Jump to content

Talk:David Horrobin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notability

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmorrison (talk • contribs) 11:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "ortho" :
    • [http://www.orthomolecular.org/hof/hof2005.pdf 2005 Orthomolecular Hall of Fame.]
    • [Dummy text]
  • "bibliog" :
    • [http://www.lapinskas.com/publications/dfh_bibliography/ David Horrobin Bibliography] A list of 939 publications including books and many peer-reviewed journal papers, as well as the 114 patents of which David Horrobin was the named inventor.
    • [http://www.lapinskas.com/publications/dfh_bibliography/ David Horrobin Bibliography] A list of 939 publications including books and many peer-reviewed journal papers, as well as the 114 patents on which David Horrobin was the named inventor.
  • "telegraph" :
    • [dummy text]
    • [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/02/db0202.xml Obituary in the Telegraph]

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested comment

Regarding my recent edits, User:Beechnut asked me to explain "why you feel that your edited version is more balanced" (User_talk:Keepcalmandcarryon#David_Horrobin_edit). I'm of the opinion that verifiability should guide our edits more than a desire for balance. However, my edits also emphasise a point of view that has been lacking in recent versions of this biography. David Horrobin was and remains a controversial figure, and the article did not, in my opinion, adequately convey the controversy. Indeed, the lead, previously referenced exclusively with unreliable sources, made it appear that Horrobin was simply an accomplished scientist. In fact, his views on EFAs are not accepted by much of the scientific community.

  • The article stated that Horrobin's obituaries were found in leading journals, giving references to The Lancet and one of Horrobin's journals. I expanded this sentence, naming both journals and mentioning Horrobin's role in the second.
  • The article included editorial commentary and, in my opinion, a slightly inaccurate description of the BMJ obituary flap. At the same time, it did not give a detailed description of why the obituary was controversial. My edits provide this description. Also, while BMJ apologised to Horrobin's family for the manner in which the obit was handled, BMJ did not apologise for the obituary itself and in fact stated that the obituary provided a fair balance of positive and negative from the subject's life. My edits, I feel, correct this.
  • The article provided positive information on Scotia and its precursors, most or all of it bordering on original research, without mentioning the company's fate or any of the controversy surrounding it. My edits added some of this context from a secondary source.
  • The supplement-promoting organisation orthomolecular.org is probably not an appropriate external link or a reliable source.

I hope this clarifies the reasons for my edits. Please let me know if there are further questions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Of course verifiability is key, but within that constraint, we should strive for balance. The view that Horrobin was a snake oil salesman seems in fact to be held by a small minority of people, many of whom are not fatty acid or even medical experts. This is evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of the BMJ obit (written by a journalist with no relevant qualification) in comments made on-line by its readers, by his extensive list of peer-reviewed publications, and by various awards which were conferred by his peers after his death. Under WP:DUE the "snake oil" view should probably not be mentioned. I am inclined to keep it in, but we should make it clear that it is very much a minority view, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Beechnut (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the edits performed and referred to here erred strikingly on the side of bias against Horrobin. The lead was extraordinarily one-sided, the whole feeling of the piece rather sloppy, and clearly intended to bias the reader against the individual whose life is described. The edits were exclusively and sweepingly negative, and amounted to a hatchet-job on the piece, not an addition of other useful information or "balancing". Noncarborundum77 (talk
I tend to agree with most of Keepcalmandcarryon's views in terms of Wikipedia policy and its application here. It is not "balanced" to exclude material from the British Medical Journal and other reliable sources. Nor is it honestly informative to water down the wording of reliable sources because their content conflicts with our personal viewpoint. The article is supposed to summarize the views of reliable sources, in proportion to their weight. Thus, a published obituary in a major, reputable newspaper or journal is a good source for this encyclopedia (as is the apology subsequently published by the BMJ, which we mention several times). Online reader comments and blog commentary are poor sources. I agree that our current article should probably devote more attention to Horrobin's positive accomplishments; perhaps we can work together on that. On the other hand, there are a number of problematic edits here:
  • The lead section is supposed to accurately summarize all relevant aspects of the subject (see WP:LEAD). The current lead fails miserably; at the very least, it should deal with Horrobin's promotion of primrose oil, which several notable and reliable sources discuss as a key element of his notability. No doubt the wording and sourcing can be improved, and it should probably also expound on Horrobin's work on fatty acids in schizophrenia, but the lead needs to be developed further.
  • The word "ouster" was changed to "departure". But the cited source makes clear that Horrobin was ousted against his will in a "boardroom coup". The reader is not well-served by ignoring the content of reliable sources in favor of a misleading, inaccurate editorial gloss.
  • The detail that an investigator working with Scotia was guilty of research fraud has been removed. It should be better sourced, granted - it's mentioned in the Independent obituary, among other places - so I've restored it with reference to an appropriate source.
Accordingly, I've made some of these changes. MastCell Talk 20:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell's changes and the suggestion that the article should be expanded to include additional aspects of Horrobin's accomplishments. Since obituaries customarily operate on the principle de mortuis nil nisi bonum, I will begin looking through secondary sources written prior to Horrobin's death for accurate, verifiable information. I will begin with the Scotia chapter, since Scotia appears to be Horrobin's most notable accomplishment in terms of secondary source coverage. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As regards to the not speaking ill of the dead principle in obits, it signally failed in the case of one notorious obit which was instantly disagreed with by very many persons of note, as is well referenced in the entry. With regard to the "snake oil salesman" it was one obit writer who was not even themselves calling him that, but gesturing at an opinion held by "some". If that deserves to be in the lead sentences for a life, I find the editorial decision curious. Further it is a strange and extreme thing to say that Horrobin was a "snake oil salesman" which is an epithet meaning someone who sells material they know and believe to be ineffective for personal gain. It seems a rather absurdly inappropriate epithet that a person of such high academic credentials who published hundreds of research papers in their life should be described in this nastily pejorative manner, and to include the term in the lead is including an extreme, some would say, slander, and certainly an opinion at an extreme end of views on a controversial figure in the key initial statements. The issue is more than adequately dealt with below. Including it in the lead merely has the effect of prompting the reader to think in this way of the person from the get-go.Noncarborundum77 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
With regard to Keepcalm's Obituary controversy section, I find it interesting that while the BMJ's apology referred to "both the positive and negative aspects" of his career, Keepcalmandcarryon has chosen to cherry-pick only the most extremely negative aspects of what was said in the obituary, and has removed reference to the massive response, which was in fact the most remarkable aspect of the sequence of events, since it was the largest such response ever in the history of the BMJ. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Picking up on Mastcell's comments, I have edited the lead to give a more accurate reflection of Horrobin's life, and I have added references. The main changes are:
  • The opening paragraph refers to the areas for which he is best known. This is subjective and unreferenced, but if we are to keep it, it should mention his primary research area.
  • I have removed references to "promoting primrose oil (sic) as a treatment for various diseases" as this is not an accurate summary of his activities and in any case is from a single source (Caroline Richmond) who may be considered biassed.
  • The licences were not withdrawn because the drugs were ineffective; it was because the data packages did not meet modern standards and the company declined to perform further trials to remedy this. The Independent is mistaken in its reporting. I have added dates to indicate that the withdrawal of licences occurred 4 years after Horrobin left the company.
BTW, I like the section headings introduced by Keepcalmandcarryon - a big improvement. And perhaps the BMJ's interpretation of de mortuis nil nisi bonum was in the strictly legal sense rather than the general one! Beechnut (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The line "Investors were reportedly uncomfortable with the emphasis the company placed on evening primrose oil to the exclusion of other products" is simply not true. The problem was not the overemphasis on one EFA, since the company pursued many diverse products relating to many different EFA compounds, rather the market was more concerned about the diversity, which is what was Dow's justification for slashing the R+D pipeline. One of the lead products, Foscan was a photoreactive anti-cancer treatment which had nothing whatever to do with EPO. Further, the editor who made this change appears unfamiliar enough with the company's history to have stated that primary research was carried out by Efamol, which was the over-the-counter sales firm, and carried out no research in the 1990s at all. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think in general these changes are good. The lead looks much better; it gives actual detail on Horrobin's ideas and why they led him to primrose oil, rather than just saying that he "promoted" it. Definitely an improvement.

