Talk:Earl Mindell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Earl Mindell was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 4, 2007
The scientific peer review symbol, a compasss. This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earl Mindell article.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] GA Review

GA Criteria 1. It is well written. - Weak Pass

  • Overall the article passes this criteria with no glaring MOS violations but there are some areas that could be improved.
  • I would merge the Trivial detail into a relevant section of the article. There is no need for a one line section, especially on that should be actively avoided.
  • I do like the Bibliography table but the particularly coding of it doesn't link the ISBN to Wikipedia's Booksource program. See WP:ISBN. This greatly aids the curious reader in being able to track down a particularly book of interest. Admittedly, I'm not most knowledgeable when it comes to tables and codes but I would strongly encourage the editors of this page to try and find a way to incorporate the ISBN links to the bibliography table. I will note that this is not a precursor for GA attainment, just an improvement suggestion.
  • There are several cases of redundant "Wiki-links" like the multiple linkings to Multi-level marketing and Pacific Western University. These items only need to be wiki-linked on their first appearance in the article. I would also look at the "See Also" section which includes items that have already been linked in the article and is simply not needed in this section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable - Weak Pass

  • Overall the article passes this are because as the whole it is well referenced with reliable sources. However, there are some areas for improvement.
  • I would be leery of "over tagging" in a few cases, both for aesthetic as well as practical reasons. For example, is 5 in line citations really needed for the 3 lines of text under Education. Judging from the rest of the article it looks like the citation style incorporated is to bunch them up at the end of the paragraph. In accordance to WP:MOS and WP:CITE standards that is acceptable. But in practice with sections like Education, it still looks a little like overkill. Even highly controversial claims need no more then 2 cites from reliable sources and some editorial discernment should be leverage to pair down that list to the sources that best attribute the pertinent claims. As a reader, there is some practical disadvantages to seeing a trail of cites at the end of the paragraph in that I don't immediately know exactly which claim is the controversial one that requires so many cites. Is it his North Dakota degree? The Master Herbalist diploma? The fact that Pacific Western University is unaccredited? An excess burden is placed on the reader to then fish through all the cites to try and figure out what the issue is. In seeing so many cites, there is a sense that "Something is up" here and that the reader needs to be more discerning about the verifiability of what they are reading. In some cases, especially of controversial figures, that is skepticism is welcomed and needed for NPOV standards. However, I would encourage you to pinpoint those cites to those controversial statements so that the reader doesn't have to search all over the place to find out exactly what they should skeptical about.
  • In a slightly similar vein, there are "In wiki" references to "See above" in the case of the unaccredited Pacific Western University. In spirit, in wiki referencing should be avoided. In practice, its redundant since the reader most likely has already "seen above" and not only has the in-line cites to verify but also the wiki link article to Pacific Western which includes those details and more referencing. At its worse, the "see above" breaks up the flow of the prose in a unneeded manner.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Needs Improvement

  • A couple questions that popped into my mind while reader the article is "What lead Mindell to this field in the first place?" What motivation or interest in his early life might have set him on this path. The second question, and the area most needed to be expanded, is Mindell's reaction to the controversy and questioning of his claims and practice. Was any of his 45 books done in response to the CBC expose? There are some brief mentions of types of reaction-Not citing a discredit study, the trivia note about the apothecary in his garage. I think these items would be better suited in a summary paragraph titled to the effect of "reaction",

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

  • This article has the challenge of presenting an NPOV portrait of a subject that is neither "hostile nor sympathetic" as well as presenting due weight to the scientific aspect (and challenges) involved. In certain areas this articles excels. Example: In the lead
Mindell has previously promoted oral supplements of an "anti-aging" enzyme, superoxide dismutase (SOD). There is currently no evidence for the supposed benefits of SOD, and it is well known that the enzyme would not survive the digestive process if taken orally.

That is a very well done and NPOV presentation of Mindell claim and the scientific communities skepticism of the matter. In addition to the source citation, there is no pre-set conclusion being foisted upon the reader. The reader can decide for themselves, the weight and value they should assign to Mindell's claim.

  • However, there are some times that the desire to "dispel" myths cross the POV line with such buzz words like "In truth". Example: In the Controvery section
Mindell claims that eating foods that are high in DNA and RNA will help reverse the aging process. In truth, these nucleic acids are digested and never reach human somatic cells in such a form that would directly benefit the consumer.

