Talk:David Horrobin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn.

He is linked from 3 other wikipedia articles, and has written articles in national newspapers in the UK, I have updated his biography with more detail, I believe he is noteable ( perhaps more so in the UK ) and the entry is worthy of inclusion.

[Separate contributor from immediately preceding one]- 24/9/2007] I have updated some of the references and external links. I feel that it is now clear that this biography deals with a significant and notable individual, and therefore that it is certainly worthy of inclusion. It should be noted, however, that David Horrobin's connections with North Eastern England are less strong than his connections with Scotland and the UK in general, as well as Canada, in particular Nova Scotia. Other than that he once taught at Newcastle University, it is not particularly clear to me why he has been included in the North East list, and such an inclusion specifically in the Wikiproject North East England should not warrant a deletion merely on the basis of the weakness of this PARTICULAR connection. Dr Horrobin was a figure of importance not so much locally, as nationally and internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.86 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


David Horrobin was perhaps the most significant pioneer of phospholipid biochemistry and physiology of the 20th Century. In lay terms one might think of the use and importance of Omega 3 and Omega 6 Essential Fatty Acids, which is profoundly recognised today. Arguably, Dr. Horrobin contributed more than any other single individual to the development of the research into Essential Fatty Acids, and as such may certainly be accounted to have contributed in a major way to the shaping of the modern world. This article must NOT be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.34 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My "The City"

"As a businessman, he became very well known in the City and was hailed, as stated in his obituary in the Telegraph (linked below)," sentence makes no sense and appears to be lifted from the source. Would be better to reword, include (say....) what "City" it is in question? Shot info 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, it makes perfect sense. I assume that you are not a UK citizen, as he was. In the UK, nationally, "The City" refers to the financial district of the City of London, and is shorthand for the primary business community in the UK, and most particularly the stock markets.Brigantian 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Have reworded in any case, to account for non-uk based interest. Thanks for the flag up.Brigantian 12:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This has little to do with Horrobin

The ideas presented in this book formed a primary inspiration for Sebastian Faulks' novel Human Traces, published 2005, and Dr. Horrobin is acknowledged in the text. Faulks was also one of the respondents to the controversial BMJ obit in 2003, stating, inter alia:

"Horrobin's book The Madness of Adam and Eve is one of the most wide- ranging and suggestive books I have ever read. I asked if I could go and see him to discuss its contents, since they are relevant to the background of a novel I am currently writing. Dr Horrobin's reply, to a complete stranger, was one of exemplary kindness and scholarly generosity. He came to dinner at my house a few weeks before he died, and although in obvious discomfort, he shared with me his thoughts on a huge array of subjects. It is a conversation the memory of which I shall treasure for the rest of my life."[7] Shot info 07:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Erm... "Little to do with Horrobin"? How on earth do you reckon that? It is a comment about both the man and a major work of his late in life that had sigificant influence on a major work of a major contemporary author, who here comments on HORROBIN, which has, well, EVERYTHING to do with him! Brigantian 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No it may have a lot to do with a major contemporary author but little to do with Horrobin. Shot info 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a wholly undefended and I think unjustifiable assertion. The reference derives from a response to his obituary, specifically references his work, and demonstrates his work's influence and notability, as well as being a nice biographical insight into the character from a third party... Good Grief, half a minute ago the article was being attacked for 1. Its lack of demonstration of DFH' s notability; and 2. The article's lack of biographical detail. NOW you attack it for irrelevance, despite this being both clear demonstration of his notability and influence, interesting biographical detail, and entirely relevant to him for the points already mentioned. Please defend your assertion, which is bald and simply table-thumping at the moment, because this really is beginning to feel like a waste of precious time.Brigantian 07:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Brigantian, can I suggest you WP:AGF here as your continual cries of "article being attacked" is not beneficial to Wikipedia. Here are some policies that you need to read to help you understand what we do here in Wikipedia - WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV. In the light of this, I trust that you will understand that you are not the sole editor of this article and all other Wikipedian editors are welcome to make edits and comments to it. Note that I'm trying to help you here, but WP:BITE only goes so far. Shot info 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN

Shot Info, please don't treat this page as your personal project. Does anyone else agree with your assertion that this article needs to be rewritten?Ryoung122 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, plenty of people do. This article needs serious work to conform to WP:V policies. Djma12 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's acknowledged in the edit history that the article was intentionally rewritten in an imbalanced fashion: see this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "News Release" and "Peacock"

It is clear that this article concerns a notable scientist.