As to the difference between "ineffective" and "data packages did not meet modern standards and the company declined to perform further trials to remedy this", well... the BMJ and the Independent are both reputable publications. If they've erred in saying that a lack of efficacy was the root problem, then the best approach would be to contact them directly so that they might correct their errors. We could then, of course, note that correction here. For obvious reasons, we as anonymous Wikipedia editors cannot and should not be in the business of appending our personal "corrections" to generally reliable, independent published sources.

I guess I'm a bit curious what it means for study data to "not meet modern standards"; more to the point, if the data supporting a treatment are strongly questioned by a regulatory agency, and the company in question declines to answer those questions or conduct additional studies, then perhaps a reasonable observer would conclude that the drug is ineffective in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But that's a digression; we should stick to reliable, published sources for Wikipedia's purposes.

Overall, though, I think these are positive changes. They add important detail, particularly about Horrobin's ideas and the positive aspects of his work, and the article is better as a result. MastCell Talk 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Thanks for dropping by again and tidying things up, and thanks for your kind words - we all try! I agree to almost all your changes. It's good to have the benefit of your experience. Just a couple of points I'd like to come back on:
  • Apologies for the failure of the link for the Pharmaceutical Journal reference on efficacy - it linked to the contents page rather than the article itself. The reason I chose it over the BMJ and Independent as a source is that (as per WP:RS) it quotes the MCA directly, whereas the other two are interpretations of what was decided. The language is also more restrained. I think that the difference between the two interpretations is important: the MCA appears to be saying that, whilst the drugs met the data requirements for efficacy when they were first approved, standards have moved on and they no longer do so, i.e. that the goal posts have moved. This is quite different from saying that they don't work. I imagine that the reason for the company not pursuing additional trials was an economic one as they had no patent protection on either product, they were running out of cash, and they had more promising candidates to invest in which were in late-stage development for major diseases. I will therefore reinstate the passage (with the correct reference) and I hope you can agree with my rationale.
  • I am unhappy with the the use of the phrase "over 800 publications, many of which appeared in journals he edited". which is taken from the Independent obituary. The inferred implication (in the context) is that much of his work was unfit to be published elsewhere. Given that he is on the ISI highly-cited list this seems unlikely, and I am concerned that it may mislead readers. The Independent is of course a reputable source, but much of the article was opinion rather than fact, and obviously written by someone who was deeply unimpressed with Horrobin. The BMJ apologised for including a similar statement in its obituary (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/326/7398/1091-f). I don't think it adds to the quality of this article - can we agree to take it out?
Beechnut (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
To which comment I would only add that the very pejorative Independent article was written by the same source, Caroline Richmond, as the controversial BMJ obit. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we note in our article that both obits were by the same writer; I do think that's relevant. I would be fine with switching "many" to "some" as far as the 800 articles; the BMJ alluded to a similar correction, as you note. I think the ISI ranking is obviously relevant and notable; on the other hand, presumably, so is the fact that some of his 800 publications appeared in journals he edited. Surely by noting both facts, the reader will be reasonably informed to make their own judgment?

I do have to take a slightly stronger line about the efficacy issue. Even the Pharm J source (thanks for fixing the link, BTW) uses language much more direct than that which we employ. "The available evidence on the efficacy of gamolenic acid is not sufficient to support licensing." I suppose we could say that the license was withdrawn because of a lack of evidence of efficacy; would that be preferable? I don't think the sources (taken individually or as a whole) support the somewhat legalistic and tortured syntax we currently employ; it seems clear that the product was withdrawn because it lacked sufficient or convincing evidence of efficacy, so we should simply say as much. MastCell Talk 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good - I think we're there. It is beyond dispute that *some* of Horrobin's work was published in his own journals. I am also happy with your proposed wording on efficacy. My main point is that "lack of evidence" is not the same as "doesn't work" and your wording covers that concisely. I have made the changes
Just as background, the efficacy delisting is ironic. The products were unpatented but protected under orphan drug rules - no subsequent generic product application was permitted to make use of their product dossiers for 10 years from initial approval. The MCA approved a generic product (by Norgine) after 6 years and, when challenged, said that they had not needed to use the dossier as they had sufficient evidence of efficacy from GP reports! Scotia took the case all the way to the European Court and won, and the judgement is now part of European caselaw, not that it did Scotia much good. (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/pharmacos/docs/61993j0440.pdf)Beechnut (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of "some", as the only reliable source we know of that mentions this issue (so far) uses "many". Nearly a fifth (Scopus) or 15% (PubMed) of Horrobin's scientific articles appeared in the two journals he founded and edited. Each of these two journals published more Horrobin papers than any other journal; more than twice as many in the case of Medical Hypotheses. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To correct myself, two reliable sources write "many" and one writes "some". We should probably include both to avoid further controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that the two sources which say "many" are the BMJ and Independent obits, and the "some" comes from the BMJ apology? In that case the "many"s were written by the same person and, in the BMJ case, it was corrected to "some". The BMJ is a reliable source, but I would say that we should give more weight to the opinion (because this is subjective) of the editor than that of a contributor. So I would vote for "some". I can't see how using both would work, although you are of course welcome to draft something. Maybe add something in the citation footnote? Beechnut (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Very reasonable. No objections from me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

800 publications?

The ISI link given does not have hyperlinked text. The search terms indicated also do not have a first name, so we're looking for any article by any author named Horrobin. I tried this search on ISI; fewer than 800 articles by any Horrobin came up, not 883. According to ISI, the Horrobin who's the subject of this article published about 340 articles and about 300 more conference abstracts, letters to the editor, etc. Amazing and impressive, but not 883. Of course, both my sleuthing and what was in the article before is what we call original research. Let's just leave it at Horrobin being a highly-cited ISI author (and perhaps explain what that means). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From The Independent: "He published 800 articles and papers, many, it must be said, in his own journals." MastCell Talk 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Keepcalm- Horrobin was absolutely the author or co-author of 883 publications as linked directly from the ISI site (see button near the bottom of the linked page). This is a very remarkable feature of his life, and deserves mention in the biography. While it is true that some of these were published in books or journals he edited, the majority were not, as you will find if you take care to look through the list.Noncarborundum77 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I now understand my initial confusion. The "highly cited" site does indeed list 883 publications, including the books, letters to the editor, etc. that Horrobin wrote or edited. The ISI search engine, it seems, does not include the books and does not include some of the other items on the 883 list. The "highly cited" list is meant to be edited by the highly cited investigators themselves, so that publications ISI would not normally catch are often included.
Scopus, also excluding the books, has 657 publications, including 392 articles, 44 reviews, and 82 "other", most of which are articles. Adding these together would bring us to just over 500 of what would normally be considered scientific articles, and that's exactly what the New Zealand Herald obituary states. For accuracy, our article should reflect that The Lancet, BMJ and The Telegraph mention 800 total publications, while the NZ Herald mentions "over 500 scientific publications".
I find it curious that for some reason, perhaps because Horrobin was best known for his evening primrose oil work, Horrobin's ISI category is "agricultural sciences" rather than "biology and biochemistry", "molecular biology and genetics", "pharmacology" or "pyschology/psychiatry", any would seem to categorise more closely Horrobin's work. Does any of you know if Horrobin published mostly on botany or agriculture, extraction methods of oils, etc.? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't spotted that. As far as I'm aware, Horrobin had little experience in agricultural sciences and was certainly not eminent in the field. He wrote a book on biological control early in his career and co-authored one or two papers which were botanical/agricultural in nature but that's about it. It would seem to be a mistake on the part of the ISI - I will write to them and suggest moving him to Pharmacology. In the meantime, since it is so obviously at variance with his publications list, I suggest we don't mention Agricultural Sciences in the article. Beechnut (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree...except for the strong possibility that Horrobin would no longer be a highly cited scientist were he in category such as pharmacology or biochemistry. From what I can tell, authors in these categories often have thousands of citations to multiple articles, while Horrobin's top-cited articles have hundreds of citations at the most. I would suggest that we either take out the ISI completely or stick with full disclosure. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I have written to ISI so let's leave it as it is and I will revisit it when/if they update their site. Beechnut (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Further to my last post I did write to ISI and they responded: "Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention - we will investigate fully whether Dr. Horrobin is Highly Cited in Agricultural Science or indeed whether he is Highly Cited any category.". I will edit appropriately when/if they amend their website. Beechnut (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Overreliance on one source

