful). Mnh429 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The article fad diet defines it as "a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science, and in many cases are characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices." How, exactly, does the Fat Flush Plan not fit that description? I'll note that some years ago my wife and I followed the plan rigorously after being given the book, and yes, we lost weight. But it was a restricted-calorie, higher-fiber diet, with moderately increased exercise, and keeping well hydrated... but any diet with those components would result in weight loss. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mnh429, the source looks fine to me. It absolutely does not need to be from an "academic or journalistic organization" to verify that it is a fad diet. Further, if you had looked carefully, you'd have noticed that the AARP article is a reprint from Healthline and last reviewed for medical accuracy a bit over a year ago. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend citing the original source rather than a reprint. A 2016 version of the Healthline article is here: http://www.healthline.com/health/fat-flush-diet ~Anachronist (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The original and reprint both have fact checking issues (three examples mentioned above). I think there is still a verifiability issue here. Mnh429 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but your perspective on what "facts" might be has no weight here. Most, if not all, of the time you have an in-world perspective. If you believe in-world marketing trumps independent analysis, then you may be wasting your time here. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your objections: (1) failing to include a detail about wheat and dairy isn't a problem for the source, (2) the source saying "A two-week juice fast is never healthy" is actually a correct statement although the source errs in associating that phrase with the Fat Flush Plan, but in any case it isn't relevant to the point about being a fad diet, and (3) you mischaracterize the source as saying the Fat Flush Plan is calorie-based, it doesn't say that, it just makes observations about calories in the plan. None of those objections address the point about being a "fad diet", because the characteristics of a fad diet are already well-defined in the fad diet article and are independent of that particular source. Without a source actually calling out the plan as a fad diet, you might have a valid argument that WP:Synthesis is being used to assert in Wikipedia's voice that the Fat Flush Plan is a fad diet, but the article doesn't actually say that; all it says is that Gittleman is an advocate of fad diets, and anyone can look at the fad diet article to see what that means. Finally, I note that Gittleman's own website snarkily refers to the Fat Flush Plan as a "fad diet" here: http://annlouise.com/2012/03/01/fat-flush-from-fad-to-fabulous/ ~Anachronist (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The three examples I raised were to point out the unreliability of the source because they did not fact check. Shouldn't the source be accurate if we are to cite to it? Mnh429 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, the article doesn't cite either the aarp or healthline link being discussed here. I can't find any revision in recent months that does cite it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Anachronist, you are correct the article doesn't currently cite the AARP or Healthline article. Ronz proposed this source (originally as the AARP source) to verify the use of "fad diets." Ronz suggested this because my original issue was that "fad diets" isn't verified in the current version of the Gittleman article (which I originally raised on the BLP Noticeboard, and which Ronz redirected the conversation to this talk page). So, the issue is whether Ronz's proposed source should be used. My position is that it shouldn't because although the source purports to be a review of the Fat Flush Plan, it apparently did not fact check because its statements about basic attributes of the Plan are wrong. Mnh429 (talk) 21:18, 27 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)

"Her work is inconsistent. . . ."

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?

• "Her work is inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition" is presented as a fact, but it is really a biased opinion of the source's author. The tone is not neutral and does not seem balanced. It is also unclear what is meant by the "best understanding of health and nutrition." Can this be edited, removed and/or moved to the controversy section? Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• The second part of the sentence "and she has been criticized for promoting pseudoscientific views by presenting scientific research in an overly simplistic and one-sided manner" does not accurately reflect the sources. Neither source uses "overly simplistic" so I think that should be removed. The tone also does not seem neutral. Again, this seems more appropriate to be included in the Controversy section if it is to be included at all. Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Later on I wrote:

• My second suggestion also relates to the unsourced nature of the statement. What is meant by "best understanding of health and nutrition" and where is that referred to in the source? "Overly simplistic" is not used in the source and is not neutral in tone. It is my understanding that unsourced statements should be removed. WP:BLPREMOVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnh429 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Her work relies upon pseudoscience, so I suggest you just drop trying to make it look like something else.

