User talk:Frankg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soy Article.

I am a mother with children who has had both breasts removed recently. I know what I am talking about. I ate large amounts of soy almost everyday for years. It is important that other women as well as men understand the real facts about soy. You have already made two reverts. Please adjust the sentences as per guidlines if needed. Thank You. ---63.17.58.164 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the content I was basing the removal on, it was the fact that the section was written like an opinion/editorial and not like an encyclopedia entry. Frankg 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believed the content was good but up to par with your standard then just edit next time.

P.S. I noticed you left me a message.

I have a message too for the benefit of the human race.

Warning: Soy = Breast Cancer

Again, unless you have studies that demonstrate this conclusively (which would be a serious medical find), it is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Frankg 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have finished rewriting the wikipedic sentences. Thank You. 63.17.58.164 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The China Study ... Whole plant foods diet

Hope you don't mind my using your talk ... I feared you might not see it in the discussion page.

The article relies heavily on that one work, but the author is a respected scientist and Cornell University professor, who has supervised or performed 75 man-years of peer reviewed and often-published nutrition research studies.

The work specifically conducted in China is "the most comprehensive, large-scale human study ever done of the connections between diet, lifestyle, and disease." (NYT)

Please see this website for verification ... the data is all there. [1]

Those quotes (you deleted) are long, but highly relevant. The source is clearly stated. They are based on good science and data ... Oxford and Cornell and a small army of researchers. The China Study's Campbell usually writes thick scientific stuff ... he's going from the research and is precise in his word choice. My writing is loose, but it is not presented as propaganda. I'll take out the toxic animal protein line if you want.

Please research these new works, plus I suggest The Okinanwa Program, Willcox B..., and Becomming Vegan, Davis B...both cite numerous recent studies linking plant consumption and health.TipPt 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the China Study and some of the other works you mentioned (Okinawa Program etc.). There were two main problems I found with the section. First, it was very long relative to the entire article, despite only covering one viewpoint. Second, I think you could find many other respected scientists and researchers who disagree with Campbell's viewpoint and conclusions. But the section read like Campbell's view is the "last word" on nutritional science. Basically, I'm sure most people would agree it's fine to bring up the China Study, but it is too controversial to quote large swaths out of in an encyclopedia article, or treat it with conspicuous significance in a general discussion of nutrition.
In short, my primary interest is putting these things in their appropriate context and not promoting any one viewpoint over another. Science is an ever-evolving field and even the most respected and diligent researchers are not "deities of truth." (This is not necessarily a criticism of this particular section, just a general philosophical musing I have about the general topic of science and technical writing.) Frankg 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked, and have found no researcher who found fault with the data or [2] or their implications from a purely statistical perspective. There's lots of skepticism or worse, and the conclusions are certainly controversial, and is contrary/discordant to what everyone learned in school or just they knew (got milk?).
You know there are several other similar studies ... with very similar results ... done in other developing countries. The problem with The China Project is that it's observational, and the cause of death data was gathered 10 years before the diet and blood data was gathered.
I agree that those quotes are inappropriate. I hoped everyone would read them ... maybe read the book ... and boil them down into short attributed summaries. I'm in the process of looking up many more citations ... biological mechanism, experimental test animal, and human intervention research. I invite you to find opposing citations (is animal protein necessary for good health?).
I love science writing. I agree with your general philosophical stance. I believe gene expression research will soon prove the link between animal protein and some diseases. I would love for you to find citations promoting the other viewpoints; some scientists find no link between diet and cancer and you could (try to) explain the gist and basis of their position.TipPt 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Check out this abstract, which indicates that animal protein consumption may be inversely associated with waist circumference (and thus risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc.). This is just one piece of recent research.
The realm of nutrition is full of conflicts, trade-offs, and unknowns. This is why it's such a controversial topic. I'm not interested in promoting one particular viewpoint or another as long as all are represented in accordance to their general acceptance in the scientific community. (The "Got milk?" concern is more relevant to the dairy industry, I think.) Either way, the issues raised by the China Study are certainly interesting; have you considered expanding the Wikipedia page on the book itself? Frankg 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A linked Wiki page on The China Project/book is a great idea.

Actually, the topic is longevity, so emphasis should be on research into Sardinians, Okinawans, and Seventh-Day Adventists. There's a good body of research into each of those three (verified age) groups. The China Project (and studies in Vietnam, Tailand, Mexico, and India) points to lower incidences of Western diseases and the variance in diet as the primary contributing factor. I still need to summarize those quotes.