Many of the recent edits have relied entirely on a single source, being the obituary by Caroline Richmond. The several references to the Independent article are essentially redundant and rather misleading, since that article simply restates what is said in the BMJ obit. Both are by Caroline Richmond, giving her single source no less than nine (!) references in this article. This is a huge and disproportionate reliance on a source which is quite clearly highly partisan against Horrobin's reputation, and is inappropriate considering the level of controversy this one author has garnered with what many regard as a straightforward character assassination against the subject. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This has now been reduced to 8 references, but the content still very heavily relies on this source. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Selected bibliography

I have added a number of citations to the selected bibliography to try to give a better idea of the breadth of Horrobin's disease research and how it developed over time. I have tried to use single-author review papers in medical journals in which he had no stake, which narrowed the field of choice somewhat, but I feel that the list is an improvement and counterbalances the previous undue emphasis on early books. I have removed the book on diabetic neuropathy (which he edited rather than wrote); the 1997 paper includes later research on the same topic. Beechnut (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scotia vs. Efamol, Overemphasis on Evening Primrose Oil

Keepcalmandcarryon, you appear to be unclear on the history of Horrobin's business structures, repeatedly confusing both the function and naming of the various elements of Horrobin's research and business activities. Your recent edit, for example: "Efamol, which would be renamed Scotia Pharmaceuticals in 1987, was meant to research and market evening primrose oil.[7] Efamol and its successors were active in Nova Scotia, Surrey and Scotland.[5]" is straightforwardly false, since Scotia was not "meant to research and market evening primrose oil", but rather was a far more wide ranging research company than this. There has been some repeated confusion of the branches of the company, Efamol, with Scotia, and something of a fixation on the idea that EPO sales was the only focus of research and activity. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. The research Horrobin conducted was in all aspects of Essential Fatty Acids, not solely GLA (gamma-linolenic acid) which is richly found in EPO. Eicosapentanoic acid (EPA), Docosahexanoic acid DHA, and many others together with the intensely complex biochemical interrelationships formed the targets of Scotia's research, while Efamol focussed on over-the counter sales of EPO, as well as the latterly more important fish oils and other compounds. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In apparent contrast to what seems to be your advantage of personal knowledge, I have no way of judging whether the information in reliable sources is "straightforwardly false". Some of what appears in reliable sources will inevitably be false. That's not our problem on Wikipedia. The best we can do is to present what the reliable sources say, that is, what is verifiable. If we have personal knowledge or original research that appears to contradict the reliable sources, our only recourse is to publish that information in a reliable source so that other Wikipedia editors may use it. My words are taken almost directly from the given sources. If you would prefer, I could quote them directly. A common theme in the reliable secondary sources is the association of Horrobin and Scotia with evening primrose oil. Horrobin and his company, or institute, or holding or whatever you would prefer to call it/them, is best known for its work with evening primrose oil. As an illustrative supporting example, when rival companies began to market gamma-linolenic acid extracted from borage, Horrobin responded in a way indicating it was the evening primrose oil that was important to him, not what he considered to be its active ingredient. See [The Independent, 1994: Horrobin "responded by accusing rivals promoting it of duping women, selling pigs in pokes and marketing 'unstable and potentially toxic products'." (Note also that the resulting loss of market share occurred by 1994). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Snake-oil salesman"