The http://healthtools.aarp.org/health/fat-flush-diet article mentioned in the previous section says: 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)

My concern is that the statement is not verified by the sources and the tone is not neutral. The statements seem to go beyond the scope of the sources, but I welcome input from the editors. There are examples of other BLP pages of people associated with controversial issues that are neutral and verifiable: See for example Robert Atkins (nutritionist) and George Will. I think these might be useful references to show how to fairly present BLPs.

It seems the sentence can be changed to "The Fat Flush Plan has been criticized for lacking scientific support."[15]. And "Zapped has been reviewed as being one-sided."[16] I would remove the Guardian source because I do not see that it verifies the statement. That posting is about Get the Salt Out. I suggest moving these sentences to the Controversy section were the critiques of the Fat Flush Plan and Zapped are already discussed. Would this resolve the verifiability and tone issues? Mnh429 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am following up on my response and proposed revisions from 20 April 2017 at 23:50. Do any editors have a response? I would like to get consensus on whether these requested edits can be approved. Thank you. Mnh429 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there any response from the editors on my proposed revision? Mnh429 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to decline this edit request in response to the administrator assistance you have been given. I hope they have helped you in this situation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"According to Healthline . . . ."

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]"

First, the quote is taken completely out of context. The Healthline article also says "[t]here's no doubt that this diet works in the short run." The critique that Delta13C has quoted also continues: "[the Fat Flush Plan] 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." In other words, the quote misrepresents the source because the author of the source has determined that the diet works, at least in the short run.

Second, this sentence is about the Fat Flush Plan, not about Ann Louise Gittleman, so it should be placed in "The Fat Flush Plan" section below.

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 think the sentence that follows with her work being inconsistent and presented in an overly simplistic manner... is enough to take care of your concern. It seems like you are trying to whitewash her fad diet and quack ideas. We have to adhere to WP:FRINGE. Delta13C (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we have reached consensus I 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)

There is a valid point about respecting the context of a quotation. I have made a small modification to the quotation with Healthline's acknowledgment that the diet "works in the short run." Other than that, I believe this request has been answered, so I have closed it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that "works" and "in the short run" are both ambiguous without further context (and probably a better source). --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I changed it to a paraphrase of the general context. "Works" clearly means "results in weight loss." The problem with the shorter quotation is that it excludes the full context of the quotation, and we shouldn't be quoting sources out of context. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, we're in MEDRS territory. The article notes the risk of losing muscle mass and that the diet is unhealthy. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, although that part of the article about losing muscle mass looks suspiciously like hand-waving, considering that the sentence immediately prior to it refers to "extremely rapid weight loss" which definitely isn't a characteristic of this diet. Yes, extremely rapid weight loss results can result in loss of muscle mass, but why even bother mentioning that in the context of the Fat Flush Plan? Other than for the purpose of inserting random good advice, it doesn't make sense to include. This makes me wonder if the author studied the actual plan or if the author is blending medical expertise with mere secondhand knowledge about the diet. I actually have firsthand experience with the Fat Flush Plan, as I've stated elsewhere on this page. It has so many oddities about detox thrown in, they drown out the underlying fairly standard common-sense eat-less-and-exercise-more diet for losing weight at a slow steady pace. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 8 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)

Contested deletion

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)

Although I respectfully disagree with Agricolae, to me the BLP page reflects a negative tone. I will continue efforts to propose revisions that reflect a fair and balanced article compliant with Wikipedia's BLP policies.

Please review my prior requested edits that I revised to incorporate the editors' comments to work towards a neutral tone of the article. Thank you. Mnh429 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you disagree with? That it is not "entirely" negative, that the negative comments are not unreferenced, or that you took your actions because of a dispute over content? Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree It'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)

May 5 Edits

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)

I don't think there was any accident about it - particluarly when you look at the specific choices made in moving and leaving words. The lead of an article should summarize its entirety, including the fact that there is controversy and why. It need not go into detail, but if there is signiicant controversy, it should be mentioned. I think Anachronist was correct both in moving the detailed, referenced material below and in replacing it with a simple statement that criticisms have been made. Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I intentionally left that sentence in the lead, as required by WP:LEAD, because it serves to provide an overview of part of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Need administrator help