The article refers, and links to a highly critical article concerning the subject.

The accusation of advertising is redundant in any case, since this individual is dead, and there is nothing to advertise.

The accusation that the article is blatant advertising is unsupported by any argument, and no attempt has been made by the nominator or any other supporter of the nomination, if such there were, to correct or change this article.

IMPORTANTLY: the nominator could only make a coherent accusation of imbalance IF THEY POSSESSED KNOWLEDGE WHICH LED THEM TO THIS CONCLUSION. If so, they should re-edit themselves, accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigantian (talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Further I have just edited to add negative, or balancing content. The nominating editor is free to do so, themselves, and indeed ought to do so, if they feel it necessary, rather than simply condemning the whole article for speedy deletion, which certainly appears an overreaction. Brigantian 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I declined the speedy and removed the speedy and hangon tags. I did however, prune out the adoring POV language which was inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. While the charge of advertising may be misplaced the tone of the article left much to be desired. I have corrected much of that. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 14:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is suggested that there is overflowery language or else peackock words or whatever, it is blatantly obvious that this is not a "news release". Apart from anything else it is absurd to suggest that an article discussing the career of a dead person is advertising, or else a news release. There is nothing to advertise. Life over. The life in question was incontestably notable, as borne out by the extensive references. The article has been extensively rewritten and contains a specific section on criticism of the subject. If the nominating editor, who has attempted to get this article deleted on other grounds, in concert with many other figures in the same field of medicine, feels strongly about the way the article is written, they should rewrite it. The nominating editor has thus far declined to discuss the reasons why it is considered that the article as presently written is in a "news release" format. If they have good grounds, let them state them here, so that, if they are disinclined to do so, other editors can adjust the article accordingly. As to the "peacock" suggestion, it would be helpful for the nominating editor likewise to point out exactly what is thought to be at fault. The words which state that Horrobin was a key pioneer are fully borne out in the references from independent sources, and further can be added, if necessary. Brigantian (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is in fair shape, a little overcut. Simply subjects that are notable beyond 1950s nutritional-medical science are frequently deprecated at WP in the supposed name of science, medicine and / or WP policy, but I frequently can't agree when I quote current mainstream authorities or fundamental of science, but I get an earful of denial here anyway. It would be misleading to state that Horrobin was "an" advocate, when he was clearly a leader, with prolific papers and now broad, growing acceptance of the EFAs he researched and published on so voluminously. Other adjectives might be negotiated according to references and summary word choice, but I think we are seeing not so subtle deprecation of another medical science pioneer not stuck in the 1950s.--TheNautilus 16:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Nautilus. It is both a shame and interesting that neither of the tagging editors has bothered either to comment on their tags in this discussion, nor to take up my repeated invitations to re-edit themselves, instead of simply throwing unsubstantiated and undefended mud. Brigantian (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The tags are invites for editors to come in and....I dunno...edit the article? This is not uncommon behavour here, often nominating editors tag an article and then wait for third party editors to edit, rather than be accused (say like your edit above) of untoward behavour. What you can do however, to help (rather than whine) is click on the links within the tags...and read, then understand why several editors other than yourself believe the article to be poorly writen. Shot info (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shot Info- Nobody has done more to help construct and edit this article, including in response to such tags, than myself. You, however, appear to have done nothing whatever other than to slap on tags expecting others to dance to your tune. I have indeed read the links from the tags. I disagree that they apply to this article. I am NOT whining, rather you are wasting my time for no reason than you can be bothered to specify. Your condescending tone is entirely misplaced. In case you hadn't noticed, several other editors do NOT consider the article "poorly written". If you think it is, stow your condescension, and specify where you think it is so. If you can't do that, then I suggest you look up the definition of term "editor". Brigantian (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, there is some confusion about the cleanup and hangon tags at the top of the article. The article doesn't need a hangon tag, because it is not currently nominated for speedy deletion. The {{newsrelease}} tag suggests the possiblity of nominating for deletion, and I think this is the source of confusion. I have replaced that tag with {{tone}} which addresses the cleanup issue without a mention of speedy deletion. Hopefully, this will allow editors to get to discussing issues that have to do with the content of the article itself. Tensions seem to be a bit high, so I would remind everyone to please remain civil. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edgar 181 - Thank you for this intervention. The "news release" tag had always in any case been misplaced. I am sorry if I used the "hangon" in the wrong manner, but it appeared clear to me from the language of the news release tag that it was necessary, either immediately or as a flag that should it be so nominated in future, such a nomination would be disputed. I appreciate you placing this new tag on, since it clearly specifies that SPECIFIC ISSUES are to be discussed on the discussion page. What has been irritating is the complete blanking of any invitation to specify, on the part of the nominators, what it is they are actually objecting to. Shot Info above appears to accuse me of not bothering to re-edit, subsequent to the application of (her/his) tags. This is irritating because I have spent a lot of time doing precisely that. All I am asking now is that whoever adds such a tag follow the direction of the one you have added and be polite enough to actually bother to specify what is objected to, rather than making vague and unhelpful gestures at general categories. IF they wish to engage, let them do so in a PROPER editorial discussion, not a lazy, hand-waving one, especially when it declines repeated SPECIFIC requests for clarification of what is being objected to. Brigantian (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, Brigantian response is exactly the reason why I have disengaged from the editing. It's pointless to edit when there is an editor who thinks he/she owns an article. I've disengaged waiting for responses from other, third party editors. Unlike Brigantian, it appears that I can wait :-) Shot info (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Shot info- how exactly is it that you accuse me of thinking I "own" the article, when all that you are replying to is one more in a string of repeated attempts to get YOU to contribute properly to the article content, yourself, or if you can't be bothered, then at least to point out what it is that you consider to be at fault. If you cannot do this, I see no reason whatever not to remove the tags until you are willing to do so. It is ridiculous to suggest that I am trying to "own" the article, when what I am irritated about is others' unwillingness to edit it, or if unwilling to do so, then at least to indicate in the discussion where they think it should be edited. Your claim that you have "disengaged from the editing" on account of my repeated attempts (see above) to get you to contribute is self-contradictory. In less than the time and effort you have expended dancing around the subject on this page, you could have re-edited yourself, or else specified your issues exactly. Your statement on "reasons for disengagement" is therefore a red herring. Brigantian (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Stomp, stomp, stomp :-) Shot info (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Shot info- still unwilling to bother to do more than sling mud, I see. Brigantian (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Three separate editors have already expressed concerns that the wording of this article is excessive and POV. Shot info already listed his concerns in his edit summary. Rather than edit warring, why not simply start cleaning up the article. Djma12 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no concerns about the wording of this article, and urge all editors not to be on guard lest their emotions and preconceived notions cloud their judgment.--Alterrabe (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As has happened before, when I looked closely at Djma's claims, it emerged that they weren't truthful. Only two editors, one of them Djma, expressed such concerns. A strong case can be made that the third editor was arguing against them.--Alterrabe (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Djima, you have a track record of attempts to delete specifically orthomolecular physicians and scientists, and repeated attempts to delete this article, despite extensive re-editing over a period of several months. None of this editing has been by yourself, with the exception of simply adding tags. You refer to three editors' concerns, but this is exaggeration. Brownhairedgirl was referring to a remark I made concerning attempts to re-edit in a positive light specifically to address your repeated and unfounded statement that David Horrobin was "not notable", which concern (Brownhariedgirl's) was then dealt with in subsequent edits, which you haven't bothered to acknowledge. You once again slap on a tag without bothering at all to specify what you actually think is wrong, in specific terms, despite numerous requests to do so over a number of weeks (see above). Five editors have separately expressed their opinion that there is nothing in particular wrong with the article as it stands. The two who remain as tag-adders have repeatedly declined either to re-edit themselves, or to bother to comment on what it is SPECIFICALLY that needs re-editing. You have repeatedly added a tag calling for the speedy deletion of this article (NewsRelease), which several separate editors or administrators have stated was inappropriate, . It seems to me that this is and has been your project all along, and that you have no interest in simply ameliorating the article, as you have at no point bothered to try to do this. Please do not re-add the tag without bothering, again, to justify your actions in the face of a clear majority of editors who disagree with your opinion.Brigantian (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As to Shotinfo's "specification" of issues, for one thing, it was only in a brief edit note, and not in any detailed manner (or indeed at all!) on this page, despite many requests for this to be done. But more saliently (peacock word IYO?) the suggestion that the words "strong" and "elucidated" are "peacock" is just weird. One could be ACCUSED of being a "strong advocate of slavery" the use of such an adjective in itself implies neither praise nor blame, but refers to a matter of degree. In the case of Horrobin's being a "strong advocate of the benefits of fish oils", that could likewise, to some appear as an ACCUSATION. I have little doubt that Djima12 would see it as one. It is, of course, simply a statement of fact, as that is what he was. Further, the fact that some did indeed see him as OVERBALANCED in his advocacy forms a part of the criticism section of the article, so it is easily possible to see this more as blame, than praise. As far as "elucidated" is concerned, it simply means "clarified". How is that "peacock"? It is once again a simple statement of fact, amply evidenced by the voluminous publication list, with its high citation rate, which is amply referenced in the article. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which objects, on principle, to less used words or phrases on the grounds that they may not be commonly used by junior high school students, then it is in serious trouble as a knowledge resource. The examples as given are wholly insufficient to justify the tag. Further ELUCIDATION of the claim is needed, or else its withdrawal. Are you willing to contribute, or just kvetch?Brigantian (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFT. It's obvious your only here to pick a fight. Shot info (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Shotinfo, I could say the same. Your statements like the one just made are clear attacks, on me. Repeated examples above. I am glad, however, that you finally decided to contribute properly, rather than just tagging. Thanks. The change of "elucidated" to "demonstrated" is inappropriate, however. Once again, there is nothing in any way "peacock" about "elucidated". It is simply factual. "Demonstrated" on the other hand, is essentially incorrect, since it implies that he simply taught the subject, perhaps at a school, and was not a contributor to it. Also, demonstrated sounds far more sweeping. "He "demonstrated" the physiology and biochemistry". In fact, it just sounds odd.Brigantian (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