Keepcalmandcarryon seems absolutely determined to place this phrase in the lead. The last time it was replaced, after being removed by two editors several times, the comment was: "Like it or not, this is probably the most quoted and notable thing that has ever been said about Horrobin; it belongs in the lead". That claim appears, forgive me, rather absurd handwaving. On what basis is it claimed that it is the "most quoted and notable thing that has ever been said about Horrobin"? The phrase was only said by one person, Caroline Richmond, after his death at the age of 63. If quotable, it is so only in the tabloid sense of being scurrilous, shocking, misleading, and attention-grabbing. Horrobin lead a very public and large life, and a great deal was said by a great many about him. This phrase is strictly inappropriate to describe this person, since it means someone who is a simple charlatan, who knowingly sells entirely false materials without basis on spurious claims they know to be spurious, to an unsuspecting public for pure personal gain. Just how, if you are so determined that this phrase accurately describes Horrobin, can you maintain this? Is it part of the definition of a snake oil salesman that they are a highly respected scientist who publishes hundreds of peer-reviewed papers? In the face of his obviously tireless, immense, and sincere scientific efforts, publications, and endeavour, this phrase appears mere slander. If you do not consider that it accurately describes him, then what is the need to place it in the lead? To do so merely places the most extreme, tabloidesque statement ever made about the man in the few words describing his prolific life. It serves only to prejudice the reader from the beginning of the piece. It is not omitted. It is quite correctly placed in the section concerning the controversy of the obit, and that is perfectly adequate. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My absolute determination is that this article reflect the coverage of Horrobin in reliable sources, not what a particular editor feels is appropriate, especially when that editor raises so many flags for me in terms of the timing of account creation and strong feelings and opinions about the subject. We need to let ourselves be guided by the reliable sources, not by our emotions or personal knowledge.
Let's go through some of User:Noncarborundum77's corrections to what are called my "misleading edits"
  • "Clarified the business history" This "clarification" removed the verifiably accurate, reliably-sourced account of Horrobin's forcible removal from the executive position by a unanimous vote of Scotia's board, replacing it with a fictional, unsourced description of a resignation and an attempt to pass blame to Dow, the newcomer who by all accounts except Horrobin's simply inherited the Scotia mess. If there are sources stating that Horrobin actually resigned as chief executive, NC77 should provide them so that we can include them alongside, not in place of, the reliable description of the unanimous removal. But as MastCell has said, personal knowledge or opinion is not a substitute for secondary, reliable sources.
  • "It is very much not the function of a lead to finish with the most extreme and likely inappropriate claim ever made about in individual's life!" It certainly is when the offending quote is as notable and often repeated as this one. The "snake oil salesman" quote belongs in the lead, regardless of our personal feelings about its accuracy or fairness. It generated more Horrobin coverage in secondary sources than anything else related to the man other than Scotia itself. It is without doubt the most famous single line ever written about Horrobin. Although written by the same author, it appeared in two independent publications with scrupulous editorial oversight, one an academic journal and the other a respected newspaper. It then sparked a firestorm of controversy for the BMJ that was covered in BMJ itself, in media outlets, in journals, and in at least one popular science book by Susan Allport about "essential fatty acids" (the author, although herself a promoter of the omegas, agrees with the quote and writes that Horrobin's claims "went far beyond their science". Allport is not the only person to agree. A few sources to consult include: [linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095232780400002X Prostaglandins], The Guardian, [www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/.../epo.html Quackwatch]. There are many more. Google links to nearly 400 sources mentioning this quote. We can no more remove this statement from the lead than remove the association, fair or not, of Benedict Arnold and treason from the lead of the biography of the infamous general. Arnold was a businessman, a family man, by all accounts a brilliant military mind and a brave soldier, even a successful dueler, but his name has been irreversibly associated with the concept of treason.
It would appear that you have a similar fate in mind for Horrobin. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Removing the specifics of his primary research field, for which he undoubtedly was best known in the scientific community, is misleading." Secondary sources state that Horrobin was best known for Scotia and his promotion of evening primrose oil. Until a secondary source is presented stating that Horrobin was best known for his scientific research, we cannot make this claim.
  • "Clarified company history." Based upon what? Personal knowledge, recollection, original research? The text claiming that Scotia was the "primary research and development branch of the company, with the marque Efamol being retained for over-the-counter sales of nutritional supplements. Scotia's conducted wide-ranging research in the field of Essential Fatty Acids, while Efamol sold various formulations of plant and fish oils" is not supported by the reference, which states only that Horrobin "set up Efamol, based in Nova Scotia. Several years later, renamed Scotia Pharmaceuticals, it moved to Guildford, Surrey; then, in 1995, to Stirling." Let's go with what the secondary sources say, not more.
  • " the removal of mention of the fact that the independent and BMJ obits were by the same author is deeply misleading". Is it? The authorship information is in the references, and emphasising it with editorial commentary in the text could be construed as synthesis.
  • "Scotia was during most of its history a very succesful company, and most of the problems were NOT under Horrobin's leadership". With this edit, two reliable sources including criticism of Horrobin are removed. Carol Richmond was not the only author to include criticism of Horrobin in an obituary. To say otherwise requires removal of these reliable sources. That's unacceptable. Also, reliable secondary sources written both before and after Horrobin's death emphasise that the problems at Scotia and its predecessors, including Horrobin's wife's position as research manager, the unusual compensation promises to trial doctors, the alleged fraudulent results, alleged suppression of critical studies, alleged failure to publish supporting data, perceived unfocused drug development, perceived undue emphasis on evening primrose oil, reported manipulation of the media to hype or misrepresent developments, disputes over drug versus supplement status, perceived dependance of the company on Horrobin's personality, perceived "burning" through research money thrown at speculative projects, etc., etc., were present under Horrobin, some of them dating back to the early 1980s or before. The reliable sources state that Horrobin brought Dow on board to give the company a new plan and direction, something for which shareholders and the board were clamouring, that investors were more comfortable with Dow, and that the company's existing problems couldn't be solved. We can note that Horrobin accused Dow of running the company into administration, but the business/investment consensus would appear to lay most of the blame at Horrobin's feet.
  • " clarification of detail" Here, the editor replaces "some" with "a minority". A minority means anything from one publication to 49.5%; it's not very informative. The BMJ and the Independent use "many"; later, the BMJ writes "some". We could note use of both of these terms, but for me, "minority" is not a good substitute for either.
  • "clarification of detail to avoid the misleading impression that it was only Horrobin's "friends and family" who responded" From what I've read, neither the BMJ nor the sources covering the dispute state that prominent members of the scientific community who were not friends of Horrobin figured prominently. The previous wording, "including Horrobin's friends and family" is supported by the secondary sources and covers additional contributors without resorting to original research.
  • "This more fairly reflects the situation. The company failed under 3 years of Dow's leadership, not Horrobin's" Again, some problems at Scotia had been apparent for quite some time, as demonstrated by a read of the press coverage. Others, including the events surrounding the fraud charges, while reported under Dow's watch, had transpired long before he arrived at the company. The investment community, from what I've read, would seem to say that Dow at the worst was unable to save a company that had been compromised by a slew of pre-existing conditions.
  • " Why remove this phrase? Horrobin was NOT implicated, and removing it makes it seem he was. Indeed the whole Jamal episode is very oblique to Horrobin's bio" It's not at all oblique to Horrobin's bio, as several obituaries, and not just those by Richmond, mention this problem. Other sources about Horrobin also mention it. Fraud committed under a CEO's watch, fairly or not, always reflects on that CEO. But we do not even make this claim. Still, if NC77 has a reliable source stating that Horrobin and Scotia had nothing to do with Jamal, we could certainly include it.
  • "Moved to a more sensible place in the timeline" The editor should also have noted adding the editorial comment that the company fell apart "under Dow's leadership". I don't see any reliable sources blaming Dow for what happened. In the absence of such sources, Wikipedia shouldn't blame him, either. If I've missed such sources, I would be grateful to NC77 for providing them.
  • "Strikingly divergent from the other obituaries published"...this is pure editorial commentary. As I have noted, several obituaries in addition to Richmond's mentioned the controversy surrounding Horrobin.
  • "compromise on the priority. He may be best known for Scotia in public, but in the scientific community his research on eicosanoids was by far his most famous aspect" If there's a source stating that Horrobin is best known in a particular community for his research, NC77 should provide it so that we can make this claim. Otherwise it will suffice to state, as had been done previously, that he was also a prolific researcher. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Caroline Richmond was not a "colleague" of David Horrobin in any sense whatever. I stand by the statements I made earlier, and find it odd that you appear so obsessed with including this phrase in the lead, when it is fairly included elsewhere. No "original research" is engaged in in this sense, rather the references you quote are entirely internal to the flap created by Richmond. One of the new references you have inserted derives from "Quackwatch" of which Caroline Richmond was a central character, another refers simply to the controversy derived from this obituary. A third links to a generic Wikipedia page with no information whatever. The sources provided are wholly insufficient to make your case, and you have introduced no argumentation which addresses the critiques given previously. What is the obsession with inclusion of this extreme description in the initial passages when it is adequately dealt with in the body text? Noncarborundum77 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Subsequent to reflection, re-added controversial edit. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, NC77 did not re-add the removed sources or the note of Richmond as a colleague. On what basis does NC77 make the categorical statement that Richmond was in no way a colleague of Horrobin? From the BMJ, Richmond "worked for MTP as an editor". MTP was the publishing house Horrobin founded, and through which he published many of the books he wrote and edited. In addition to being an editor, we also know, from the reliable source I added below, that Richmond is a master's level scientist, a laboratory researcher and a science writer. The word "colleague" denotes the sharing of a profession. As editors, science writers and researchers, Richmond and Horrobin were thus colleagues. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another round of explanations:

  • “corrected non-biographical content” Editor replaces what the source says (Jamal had participated in developing Efamol and led a trial) with a statement that Jamal was “involved in a trial on behalf of Scotia”
  • “Efamol and Tarabetic were distinct” Editor contradicts the information in the source, which states that Tarabetic was also known as Efamol. Other sources in the article also state that Jamal’s fraud was committed during a trial of Efamol.
  • “The reference does not support this adjective” The reference states that the changes were not significant. Surely “insignificant” is an appropriate summary? If not, a direct quote could be used.
  • “Removed dead wiki reference” Not a big deal, but the idea of redlinks is that someone will be prompted to create an article about the subject.
  • Concerning the new obituary quotes supplied by NC77, they could certainly be introduced in a more appropriate place in accordance with their notability in reliable sources. Clearly, the Richmond quote is notable, while these are not so notable. There’s also no reason to have the Richmond quote and obituary controversy covered both in the first and last paragraphs of the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Richmond Obits (both of them) vs. other obits