{{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:

• Gittleman is a noted promoter of pseudoscientific ideas on health and nutrition.
  • Overly and unnecessarily negative. Sources do not support statement.
• In 2002 she was given a PhD in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited and now defunct institution criticized as a diploma mill. In 2010, it closed due to financial difficulties. Clayton College did not provide clinical training.
  • Everything after "Health" is negative in tone and deceptively associates Gittleman with the closing of Clayton College.
• In 1994, she became a spokesperson for Rejuvex, a "natural" menopause product that lacks sufficient evidence for safety and effectiveness.
  • Everything after "Rejuvex" is irrelevant to Gittleman as a spokesperson.
• Gittleman's works have been criticized as being inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition and for presenting scientific research in an overly simplistic and one-sided manner.
  • Overly and unnecessarily negative. Sources do not support statement.
• According to Healthline, Gittleman's Fat Flush Plan is a fad diet that relies upon "convoluted science and gimmicky logic to sell its products" and that the bulk of the plan should be skipped because "a two-week juice fast is never healthy."
  • Overly and unnecessarily negative. Source is taken out of context and is misleading. Source contains incorrect facts about the Fat Flush Plan. Source is given undue weight.
• Gittleman's suggestion to detoxify as part of the Fat Flush Plan has made her diet the subject of criticism from some nutritionists and medical doctors. Dr. Judith Stern, vice president of the American Obesity Society, has called the Fat Flush Plan "pseudoscience" that promises everything, but is "a fantasy".
  • Overly negative as it does not provide the other view by nutritionists and medical doctors who support Gittleman's work, such as Dr. Mark Hyman.
• Gittleman's 2010 book Zapped has been met with some skepticism by reviewers who claim the book incorporates non-scientific concepts to assert the danger of electromagnetic fields, as well as presenting evidence in a biased manner.
  • Overly negative as it ignores sources that have provided positive reviews of book.

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)

Nothing here that requires an admin, the page is not protected, any like minded editor can help you. Do note that the requested edit list is very backlogged. If you are not agreeing with any editor then use WP:DR to resolve the issue(s) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to WP:DR, please note WP:COITALK. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Article text: "In 2002 she was given a PhD in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited and now defunct institution criticized as a diploma mill. In 2010, it closed due to financial difficulties. Clayton College did not provide clinical training."

Complaint: Everything after "Health" is negative in tone and deceptively associates Gittleman with the closing of Clayton College.

Response: It does have a negative tone - it should. A nutrition 'doctorate' that had no clinical component as part of training offered by a non-accredited institution is just an expensive framed piece of paper on a wall serving as justification to decorate one's name with letters that other people have had to earn over many often soul-crushing years, an honorary degree without the honor. I agree that the reason the institution is no longer in operation is not relevant (though I don't see how mentioning it links its downfall with Gittleman), but it would be inappropriate white-washing to not to contextualize this so-called 'degree' as what it is, and more importantly what it isn't - a real Ph.D. from an accredited program following the accepted standards of a biomedical field like nutrition. We owe the reader not to trick them into thinking otherwise. Agricolae (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Agricolae. The context is needed for Clayton College to make sure readers understand that Gittleman does not have a real PhD. If the reader wants more info, he or she may click on the link for the school or diploma mill. Delta13C (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation for Columbia Degree

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." Mnh429 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like a publicity piece straight from Gittleman. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yea, these WebMD entries are not independently biographical. They are more like directory entries that the subject writes or his or her PR firm writes. There are no citations, so the info is still unverifiable. Delta13C (talk) 06:41, 10 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. Mnh429 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I closed the ANI report and came here to have a look. So what we've got is;

• WebMD - "Ann Louise Gittleman, MS, CNS, one of the most respected and dynamic nutritionists in America today, continues to break new ground..." - I wonder where that came from?
• Amazon - Page clearly written by Gittleman's publicists. "Continually breaking new ground in traditional and holistic health..." - just Google it, clearly copied from a press release.
• UniKeyHealth - starts "Our expert..." thus a primary source. The rest of it is press release.
• BuffaloLib - just a review of a book with the "Author Notes" lazily copied from many other Gittleman sources.
• Hbelc.org - primary source, but look, there's "visionary health expert" again...