See? Shot info (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So lets just stick to the facts. What is wrong with "elucidated"? How would "demonstrated" be either better, correct, or indeed even meaningful?Brigantian (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Has your edit been reverted? IMHO "clarified" in the general context would have been better, but I'm not going to waste bandwidth over arguing a single word. Feel free to keep going however... Shot info (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. As far as the "citation needed" instances are concerned, I agree that some, perhaps half of them are indeed needed. But the other half are made amply clear in the references already provided. Why should one need to repeat the same references again and again? This is excessive. To fill them all out would be to have a 695 word article flooded with references. There are already 22 such, which cover most of the citations requested in any case. Brigantian (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi I've added some citations and rewritten the commercial sections to correct errors and try to disentangle the confusion which exists on the web over company names and dates. Some may feel that there is too much detail, resulting in an unbalanced biography, but I hope that more information will be added later on other topics to even it up. I will try to work through the remaining sections and add my tuppence worth. This is my first significant Wikipedia editing exercise, so please bear with my attempts to master the interface. Thanks Beechnut (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the somewhat heated discussion in this section I am hesitant to get embroiled, but my feeling is that what is missing from this article is a summary of what Horrobin discovered and reported in his voluminous published work. We have a summary of his commercial life, his journals, his campaign against peer review, his views on animal testing, but no real sense of how he moved forward the sum total of human knowledge. I'm not qualified to write it - would any of you reading this like to try? If not, I could ask around amongst his professional colleagues and invite them to contribute. Beechnut (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Would recommend a review of WP:BLP and also a review of other Biographies within Wikipedia to see how and what constitutes something acceptable to the overall Community prior to proceeding. Thanks Shot info (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for referring me to that - all good info. Although Horrobin was a controversial figure, it should be possible to summarise his main scientific achievements, based on his published peer-reviewed work, in a sufficiently dispassionate way that people of goodwill but differing perspectives can agree? After all, there must be something in all those hundreds of papers - the reviewers and editors must have thought so anyway. Or perhaps I'm being too optimistic. Either way I totally agree that anything written should follow WP guidelines. Beechnut (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP does not generally apply to biographical entries that include links to obituaries of the subject.--Alterrabe (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right Alterrabe, but I think that Shot info's point still has weight. Reading between the lines, he may have been concerned that, as a new editor, I might post a partisan summary. I have no problem with that reminder and am happy to learn from those more experienced. Beechnut (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a point, even when a person dies and BLP no longer applies, WP:V still does, so reliable sources are as always, key, and preferred over unsourced additions. WLU (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That is true, having it's a good practice to follow it (IMO) and it makes it easier for editors to then edit actual BLPs rather than carrying over practices from BunLP :-) Again just my opinion (and I only recommended a review of the policy in any case). Ta Shot info (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to spare a newbie from possible confusion. We agree that WP:BLP is the gold standard of wikipedia biographies. However it places such a strict emphasis on WP:V as to be intimidating, in that it excludes sources that would be admissible in biographies of our dearly deceased. ¡If only the BMJ abided by BLP!--Alterrabe (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL - I can drink to that. BTW, what is BunLP? I think I'm missing the joke. Beechnut (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It may not have been a joke. My best guess is that "BunLP" refers to (nonexistent) guidelines for biographies of "unliving" persons. Shot_info suffers from the occasional sibylline phase. This page may get you up to speed.[1]--Alterrabe (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, that'll be it. We should all be allowed our moments of whimsy. Beechnut (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucky I'm a nice guy and not a POV pusher - or else I would be forum shopping over at ANi and WQA and sprouting NPA, CIVIL, AGF (etc) :-) Nevertheless, Beechnut BLP = Biography of a Living Person, which is the only acceptable standard for a Biography of anybody who is alive. For dead people it doesn't matter, however in Wikipedia, there are a lot of editors who forget the policy of WP:BLP and carry these practises over into bios of living people. So it's just good practise to become familar with BLP and use this in BunLP (bio of unliving people). WP:5 and WP:LOP are good places to start for newbies and the Wide World of Wiki policies :-) Any questions - just ask. Shot info (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that the sibyls were oracles believed to be divinely inspired, if sometimes incomprehensible, I fail to see how attributing sibylline attributes to you can be construed to be a "personal attack." If anything, it was a compliment.--Alterrabe (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucky I'm a nice guy and not a POV pusher - or else I would be forum shopping over at ANi and WQA and sprouting NPA, CIVIL, AGF (etc) :-). You haven't been watching the regular POV-pushers and their gaming of the system recently have you? Shot info (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, there are other Sybils of note which might have been less complimentary, not least the wife of Basil Fawlty in the English comedy series Fawlty Towers. However to point this out would probably be mischevious :-) Seriously, thank you both for your help and guidance. Beechnut (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links and obituaries