While Keepcalm is correct that Richmond's obit was not the only one to include critique, this is not worth noting in the controversy section, since these were predominantly positive, and essentially all obituaries include, as part of the remit, some negative commentary, or notation of the flaws in character. Who, after all, is perfect? It is part of the function and standard structure of obits to do this. However, the Richmond obit was strikingly dissimilar to the usual sort, being almost monomaniacally negative. Even the positive statements were nearly invariably undercut by kicker statements, and the most praising aspects could easily be seen be carefully dovetailed with the overall overwhelming impression of an agenda to paint the character of Horrobin in an extremely unflattering light. Including any reference to further negative commentary must therefore be balanced, if at all, with at least as much positive commentary. This is simply unnecessary. The non-Richmond pieces speak well enough for themselves as balanced obituaries, if the reader cares to follow the external links. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, however, essential that it is clear that the Independent obit was written by Caroline Richmond, the BMJ author, as simply stating it was also very negative without noticing this fact serves to mislead the reader into thinking that Richmond's was not an isolated voice. In terms of the extremely negative and unbalanced views she voiced, it was. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to support a statement about Richmond with reliable sources. Otherwise, you engaging in original research in calling Richmond "an isolated voice". She was not then and is not today, as many reliable sources show. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen (or ladies) - this seems to be heading towards an edit war (WP:EW) which is, of course, counter to Wikipedia policy. Could I suggest that we hold off on changing each others edits and see whether we can reach consensus so that any changes made will stick. We can then avoid a visit from a Rouge Admin WP:ROUGE, stop wasting each others time and get on with our lives.

To kick things off, I offer the following analysis of some of the issues. I will post it in chunks so that you can respond in the appropriate place rather than at the end. I will also explicitly refer to WP guidelines and policy, not because I am trying to push my POV or be condescendiing but so that you can better follow (and check) my reasoning and because it doesn't do any of us any harm to refresh our minds. Beechnut (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The obituaries and (quotes therefrom) appears to be the most contentious issue. I feel that our guide here should be that of 'reliable souces' WP:RS. I think we can all agree that the BMJ and the Independent are reliable sources within that definition. The guidelines do however distinguish between statements of fact in a reliable source, and opinions published in the same source (WP:RS section 'Statements of opinion'). My interpretation of the wording (which is not entirely clear) is that a source may be reliable for facts; reliable for the fact that the author of a particular article holds a particular opinion; but the actual opinion is no more reliable than the status of the person expressing it. In other words, the author inherits the reliability status of the publication for statements of fact but must stand on his own merit for statements of opinion. The guideline goes further and explicitly states that: "When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." However, as I have said, the wording is not entirely clear so please post if you disagree with my interpretation, in which case we can ask for an adjudication. Beechnut (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, I would suggest that the obituaries are all a mixture of fact and opinion. For statements of fact (e.g. born in 1939), the obituaries are reliable sources and we can incorporate their statements into the article as we think appropriate. For statements of opinion (e.g. "he was handsome and charming") we have to look at the status of the author, giving less weight to statements in articles which are unsigned. The policy on verifiability WP:V is helpful on suitable sources. It says that "exceptional claims require high-quality sources". The snake-oil claim is certainly exceptional, especially in the context of an obituary of a well-known scientist and businessman, so can we consider Richmond to be a high-quality source? A little research reveals that she is a journalist rather than a scientist and that (judging from the elementary mistakes in both her obituary and corrections thereto) she has no significant expertise in the field which Horrobin studied. Her views do not therefore seem to me to be of any real value in judging his scientific contribution. Beechnut (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

She reserved her most scathing attacks for his business activities and personal values, and no particular qualifications may be needed as a source if they reflect a consensus amongst reliable sources. I googled "Horrobin snake.oil" and of the 591 hits I checked the first 50 (there was only one relevent hit in the last ten, so that probably covers most of them). I found:

18 hits where the search terms were unrelated in the text
5 hits were the original BMJ and Independent articles or direct copies
4 hits were duplicates
2 hits were broken or password protected
1 hit was the Wikipedia article

That leaves 20 hits:

8 hits reported the obituary and the controversy without expressing a view
5 hits reported the obituary and the controversy and criticised it
4 hits reported it favourably, namely:
Quackwatch (a pressure group)
Queen of fats (a nutrition book for laymen)
The Telegraph
The Guardian
3 hits used the term outside the context of the obit, of which:
1 hit used it neutrally in the contect of Scotia
1 hit used it negatively of Horrobin (a letter to the BadScience blog)
1 hit used it of EPO in positive context