• None of these sources are useful. Mnh429, you need to understand the concept of secondary sources before you continue to try to whitewash this article. Because at the moment all you're doing it wasting people's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 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)

Self-published sources are often acceptable to clarify basic information about a person, but not in a manner that seeks to promote. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:19, 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)

I don't see the problem here. She presents herself as a graduate from Columbia University, and she's well known enough that the university would likely have something to say if the assertion was false. I think we can assume that Gittleman is being honest about her educational history at http://annlouise.com/credentials/ regardless of the quality of the degrees or institutions listed. WP:BLP requires that contentious claims have citations to reliable sources, but I hardly see this as contentious, and Gittleman is reliable enough about the schools she attended. The article could be phrased along the lines of "Gittleman lists among her degrees a Master's from Columbia University" or something similar, to avoid making assertions in Wikipedia's voice. Then this wouldn't be a problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, I don´t like to source accomplishments to article subjects, but "Gittleman lists" is good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what choice we've got, because every source I can find (including those listed above) is not a reliable one. I'm obviously not saying that Gittleman is making it up, merely that the sources aren't there. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 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)

No, I will not add it back without a reliable source, Mnh429, and I do not trust anything that is claimed on the website of an advocate of pseudoscience. If it is true, then a truly reliable source should be provided. If there is consensus to include it, then someone else can add it and provide a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Mnh429, Your insistent behavior on this article is grating. You are a paid editor on a single-purpose account. Thank you for marking this on the Talk page, but please stop POV pushing. Delta13C (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As for WebMD, it is not a reliable source, as this New York Times article makes clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 12 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)

Because Gittleman is an advocate of pseudoscience, and because she has previously touted her education at an unaccredited university, I maintain that any of her assertions about her educational credentials are self serving. If she graduated from Columbia, simply provide an indisputably reliable source for that assertion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 14 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)

Requested Citations

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)

Thanks! The first is clear, but the second somewhat cryptic, what does "Hardcover Advice" mean? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hardcover Advice is the the format and genre (hardcover format and advice genre). See for example, the current NY Times Best Sellers page. At the top it explains that the NY Times ranks lists of books which are "sorted by format and genre." [[18]]. Mnh429 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I´ll buy that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 11 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)

Critisism-section

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)

I completely disagree. Since a good portion of the existing RSes are critical of her work, it is imperative that this section exist to provide readers with this context. Delta13C (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree that´s it´s imperative that it stays, it´s well within consensus territory. Crititism sections generally suck in my opinion, per the reasons at essay (bit) Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section. The text in that section would fit well in the sections above and below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you´re right on the "best seller" thing, "author" is good enough for Stephen King and Dan Brown, so it´s alright here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism sections should be avoided, but: We don't have many independent, reliable sources of any depth on Gittleman; what she's mosted noted for is pseudoscience (promoting a "cleanse" diet); and this is a BLP. Even if we didn't have a FCOI editor here trying to rewrite this article to align with Gittleman's marketing, I'm not clear how we could incorporate everything from the criticism section elsewhere into the article.

I'd like to see someone give it a try. It might be worth looking through GA BLPs to find examples on how to make it work. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"inconsistent with the best understanding..."

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)

lede

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)

Do you have a reference that supports that statement? Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Current Bio for Ann Louise Gittleman in Violation of the Guidelines

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 ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages

I am reading the history of attempts to make this bio less of a hate piece and I am SHOCKED by how much time has been spent trying to right a wrong. Even if just the first paragraph was edited to be less biased, it would improve the credibility of the piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst737 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Total newbie here. I have no plans of becoming a "Wiki regular," so I'm hoping you can help me out. HOW has this piece remained in contention for so long? By my assumption, someone who does a lot of Wiki has ought against this person. Can we not simply amend that first paragraph and remove the hateful language. That would be a start. As a totally green user, I am at a loss as to how to proceed here. Has nobody even READ this? There have been months and months of people trying to fix it, but somehow it keeps going back to that awful language? I don't even know this person, but I know bias when I see it. I'm a researcher by trade, and yes, she has some critics (so does Dr. Oz and a million others), so fine, use those by saying "Gittleman does have some critics," and cite them. But this has clearly emotional language. It's not journalistic in the slightest.