News articles are not really suitable for external links, WP:EL clearly states the EL section is primarily for info that can't be linked as inline text, which news stories can easily be used for. The following should really be used as in-line citations.

The inclusion of five obituaries in the EL section is also a bit strange. Given the large number of obits, and the controversy apparently generated by the BMJ obit, I think there's enough to add an entire section just on obituaries. Something like "Horrobin's death resulted in numerous obituaries.([2][3][4]) One of these, found in the British Medical Journal, resulted in considerable controversy from doctors and scientists who objected to its portray of Horrobin's work." Then continue to discuss the controversy. The lead in sentence is a bit stupid and redundant, but it does move the news obits out of the EL section and into the body text, and leads into the BMJ controversy. Given the BMJ's audience and its own status as a big scientific journal, I think there's merit on an explicit section.

Otherwise, I tried to get the EL section more in line with WP:EL but kept the really big ones. WLU (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have incorporated the obituaries into the text - see what you think. Beechnut (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horrobin or Scotia/Laxdale

(This refers to sections removed by Shot info 00:30 and 04:36, 22 January 2008)

I see where you're coming from, Shot, but I think that there is value in keeping at least some of the company information. Horrobin was the CEO and provided the scientific direction for both Scotia and Laxdale, their successes and failures therefore directly relate to the impact he had on the world during his life. It is remarkable that he (a scientist) was able to build a company valued at £600m; it is also remarkable that it produced only four licensed products of which two have since been withdrawn and that it filed for bankruptcy within 3 years of him leaving. I have therefore (with some trepidation) reverted this edit. Let's talk about it.