So the consensus of the views agreeing with the obituary appears to comprise of two journalists (note, not newspapers - they are expressing an opinion), a book author, a pressure group and a letter to a blog, none of which are noteworthy in their own right. There does not therefore seem to me to be a sufficient basis for repeating Richmonds views in the article, and this would be in accordance on the 'undue weight' policy (WP:DUE). Beechnut (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On the above analysis, the opinions of Richmond should not be included, but that is not the end of the story. Her opinions may not be suitable in their own right, but the fact that they were printed in an obituary in a reputable medical journal and that there was a substantial controversy may well be, and this is a separate issue. I think that none of us dispute the facts of the matter, which are on the record, so we need to decide whether it is relevent to an understanding of Horrobin's life. It is arguable that it is not - the fact of the dispute is primarily about the BMJ's (and Independent's) editorial policy and Horrobin is incidental to this (though clearly not to the comments themselves, but I have addressed that above). However, I am inclined to include it, if only because if we don't, someone will come along later and add it, so we might as well agree the form of words now. You may however disagree. Beechnut (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If we agree to include the obits (and we accept the above analysis) then we have to consider that we are describing the dispute, not giving weight to Richmond's opinions. We will need to consider the balance and should be guided by the policy on neutral point of view WP:ASF: "In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity." That's probably enough for now, and I look forward to your comments. If we can agree on the principles, maybe then we can start to put some words and references together. Beechnut (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems to be heading towards an edit war (WP:EW) - really? The article history page doesn't support this assertion. Shot info (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The quote from Richmond should certainly be included in the lead, as i have explained before. I have added references supporting the notability of this quote, all of which have been summarily deleted by NC77 before I could expand them. I will gladly add more references if needed, and I will gladly withdraw my argument if NC77 or anyone else provides evidence that any other single quote about Horrobin has received as much coverage in reliable sources. In contrast to the Richmond quote, "father of the biotechnology industry" and "one of Britain's finest thinkers" are just the sort of pablum one typically finds in laudatory obituaries of the rich and famous, a reason why Wikipedia biographies are not intended to be obituaries. Richmond, in contrast, and the BMJ as a matter of policy, have tended to produce editorials with more balance than has traditionally been accepted. And Richmond has been praised for this in a text on obituaries, "Life after death: the art of the obituary‎" by Nigel Starck, 2006...a text that provides yet another source for the notability of the obituary controversy.
As for an edit war, what we have here is a single-purpose account set up solely to edit this article and to replace edits from reliable sources with unsourced and unverified edits based apparently on personal knowledge or original research. And to insult established editors along the way. It should come as no surprise when removal of sources, potentially inaccurate and unsourced edits and violations of WP:WEIGHT by an editor who raises recruitment, conflict and civility flags are reverted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would seem that the accusations and civility issues are not one-sided. As to many of your edits, I would certainly contend that they violate WP:WEIGHT, since they concentrate quite strikingly upon the negative aspects of Horrobin's career, while carefully undermining positive aspects. As to referencing, you complained that I reversed edits which you had not had time fully to reference. This is an interesting statement, since your reversions of my edits can be viewed in the same light precisely. As to comments on this page, I was not aware that they required full referencing. If you wish I will do so in future. Some of your words above, such as "the sort of pablum one typically finds in laudatory obituaries of the rich and famous" appear to reveal what I have perceived to be your prejudice quite well. You certainly use the phrase "rich and famous" in a pejorative tone here, is that what you find objectionable about Horrobin? Perhaps you are among those who consider that no nutritional supplement should ever be considered to be associated with mainstream medicine? Those at Quackwatch, and Healthwatch, as well as Ben Goldacre appear to share just such a prejudice, and have campaigned tirelessly against the use of supplementation as therapy. This POV is disputed, and the issue is very far from settled. Your heavy usage of references from these sources, which are nakedly antagonistic to Horrobin's whole approach to medicine, is problematic, and at the least should be balanced or noted. To return to the quotation whose significance you were denigrating, actually very few persons are credited in respected publications with such a phrase as "one of Britain's finest thinkers". The actual quote was: "one of Britain's finest original thinkers in medicine". A Google search for this turns up ONLY the Horrobin quote. A search for "one of Britain's finest original thinkers" results in the the same. A search for "one of Britain's finest thinkers" results in no hits at all. Making the quote very unusual indeed. Rarer still is an individual who is both "rich and famous" as well as credited with being a fine original thinker of any sort. Much less a highly published and cited scientist. You seem to like to call publications such as the Independent, "highly respected" when it suits your POV, and denigrate other equally respected publications as above, when it does not suit your particular take on a subject's character. As to the "snake oil" quote, the mere existence of a great deal of coverage is not particularly significant. The quotation was noteworthy for its tabloidesque extremity, unusual in such a context. Such events generate media flaps, which is what occurred. Of course the "flap" also occurred because the comment generated so much disapproving and dissenting further commentary. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok - not an edit war :-) However, I am pleased to see that we have moved on from that flurry of edits and counter-edits.
Clearly we cannot say in the article that the snake-oil phrase is the most oft-repeated or well-known description of Horrobin - that would be original research, unless backed up by a reliable source saying that it is. We are however allowed to use research to determine whether it has been widely used of him, and hence test whether it's use has been notable. Reading through the the references, the use of the phrase in the obituary has been reported in a number of reputable sources, some of which have indicated surprise at its use (without necessarily indicating whether thay agree or disagree with it). I can believe that there has also been a lot of discussion elsewhere about the nature of obituaries, and the use of the phrase may well be notable in such a context. This supports the argument for including the obituary controversy in the article and I think that the three of us (including Keepcalmandcarryon and Noncarborundum77) are in agreement on doing this. However, this does not (I think) undermine my argument above that the phrase is an assertion of opinion by a journalist. I have been able to find no evidence that this view is widespread amongst reliable sources. In fact, the only reputable individual who is in agreement with the statement appears to be the editor of the BMJ, and he is a leading party to the controversy. I would argue therefore that non-factual quotes from her obituary should only be used in the context of the controversy, not in the main description of Horrobin's life and work. Beechnut (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
As I trust the text and newly-added sources now convey, Richmond and the editor of the BMJ are not the only individuals who held or hold the opinion that Horrobin was, as the Press Complaints Commission repeats, "in some ways a charlatan". According to the US FDA, investigator Stephen Barrett, columnist Ben Goldacre of The Guardian, omega-3 author Susan Allport and others, including, apparently, quite a few investment advisors, Horrobin's science did not always support his claims and business activities. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I accept that Richmond and the BMJ editor were not the only people to hold this view. Most of the sources you quote are included in the list I gave above. The question is: is there sufficient support from high-quality sources for us to consider her views to be worthy of inclusion on their own merit (as opposed to being part of the obit controversy). Let's enumerate:
Reliable sources
Richard Smith - editor of the BMJ
Not reliable sources
Richmond herself - a journalist with no qualification in the field
Stephen Barrett - campaigner against alternative medicine
Ben Goldacre - columnist in the Guardian
Susan Allport - science writer
In the other camp, there were a far greater number of equally 'not reliable' sources directly opposing the sentiments of the obituary in the responses which the BMJ published, the three follow-up obituaries and the other non-Richmond obituaries.
(The PCC judgement by the way is undoubtedly high-quality, but my reading of it is perhaps different from yours - the words "in some ways a charlatan" appear in a paragraph describing the BMJ response and are therefore the BMJ editor's words rather than the PCC's. In support of this interpretation, in the adjudication they say "The Commission ... made clear that it was not in a position to make a reasoned or fully-informed judgement as to the veracity of the claims".)
I believe that it could only be justified to use a quote as extreme as "may prove to be the greatest snake-oil salesman of all time" in the lead section, where it will inevitably be associated with Horrobin himself (regardless of the other words around it) if we had demonstrated that there was a consensus of informed opinion. This is clearly not the situation. Beechnut (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of any further comments, I assume that we have reached consensus and so I am removing the "snake-oil" quote from the lead section. Beechnut (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been that active, and I don't think Keepcalmandcarryon has been either. I think a lot of the wholesale changes being made in tandem by you and Noncarborundum are moving this article away from neutrality, and are instead putting a positive spin on virtually everything. That's a bad thing, because you're substituting your own spin on events for the coverage and tone in reliable sources. Furthermore, your division of "reliable" vs. "unreliable" sources is highly dubious from my perspective. Material published in the Guardian is generally reasonable for inclusion; Richmond's writing - like anyone's - is suitable for inclusion where it has been published by a reputable source; and so on. I've generally found it fruitless to try to get a word in during periods of frenetic editing, as the article is currently undergoing. But while I think you've made many positive changes, the overall direction of this article is currently concerning, in that it's veered toward whitewashing the actual content of reliable sources in favor of a positive editorial spin on everything. MastCell Talk 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi MastCell, welcome back. I too found it fruitless to try to edit amongst all the flurry, so I tried to reach agreement on this page on at least some issues, starting with the inclusion of the snake-oil quote in the lead. If you read back in this section, you will see the case I am putting forward for its removal and I would welcome your comments. I agree with you that factual material published in, say, the BMJ is reliable. But opinion published in the BMJ is no more reliable than the holder of that opinion. This is taken from WP:RS under the "News organizations" section, where it appears in bold type.
This page had remained stable for several years after a previous round of disputed edits. This round of editing started when KeepCalm made a series of edits moving the balance towards the Richmond view. I can't answer for Noncarborundum, but most of my edits have been reactive to those. However, I am not attempting to whitewash anything. It's just that your view and my view of what is neutral may differ. But we can, with goodwill on all sides, discuss that and reach a position acceptable to both/all of us. Beechnut (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things about your quote from WP:RS. First of all, an obituary is a bit different from an op-ed. More to the point, you've misquoted. It categorically does not say that opinion pieces are no more reliable than the opinion of their authors. It says: "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Obviously, it is not a "fact" that Horrobin was or was not a "snake-oil salesman" - that is self-evidently a statement of opinion - so I don't see it running afoul of WP:RS. I am completely fine with in-text attribution ("an obituary in the BMJ stated...") I hope you believe that I'm interested in a balanced article, but I think we can best achieve that balance by respecting the content (and tone) of reliable sources rather than by offering an editorial spin on each of them. MastCell Talk 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for not exactly quoting WP:RS - I should have cut and pasted it - but it wasn't my intention to change the meaning. Actually, I don't think that we are far apart on this. I agree that an obit is a bit different from an op-ed, but not I think so different when it comes to expressions of opinion. We agree that the 'snake-oil salesman' comment (and presumably other similar ones) are statements of opinion rather than fact. We agree that, because these comments appear in a reputable source, we can rely on them as being the opinions of the author (rather than, for instance, her being misquoted). We agree (I think - correct me if I'm wrong) that the Richmond obituaries were notable for both the language which they used and the controversy which they caused and that they should be included in the article. Where I think we disagree may be the level of prominance which we should give to the opinions of this author. My feeling is that we should quote freely from her in the context of the controversy, but that her opinions as expressed do not merit inclusion in the lead section, any more than the positive opinions expressed in the other obituaries. I think that the place for both is in the obit section. Beechnut (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Beechnut, I respectfully submit that you may be confusing the issue, which is not the veracity of Richmond's statement, nor the number of people who agree with her, nor the "reliability" of the individuals who agree or disagree. Rather, the issue is whether or not her statement is something that is notably associated with David Horrobin. With 12 reliable sources in the article for the controversy, more sources than for any other single bit of information, and with most of these sources quoting the "snake oil salesman" statement, this is for better or worse the one sentence most closely associated with David Horrobin. You're correct, we can't make that claim in the article without confirmation in a reliable source. But we also can't ignore the fact of its notability by insisting, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, that the statement must be a "fact" if we are to include it in the lead.

