Talk:Neal D. Barnard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Neal D. Barnard is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Lead

I was asked to comment here about the different versions. [1] Looking at the lead first, it might be best to remove "vocal" advocate, and I see no harm in including "low-fat." I also see no harm in including "is a scientific advisor to the Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation, and is a former board member of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection," which have been replaced with "former board member of the PETA Foundation" — unless the previous two are the PETA Foundation? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than going back and forth, could User:NealBarnard say here what the issues are that he objects to? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with those changes, though a source for Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation would be appropriate. Also, it should probably be expanded on in the main body if it is important enough for the lead. Rockpocket 07:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got more time to look at this page now, if anyone still wants me to. If you do, please let me know what the problematic areas are. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make clear, in that case, that much of the criticism stems from them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi SV. I had tried to address the concerns in the lead and research section, and added a few more positive comments on his books from notable people, for balance. The major concern now appears to be the entire activism section, which Barnard sees as pushing the industry agenda. Based on the 3rd party sources, which tend to focus on his activism rather than his research, I think this gives a fair and balanced overview of his notable activism and the controversy surrounding it. He particularly objects to the mention of Kjonaas' arrest. I can understand that, but at the same time, it is the illegality of SHAC's actions that makes his involvement with them controversial, according to the source. That is also acknowledged in PCRM's response. If we leave it out is not really clear why it is controversial. Your thoughts would be welcome.
The other aspect is the removal of the AR template (which I have done on his wishes, though it appears to be based on the fact he would rather the article focus on his research than an ideological statement that he is not pro-AR. I'm not sure whether that is an appropriate reason for not having a nav-template, but my thinking is that if it causes the subject distress, its something we should consider) Finally, Barnard requested we remove Vlasak from the see also section. I haven't done that because I think it is a very appropriate see also, based on the fact the are/were the two most notable members of PCRM. Rockpocket 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that maybe there is a slight pro-industry flavor to that section. There's a very slight "and he's done this, and this, and look at THIS" tone. It really is very slight though.
I would say first of all that we should try not to use the Center for Consumer Freedom, unless their particular criticisms have been published by a mainstream source. As for the Jonas thing, perhaps we should just use the Beauty and the Beasts article in the Observer, and attribute the criticism to the newspaper. Something like:
"In an article examining the relationships between animal rights organizations in the U.S. and UK, The Observer criticized Barnard in 200x for having co-signed a letter with Kevin Jonas of SHAC — a campaign that has seen several of its leading members, including Jonas, jailed in connection with their activism. Barnard responded that he co-signed the SHAC letter many years before the incident that saw Jonas jailed, and that he had no further interaction with SHAC."
We could then go on:
"Similarly, Barnard attracted criticism in 200x when Jerry Vlasak suggested in a speech that .... as a result of which, Vlasak's membership of PCRM was cancelled. Barnard has stressed that PCRM does not tolerate illegal activity." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Incidentally, CCF isn't currently used as a primary source, simply mentioned as the source of much criticism according to pretty much all of 3rd party sources. This includes pro-AR sources such as Best's book. Rockpocket 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should highlight that a lot of the criticism stems from CCF, in that case. I'll take a look at this tomorrow, because I just realized I'm going to have to do quite a bit of reading, which I don't have time for right now. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess it probably does, originally, with some stemming from the FBR. Barnard complains this is the industry agenda, and it is of course, the problem is the Nature article and the Observer pick up on the associations without directly attributing it, so its no longer only the CCF that is highlighting the criticisms but third party sources are reporting it too. Whether that is due to the success of the industry tactics is somewhat beside the point. Its the same as stories about alleged animal abuse in the media, I suppose, we don't query sourcing them as promoting the AR agenda, just because PETA has a good PR department in getting the story out. Rockpocket 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The Observer does acknowledge CCF as one of its sources, and I would guess its main source, judging by the way the story's written. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it was, but my point was that it doesn't just couch its report in terms of "CCF claims Barnard does X, Z, Y", it says "Barnard did X, Y, Z". I think there is a key difference. CCF has an agenda, no doubt, but that does not negate the neutrality of any third party that uses material they have provided. Rockpocket 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I take your point. I think we just need to bear in mind the enormous amount of money that is involved for the people CCF represents, which is indeed why CCF was set up -- to protect that money against the likes of PCRM. So I think we should carefully attribute at each stage, even more so than usual. While PCRM is a lobby group too, it has a wide variety of things it lobbies for and against, and there's no clear financial motivation. CCF, on the other hand, lobbies for one reason only: to protect its sponsors' financial interests, and together with not knowing who's behind it, or who really runs it, that makes it the weakest kind of source for me. I would be saying this regardless of POV, by the way. The combination of powerful, corporate interests and anonymous lobbying is obviously a red flag, regardless of POV. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on principle, but I think we get on very shaky ground, policy wise, when we start adjusting for the political or financial clout that goes into collecting and promoting primary material that are used by otherwise reliable secondary source. Just because a distasteful source identifies and promotes questionable material, it doesn't mean any other reliable source that uses the same arguments is automatically questionable. Personally I find that article in The Observer a bit "attacky" (The Nature article is much more balanced in my opinion), but I'm not sure we should get to favor one source over another based on personal interpretations. A reliable source is a reliable source, is it not? Rockpocket 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. But I've had to cope with this kind of objection for the last three years in writing animal-rights related material. If the ALF breaks into a lab and finds an animal in a certain condition, takes video, releases it to the media — then no matter what the newspapers write, no matter how they express what happened, we are always at Wikipedia forced to say "here is an image of the animal as the ALF say they found him."
My point about CCF is that it is at least as extreme as any animal rights organization (in terms of the ferocity of its ideas; I'm not suggesting its spokesmen are running around with incendiary devices). And it is possibly even less trustworthy, because animal rights activists don't stand to gain billions of dollars if their ideas are believed. CCF's clients do. So all I'm saying is that we have to treat those kinds of sources with equal skepticism, or distance, especially when it's a BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats a fair point, and I can appreciate the comparison. Rockpocket 06:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)