Regarding your earlier edit, I agree we are better off without the material regarding Dow. I would like to retain mention of Maraxion, as it is an example of how Horrobin's work might yet benefit patients. I am relaxed about the Medical Hypotheses deletions, except to note that the calibre of scientists he was able to attract to his editorial board is an indication that, although controversial, he was held in high regard. I have left these changes though, pending further discussion. Over to you? Beechnut (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that a lot of what you state, may in fact be true but it is original research without it being stated (published) previously in a reliable source. Also, remember that we are editing an article on David Horrobin not on Scotia, Laxdale, Maraxion & Medical Hypotheses. If there is information that is notable about these particular subjects, then they are worthy of an article and should be created. At the moment, to use Medical Hypotheses as an example, there is information mentioned here and also over there, which are not the same. So which is correct? Wikipedia solves this by having articles discussing the subject. Tangential subjects have their own articles - which in the particular case of Medical Hypotheses, there is one. So why does information pertaining to Medical Hypotheses need to appear in a biography of David Horrobin? Did he set up the panel, if there, is there a reference clearly stating this? Incidently some of the supplied references don't actually match the edit in the article. Will go thru in detail and see if I can correct. Shot info (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I put in 5 references for the Scotia information. I could add a lot more on all of the other aspects if you wish, but we could end up over-referencing this. Perhaps you would like to add in 'citation needed' where you think it may be Original Research and I'll deal with it.
I think that the sources I used mostly fit within the bounds of Reliable Sources, even though they are not in peer reviewed science journals. The penalties on companies which put incorrect information in their annual reports are severe (because it would affect investors) and any company which deliberately files incorrect information with the SEC would be treading an extremely dangerous road. In fact the negative consequences of incorrect information are much more severe than in the scientific sphere.
I agree that your Medical Hypotheses changes should stand (I didn't originate that part); the Wiki article is the right place for that level of detail. We could also set up articles for Scotia, Laxdale and Miraxion (correct spelling - my earlier mistake) as they don't currently exist, in spite of your links, but I don't think that they warrant them - the only real reason that they are of interest at present is in connection with Horrobin. I can see that the amount written about Scotia here might be considered to be disproportionate, but on the other hand, Scotia was his main focus for the most productive 20 years of his life. I feel it would be a distortion to ignore it. If you still feel that there should be separate article, I'll have a think about it.
Do please check through the references and post about any which you feel don't support the statements. I apologise that some of mine are not available online. However I have been trying to use the most authoratitive sources (e.g. company reports) rather than the most easily accessible (e.g. newspaper articles). Beechnut (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You aren't answering the fundamental question, which is this is a article about this bloke. Simply put, this isn't an article about a company called Scotia. The discussion about RS' in the above is rather by-the-by (and wasn't Scotia listed in the UK?). I have removed the list of Scotia's products - unless there is a reference that Horrobin is directly related to them. Ta Shot info (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You raised two points in your earlier post (1) that I was using original research and not using reliable sources; and (2) that information about companies, products and journals did not belong in a biographical entry. Since you haven't returned on (1) I presume that you are happy now with my use of references so I will respond further to (2). I believe that it would be impossible to understand the life of Horrobin without knowing something about the companies he founded and the products they developed. They were his main focus during the most productive 20 years of his life. He was of course closely linked to them, both as CEO and as research director and guru for both Scotia and Laxdale. They could not therefore have been developed without his input. I would argue strongly therefore that they should covered in WP spmewhere, the question being where. Medical hypotheses already has an entry and so I confirm my agreement that details about the journal belong there. If we look at Bill Gates biog, there is scarcely a mention of Microsoft because it has its own extensive entry and is therefore covered in a link. We could do the same with Scotia and Laxdale, but do you consider that they each merit an entry in their own right? How notable is a failed biotech company with only four products, two of which were later withdrawn, and a start-up company which was sold on? If you consider that they are sufficiently notable, I could write the entries, but if not then I would want to keep the information here (with the additional reference you requested regarding Horrobin's position). What do you think?
Yes, Scotia was indeed listed in the UK. I was thinking of Amarin when I mentioned the SEC, but the regulatory environment in the UK is just as robust, so my point still stands.
Good edits on the peer review BTW, that needed tidying up. And I'm glad to see the back of the unreferenced 'maverick' section. The unreferenced section on his 'extreme' support for evening primrose oil must also be getting near its sell-by date. Just needs to incorporate the obituary section into the text then and we're about done (hopefully). Beechnut (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)