As an aside, I would also caution you to take care calling living persons "not reliable sources". Each of the sources you list is a reliable source for the purposes of this article. Wikipedia specifically names Goldacre's column as an example of a reliable source on science and medicine-related topics. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. If I understand you correctly, if the 'snake-oil' statement was not notably associated with Horrobin, you would be happy to remove it from the lead. Let me explain why I consider that it is not so associated.
It is my contention that the reason why the phrase became widely quoted was not because of an association with Horrobin, but because it appeared in a BMJ obituary about a notable scientist and businessman - it could have been anyone, but it just happened that Horrobin was one of the first individuals to fall under the editor's new obituary policy. The BMJ is a respected medical journal whose circulation (100,000 per week in the UK) is smaller than that of The Independent (197,000 per day), a national newspaper. There are, as you point out, quite a number of references to the statement in the BMJ, but I cannot find a single reference to it appearing in the Independent. I say that this is because in the BMJ it was shocking and there was a huge controversy. Those are the notable features and it's repetition is incidental to Horrobin as an individual. What do you say?
There are also other reasons why I believe the phrase should be removed from the lead:
1) "Snake-oil salesman" is possibly the most damning thing which could be said about an individual such as Horrobin as it means that he not only sold products which did not work to sick people but that he did so knowingly, for personal profit. It is an extreme claim, and extreme claims require substantial evidence. But there is very little evidence that I am aware of and what there is is not high quality. WP is not in the business of promulgating the unsubstantiated minority views of disgruntled ex-employees.
2) If Horrobin was alive it is vanishingly unlikely that the statement would have been published by the BMJ or the Independent as it is clearly libellous, and it would have been immediately deleted from any WP article because of WP:BLP. I understand that the criteria in WP:BLP also apply (less strictly) to the dead, so this is relevent.
3) Richmond was not an independent commentator. She worked for him, and considered herself to have been snubbed by him (he "didn't remember me"). She is also a founder of Healthwatch UK, a campaigning organisation which promotes the use of conventional clinical trials and is in part funded by pharmaceutical companies. Horrobin attacked the philosophical basis of clinical trials, peer review and the medical establishment.
4) WP:LEAD says that the lead "should not "tease" the reader by hinting at — but not explaining — important facts that will appear later in the article". The snake-oil quote is just one aspect of the whole obituary controversy. It is not sufficient to mention this aspect in isolation from all the other aspects.
WP:BLP (in the context of the deceased) says: "The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material." You want to include the quote in the lead; it is for you to justify it against each of the arguments I have made above. Simply reverting (however respectfully) doesn't cut it. Beechnut (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your caution about living persons. I think that they could probably work out for themselves that I was using the term 'not reliable' strictly in the WP definition, because they are expressing their opinions as individuals not as representatives of organisations (as the BMJ editor does). The Goldacre column is certainly reliable as to facts and statements concerning his opinions, because it appears in the Guardian; his opinions have to stand on their own merits - this isn't rocket-science. Beechnut (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no evidence Richmond felt "snubbed" by Horrobin's forgetfulness, and your implication that Richmond was attempting to smear Horrobin because of some sort of organisation tie is synthesis at best. I would advise you to stop, now, and not impute ugly motivations to living persons ("disgruntled", etc.) in the absence of clear evidence. As for the Goldacre column, it is reliable for more than the opinions of its author; please see WP:MEDRS, where the column is specifically mentioned.
In response to your points:
  1. As I've stated repeatedly, the truth of the allegation is irrelevant. However, this was not merely the view of a single, "disgruntled" ex-employee. The BMJ and the Independent, different sorts of publications but both with reputable editorial oversight, allowed the publication of the statement. The BMJ did not correct or retract the statement in the face of withering attacks, including what could be termed a public relations campaign, from Horrobin's family and friends. The BMJ went so far as to call Horrobin "in some ways a charlatan", and the PCC chose this phrase to quote directly in its report. Your implication that this phrase is associated only with Richmond and a single editor at BMJ is simply wrong; many people had their fingers in this pot and either agreed or did nothing to stop the boiling.
  2. Were David Horrobin alive (and, in my opinion, even now) it would be wrong to write "David Horrobin, a snake-oil salesman..." It would not be and is not in violation of WP:BLP to attribute such a view to a publication, writer, etc., if that view is notable. Indeed that view is notable, and Richmond's choice of words, as I have demonstrated, is probably the most oft-repeated phrase about Horrobin. No real or theoretical BLP violation.
  3. Irrelevant. The personal motivations of the source of the most notable quote about a person are speculation and irrelevant.
  4. The quote, in addition to being the most notable thing ever said about Horrobin, is also at the heart of the controversy. Why was the obituary so shocking? Because Richmond said Scotia failed or said Horrobin's enemies didn't like him? No: it was controversial because she called him a snake-oil salesman. That's not teasing; it's giving the reader the important goods. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that you did not answer my principle argument against including the 'snake-oil' quote in the lead section (namely that it is notable because it appeared in a BMJ obituary, not because of its association with Horrobin). I presume that this was an oversight, because if you accept this, we should remove the phrase from the lead, and the other arguments are unnecessary.
I accept that it is a supposition on my part that Richmond was disgruntled. However, if she was not disgruntled, I would be interested to see how she would express herself if she was.
Turning to the numbered points:
  1. We are deciding whether to include this phrase in the lead section, not whether it should appear at all (it should). We therefore have to use our editorial judgement as to whether this phrase represents an important part of the life of this man (i.e. that he was a snake-oil salesman). I think therefore that we do have to care whether it is true - would you consider (hypothetically) including a quote in the lead of an article if you knew it to be false? The fact that it is a controversial claim does not make it more acceptable in the lead - quite the reverse.
  2. You might like to reread the 'Criticism and Praise' section of WP:BLP. Even if I were to accept that this is the most notable phrase about Horrobin (which I don't), including it in the lead without representing other points of view by similar quotes gives Richmond's view undue weight (WP:UNDUE).
  3. I'm not talking about motivation, I am talking about whether she is a disinterested and neutral commentator - her background would suggest not.
  4. You wrote: "Why was the obituary so shocking? Because Richmond said Scotia failed or said Horrobin's enemies didn't like him? No: it was controversial because she called him a snake-oil salesman." Exactly. It was notable because the phrase appeared in a BMJ obituary. It would have been just as notable if it had been said in the BMJ about any well-known scientist/entrepreneur. But when she said it about Horrobin in the Independent it wasn't notable. I think that makes my case - it's notable because of the controversy, not the man himself.
Beechnut (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The phrase is notable and worthy of inclusion here because it was about Horrobin and appears to be one of the most notable single phrases ever written about him. It also generated significant controversy. That it appeared in the BMJ (with a slightly modified version in The Independent) certainly doesn't detract from the notability, but it's not the sole source. You're welcome to present other phrases written about Horrobin that have been quoted more often or have received similar coverage; if there are five or six of them, I will withdraw my contention that this is one of the most notable phrases written about him.
Again, whether the phrase is true or false matters no more than your apparently quite negative personal opinion of Caroline Richmond. The important thing for Wikipedia purposes is that the phrase was published, it was about Horrobin, and it was notable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You said: "The important thing for Wikipedia purposes is that the phrase was published, it was about Horrobin, and it was notable.". That's why it should be in the article. It was notable when said in the BMJ but it was not notable in the Independent: the notability comes primarily from the controversy not Horrobin. That's why it should not be in the lead. Beechnut (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, when you present five or six phrases about Horrobin that have engendered anywhere close to the level of citation and coverage achieved by this quote, I will gladly discuss whether it should remain in the lead. In the absence of such evidence, the Richmond quote appears to be the most notable thing ever said about Horrobin and thus belongs in the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not how I see it. The phrase is notable because of the controversy. If it had not been controversial, it wouldn't have been notable. The BMJ editor was using Horrobin as one of the first examples of his new policy of including negative comments in BMJ obituaries. The obituary was controversial because so many people disagreed with it. The lead should be about Horrobin, not about the BMJ's editorial policy.