The relative merit of the claim aside, the phrasing "In truth" is a directly hostile stance to Mindell's claim with the article being the bearer of "truth" to his falsehood. A much more NPOV approach would be to heed the examples elsewhere in the article by simply stating the lack of evidence for Mindell's claim instead of pitting it as a dynamic of "truth".

  • I'm not the biggest fan of the inclusion of "Quackwatch" in the see also section. Coming at the end of the article it reads like a "Wikipedia Indictment" or summary of the article. It is obvious that some folks think Mindell is indeed a quack, but that type of linking should be done in the article with a source attributed to someone who thinks he is a quack. It's placement in the See Also section is almost weaselish.

5. It is stable - Pass

  • The article is not in the current midst of any edit war or significant change in content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

  • Image:Dr earl mindell.jpg, Image:Mindellcbc.jpg needs detailed fair use rationales. See WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale for more details.


In assessment, I think this article is close to attaining GA status and I want to applaud the editors for their work in getting this article up to this point. I think the areas of improvement are quiet scalable and I strongly encourage the editors to resubmit for GA status once these concerns have been addressed. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. AgneCheese/Wine 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Before this entry attains GA status it needs to be updated. Mindell is no longer associated with FreeLife.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freelifegojinews.com

I removed the freelifegojinews.com reference from the CBC Exposé section as it looks like linkspam to me. For a start it links to pages where you can buy Goji juice and it doesn't contain any new information that isn't available in the original citation (i.e. the Marketplace program). If there's a good reason to include it, please correct me, but surely we can get quotes from the program somewhere else (that isn't promoting Goji)? Famousdog 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Only included it to round out the sources. Probably best leave it out, though. SERSeanCrane 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find where they were selling the Goji Juice outside of a link to alternative places the juice can be purchased. Replaced link for reference until another source is found. Sheeplight 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comments

I don't know about the conflict over his degree date (and you're right to point that out), but it's normal practice if you want to obtain a copy of a thesis to contact the conferring university (PWU - good luck with that!) or go to another university library and request an inter-library loan of the offending (sorry, relevant) tome. I don't think that where he lived while "doing" his PhD is relevant as PWU is a distance-learning institution (diploma mill). Hope that answers your questions. Famousdog 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, theses.com is a database of UK and Ireland PhD theses. Perhaps somebody knows of a North American version? Here's an FAQ from theses.com about finding theses.
So "we" don't know the answers to any of these normal questions. WorldCat (the database you're recommending, and which I've just searched) has no master's thesis or Ph.D. dissertation listed for Mindell in any library. There are, however, 600+ listings for Mindell's published books. Badagnani 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's very interesting that WorldCat lists 45 theses/dissertations from Pacific Western University, by a variety of authors and on a variety of subjects (all held by libraries of other universities). Badagnani 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well done. How about adding that information to the article? I'm not surprised that you can't find a thesis for Mindell. Its probably in a PWU bunker where nobody can ever see it! Mindell is a quack and PWU aren't a proper university. My question is, why are you attacking the other users and asking rhetorical questions (that you apparently already know the answers to)? Finally, please discuss stuff here, not in the text of the article! Famousdog 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You said: "why are you attacking the other users and asking rhetorical questions (that you apparently already know the answers to)?" Neither of these statements is true. I did the research after no one responded (and my editing comments were removed). All of the information I inquired about does still need to be verified. Badagnani 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

There is no reason to have a external link to a company site, especially one with it's own Wikipedia article that's already linked. See Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #5 & #14. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the coi allegation

Your user page mentions that you are civil. However, I saw cursing and a WP:COI allegation. Please take those back. Badagnani (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're commenting on the things I've already removed, correct? I removed it about 10 minutes before you made the above remark. Sorry that I didn't apologize about them when I removed them. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments were quite clear. You made them less than 1 hour ago, and now you're claiming to have forgotten them? The first edit summary contained cursing, and the second implied a COI on the part of another editor. Both of these were wrong and un-Wikipedian. I ask again that you withdraw them. Badagnani (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"I removed it about 10 minutes before you made the above remark." --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with ref please

The following link is dead. I'm unable to find any mention of the article outside of references to Earl Mindell, so I'm concerned that the reference might be in error. Can anyone confirm it, find a copy somewhere else, or find another article to source the same material?

  • The California Pharmacists Association (3 April 2007). California Pharmacists Take Top Honors. [1]

--Ronz (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Found it on another site. Changed link. Famousdog (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference gojijuicenewscenter.com no longer has anything about Mindell and should be deleted.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)