Got Milk? There's a good body of research that says milk should be avoided. But, we've been sold on the idea ... most believe ... that it's generally good for us. Bones BS, but it sells. Saying otherwise is discordant, pisses people off, and becomes controversial. There's a ton of junk research on milk, so it's easy to muddy the resulting argument.

Thanks for the link. I'll look to the statistics to judge the strength of the study conclusions ... part of another trip to ucla. Note that their result: "...whereas carbohydrate from fruit and vegetables was inversely associated and significantly different from any other carbohydrate subgroup," supports a whole foods diet. There's a correlation between WC and disease, but which (animal protein or fruits and vegis) is the stronger effect? That study may end up showing it's much better to eat whole plants (we don't know if they factored whole grains) than animal protein ... only got so much room in that stomach.TipPt 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue of milk in particular in easier to tackle than animal protein in general. I don't think there are many authorities that heavily promote milk as anything special or notable, and the downsides are fairly well-established. The latter being, in some people, lactose intolerance, dairy intolerance in general, and so forth. I'll be the first to point out that casein allergies are well-documented (right up there with gluten allergies).
If you are trying to establish that a whole-foods approach may be beneficial, I doubt you will have trouble finding many authorities that concur. Virtually everyone with a hand in nutrition research and writing emphasizes fruit and vegetable consumption above all else. But in the meantime, the issue of animal protein is more complex and not likely to be resolved any time soon. Frankg 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits about Barack Obama

If you read the article exclusively, Obama says so on "Meet the Press," and not just on a diary. Carpet9 23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The MTP interview was back in October. It's not something recent.Frankg 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my confusion. You are correct. Carpet9 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trans fat

Hi Frankg, I'm finally finished tweaking the trans fat article, and I wonder if you would support it as a featured article candidate. The discussion is here. Thanks! -- cmhTC 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eicosanoid Peer Review

I've asked for Peer review of Eicosanoid. Since you've helped with some of the associated pages, I'd like your input.David.Throop 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Cutler edit...

Why did you make this edit? [[3]] I reverted your edit until you provide a valid explanation for why his 2006 win shouldn't be mentioned.

1. Your edit summary said "(Read the damn note)". What "note" are you talking about?
2. Your edit summary was brash and abusive. Please see WP:CIV for further details. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No offense intended; see my note on your talk page for an explanation. Frankg 02:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because the section "Bodybuilding titles" has his win mentioned doesn't mean that "Competitive placings" shouldn't. The 2006 win was a "competitive placing" and thus should be mentioned in that area. If anything we need to merge the two sections.Wikidudeman (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploaded Images - Boston Skyscrapers

Thank you for improving images for the International Place and 60 State Street. Could you please upload pictures with higher resolution? The goal is to provide high quality pictures. Also, I would be interested in your feedback here. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston#Need your input to select best images for articles.. Solarapex 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Just snap what you think is better than existing ones. Even though I live in Boston, I found it difficult to find a good vintage point to shoot skyscrapers. You found a pretty good one for International Place. The only thing to keep in mind, don't try to shoot the Federal Reserve Building. Solarapex 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The photos I took were from a trip to the top of the Custom House Tower - the observation deck there has great views of the downtown buildings. Is there a security restriction on taking photos of federal buildings like the FRB, or is there something else about that building in particular? Frankg 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's because it a federal building. I asked if there are other buildings I should be aware of. I didn't get an answer. Hope this helps. Thanks for the upload. Solarapex 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coconut oil

I don't think what you wrote is clear [4]. Maybe a discussion on that talk page is in order? --Ronz 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure - basically, I felt the original sentence wasn't written as objectively as it should for an encyclopedia entry. The real issue is whether or not the different saturated fat ratio in coconut oil resuls in different physiological effects from those exhibited by butter, cheese, etc. Frankg 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's just a manner of rewording it, but lets keep the discussion where others can easily find it and participate: Talk:Coconut_oil#.22Sources_attribute....22 --Ronz 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WCL

Thanks for correcting me on that. Do you know what is at the 4900 offices? Also, I assume you are one of the SBA Senators, right?⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China Study RfC: POV & One Source

You might be interested to know about a dispute with Michael H 34 over The China Study article. He also reverted your edit of 7 January 2007. I have submitted a request for comments. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)