WHY hasn't anyone addressed this yet?Analyst737 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to simply DELETE the page altogether and either start again or be without one at all? Seems a better option than this contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst737 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Analyst737: Can you provide a reliable source for her claim to have a degree from Columbia University? I can't fond any source for that apart from her own publicity pages, pages clearly derived from her pages or uncritically repeating her claims. I can't find any mention of her by searching the university's web site. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: That's my point (as you'll see in the thread below), there isn't anything beyond what she says about herself really. The current bio doesn't have substantiated sources either. Truthfully, beyond opinion, there's nothing to source unless it come from her or can be traced back to her. The bio PROBABLY needs to be deleted altogether. Other than her own claims, there's no proof of the Clayton College graduation either. Short of emailing the university, we can't pull credentials. My edit attempt was to simply neutralize the tone. The bio probably doesn't need to be on here at all.

@JamesBWatson: - Read the sources. I mean, really, the very first one on the list is credited to a Gizmodo blogger named Kate Knibbs who knows about as much about nutrition and health as my five-year-old son. How can this tech blogger be the source for defining this lady's work as "quackery?" It makes no sense. The page should be deleted. Right now, it seems to come off as nothing more than a collection of underhanded comments designed to pick on a little old lady.

If there isn't anything about her except what she says herself, we should not just repeat what she says herself. Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources (and the article in fact has several of those). Please don't tell me that adding "Doctors and nutritionists have recognized her for her long time contributions to the field of integrative medicine, referring to her as an innovator, visionary, influencer, and pioneer", without a source, while simultaneously removing every single instance of critical, well-sourced content, was an attempt to "simply neutralize the tone". Referring to her on a first-name basis is not "neutralizing the tone". Bolding "New York Times Best Sellers" was not "neutralizing the tone". Please don't misrepresent what you did here. There are some synthesis issues with the current revision, but it's far better, and better-referenced, than yours. Huon (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman - Sourcing Conflict

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)

Some points to consider:

• The subject was highly active promoting her ideas about health and nutrition in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which attracted coverage in RSes.
• The subject has a few NYT bestsellers and has generated a huge corpus of literature based on her ideas
• The subject's ideas have been criticized by scientists, doctors, and nutritions with degrees from reputable institutions, which were published in RSes.
• The subject very well might be one of the most prominent quack influencers from the early 2000s
• The subject went to a degree mill, quack school, which is covered in RSes
• The subject appears to have spent her life's work spreading misinformation about diet, health, and medicine, which she profited from.
• The subject has either directly edited her page or contributed to paid editing in the past, or is highly likely to have done so, based on activity such as yours, where huge swaths of the article are removed and replaced with glowing positivity.
• The subject has been less active in recent years, it seems. So what? This page should not be deleted or "sanitized" because she or you doesn't like it.

Delta13C (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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)

Extended confirmed protection

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)

Erroneous removal of credible source

In response to Anachronist (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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.

Question for administrator

<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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Attack_pages

There have been COI edits from anonymous IP addresses recently. And regardless of whether you have a COI, you are definitely a Wikipedia:Single purpose account based on your history. Edit-warring, as I was seeing being performed by you, recently and in the past, is not acceptable. As an administrator, my objective is to preserve stability. There are a couple of tools available to accomplish this: blocking accounts and protecting pages. I chose the latter, to preserve your ability to continue participation. Content disputes need to be resolved on the talk page, not by revert-warring.

As for the source, thank you for finding that page about their validation policy. They will take submissions from anyone, however, regardless of the submitter's journalistic qualifications. It appears to be a platform for self-publishing, or as Ronz indicates below, a platform for finding new clients for their marketing sites. As such, including it in the article is a possible WP:BLP violation, requiring that it be removed until its quality can be assessed. The reliability of the source should be determined at WP:RSN. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Examining the article further, it says right up front that it's an interview, although it alternates between author paraphrasing and direct quotations. The author's commentary appears to have been gleaned from the interview. Therefore, that specific article (regardless of the overall reliability of the website hosting it) would have to be considered a WP:Primary source, and wouldn't be any better for confirming things like educational history than Gittleman's own publications, because all the material in that article came from Gittleman herself. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I give up. But you're right, I AM a single-purpose whatever BECAUSE I only hopped onto Wiki after seeing an attack page that I thought was horrible. I have a job and I'm busy. I don't have time to dedicate to the site as a whole. And even if I wanted to, everyone starts somewhere, right? So, when your initial experience turns out as AWFUL as mine has, why would you choose to hang around and work on more stuff,for free, just to have it become drama? When I saw the Facebook article, I thought I would come back because I recalled a LACK of credibible sourcing being an issue for the page in prior discussions -- thought I'd give Wiki a second chance; only to have my attempts removed within MINUTES, literally. Not even enough time to read the source - but nobody said a word to that person. Instead I'M the problem. I happened to stumble on the wrong subject apparently. As for 'warring' or what have you, never my intention. Being new when that happened, I didn't even know it was a 'thing.' My only intent was to provide some depth to a thin and one-sided bio I happened to stumble on during some unrelated research; a Bio that has apparently been an issue for, what, years? If YEARS' worth of people see something wrong with it, why is it so bad to try and make it better? Oh well, have at it. I'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst737 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we all have to start somewhere, but most of us have a broad variety of interests from the get-go; you've been focusing exclusively on one subject. That merely suggests (but doesn't confirm) a COI. Most of us have family, career, and a life outside of Wikipedia. Me, I drop in during breaks. You are welcome to improve the article. The way you have gone about it, however, by being combative, edit warring, and whitewashing attempts, isn't the right approach. I understand you're new, and I allowed for the possibility that you are truly acting in good faith, so I didn't block you. WP:BRD would be a good place to start reading. You excitedly added a new source and a lot of new text cited to that source, but that source was correctly recognized as questionable and you were reverted. Then you went and added it again. Because the article has also had disruption from IP addresses, it got protected. Protecting the article is intended to encourage talk page discussion. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by trying to railroad changes through. You are welcome to try to gain consensus for any changes you care to propose. That's what this talk page is for. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If you do even the slightest bit of research, as suggested, it becomes clear this is a COI issue. The listed author of the article is Anne Rhody. A simple google search for Ann Louise Gittleman and Anne Rhody reveals the top three results are this page and a few other pages related to a company called Unikey Health that the Rhody seems to be associated with in some sense, although not abundantly. Gittleman is listed as an expert on this site. I would argue, that is enough to confirm that this article is biased and should not be used.SkepticLight (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

hotmessanonymous.com as a source

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)

• Agreed. "HotMessAnonymous (Hot Mess Press) is an online news magazine. HMP accepts submissions from journalists all over the world. Publications is based on a literary vetting process." "Publications is"? Doesn't bode well, does it? Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying that because the site is owned by a marketing company it can't be considered credible? That doesn't seem right. Case in point, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications -- Advance owns a marketing subsidiary... Does that mean nothing they write is credible any longer? Where is there 'proof' that the company uses the magazine for promotion? I don't see anything about the company or any pitches on the site of any kind. Not that it matters at this point. I don't dispute the fact that there have been numerous edits to this thing, but I don't see what that has to do with me -- and in all honesty, it DOES NOT MATTER to me. I give up. Thus far, everything I've done here, and pretty much everyone I've encountered (save a handful, yourself included, as you've been very kind to me) has been a completely negative experience and a waste of time. I tried to do one thing with Wiki, horrible experience for a new person and a convoluted mess in the structure of the organization. I was immediately treated like I'm some kind of troll because I happened to choose the wrong thing to edit, geez. Decided a second go at it after seeing the aformentioned article on Facebook, and it resulted same outcome. I don't know what is meant by edit warring or anonymous edits... I haven't intentionally done any of that, so, here's me moving on with my life. Good luck. And thanks Ronz.Analyst737 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)