As I noted above "WP:BLP (in the context of the deceased) says: "The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material." Beechnut (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Technically, the lead, like the article in general, should not be "about" Horrobin; it should be about what reliable sources say or said about Horrobin. The lead should summarise the article; one sentence describing the heart of the obituary controversy and including the single most notable phrase about Horrobin is not at all excessive. The lead could stand a slight expansion to mention specifically the fraud and illegal importing issues, since these are currently absent. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. We're not making much progress here. As I am relatively inexperienced at WP editing I have asked for some guidance at WP:Editor assistance/Requests (section 88). I have tried not to misrepresent your position as I understand it - apologies if I have. Beechnut (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have had one response to my request saying, basically, "it depends". As you know, I disagree with your arguments for including the phrase in the lead (as you do with mine for leaving it out). In order to move forward I am prepared to leave it in, alongside a balancing quote - otherwise one side of the controversy is being given undue weight. I have inserted one from the Press Gazette. See what you think. Beechnut (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The Richmond quote was notable and was about Horrobin, regardless of how you feel about its veracity. Giving a Press Gazette assessment of the opinion of the PCC about the BMJ's response to the response to the obituary (which, in my opinion, doesn't appear to be supported by the PCC document itself) is not "a balancing quote". It is, as MastCell stated, an attempt at whitewash. As you have noted previously, this article is about Horrobin and notable things said about him. Tertiary or quaternary quotes about obituaries do not belong in this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with removing the words from the lead, 'Maverick' is more repeated about Horrobin than 'snake oil salesman', no cites back up the opinion that 'snake oil salesman' is most noted. The lead should not have teasers.86.3.142.2 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given the citations for the notability of "snake oil salesman", while the IP sockpuppets of User:Wiki alf have given no evidence. The sentence is not a teaser, it is the heart of the obituary controversy and also represents a significant opinion about the subject. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see your citation(s) for the notability of "snake oil salesman", please point to it/them. Whereas Google scholar for ""David Horrobin" "oil salesman"" does find 12 results and ""David Horrobin" maverick" a mere 11, General results for ""David Horrobin" Maverick" are 485 and ""David Horribin" "oil salesman"" a mere 124.(The editor formerly known as Alf (User:Wiki alf) on a computer somewhere other than his home.)163.1.147.64 (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"David Horrobin" "Controversial" gives 168 hits on Google Scholar and 806 on Google web. Maybe we should go with that? Beechnut (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"David Horrobin" and "the" gives 54,700 hits. But I though we were discussing a phrase, not a word. The sources I have given, and which Wiki alf and sockpuppets ignore, demonstrate that the snake oil phrase is notably and controversially associated with Horrobin, perhaps more so than any other phrase...unless we consider "the", "maverick" and "controversial" to be phrases. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to point me to the sources you have given and you didn't, please at least tell me on which page your sources were provided that snake oil salesman is indeed the centre of the issue, so that I may also see the sources which centre the controversy around snake oil salesman. I mention Maverick as being more associated because that is what the searches yield, so without a pointer I don't see how snake oil salesman can be the centre of the controversy, not being ignorant at all, please point me.(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wikki alf] not logging in)86.3.142.2 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does it have to be a phrase? Beechnut (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Staycalmandcarryon, I have reinstated the PCC comment to the lead section and would like to make the following points:
  1. Please don't revert my edits, especially when they are under discussion. WP:Edit warring#Reverting specifically says: "Especially, reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree, or to fight battles or make a point." I am not reverting your edits - let's do this by discussion.
  2. The BMJ obituary was controversial. How better to demonstrate that than by a quote from the PCC that it contained "character assassination"?
  3. The Press Gazette is a reliable source. They say "The PCC, however, found the correction originally offered left uncorrected the "character assassination" of the original article...". I agree that the PCC judgement as cited in the article uses those words in a different context, but the Press Gazette may be drawing from other sources (such as press releases) which are not available online. We have no evidence to suggest that the Press Gazette is wrong.
  4. You are dismissive of my attempts to ensure that all reasonable points of view are represented in this article, calling them "whitewash". You might like to read WP:WEIGHT.
If you are still unable to agree to either removing "snake oil" from the lead, or adding a quote which gives some weight to opposing views then I propose that we take this to mediation. Would you agree to that? Beechnut (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Noting also that "angered Horrobin's friends and family by portraying negative as well as positive aspects of Horrobin's life" is attributed to the BMJ obit, which is (obviously) just plain wrong and needs fixing.(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
In the judgement from the PCC, it says: "The complainant made clear that his complaint was not about the publication of legitimate criticism but of unjustified slander. " Beechnut (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
In spite of my request, Keepcalm, you have reverted my PCC quote in the lead section again, with the cryptic comment "rm edit per WP:LEAD". Would you like to expand on that? You have reverted this edit twice now - assuming that you don't believe my edit to be vandalism, which overiding policy do you consider that you are enforcing (per WP:3RR)? Beechnut (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:STICK and WP:HEAR come to mind. I'm sorry to be rude, but I occasionally become testy when faced with the prospect of explaining Wikipedia policy-based edits to an agenda editor for the fourth time. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Good points. Since, I think, that a majority of editors who have commented consider that either that snake oil should be dropped from the lead or have an additional phrase to give due weight to both viewpoints, I trust that you won't revert it again. Beechnut (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, and the lead already contains positive and negative viewpoints from the obituaries. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed not. I merely mention it to indicate that it is you who is flogging the dead horse by continuing to revert my edit which has some third party support. The lead does contain positive and negative viewpoints from the obituaries. However the snake oil quote is an extreme instance from the controversy and specifically requires some context to avoid undue weight. If the quote is omitted, I would of course agree to the removal the "character assassination" quote from the lead. You have now reverted this edit four times. I suggest that we take this to mediation. Do you agree? Beechnut (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that Keepcalm has reverted my edit for the fifth time without responding to my request for mediation. Beechnut (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
And a sixth time. Keepcalm is clearly not going to accept my compromise suggestion of adding a rider to the quote in the lead, so I go back to my original position, that the snake-oil quote should not be in the lead because it gives undue weight to one side of the controversy. Yes the quote is notable and yes, it is about Horrobin. But it is not notable because it is about Horrobin. It is notable (as I have demonstrated) because its use in a BMJ obituary was shocking. It therefore belongs in the obituary section. Beechnut (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The purportedly compromise suggestion is to add "balance" in the form of a misrepresented quote. That's not balance and it's not NPOV. There is already appropriate balance in the lead in that this same paragraph mentions the references to positive aspects of Horrobin's life, then mentions the controversy and the notable quote. As I've said before, the quote also represents a significant opinion about Horrobin, who engaged in illegal or quasi-illegal drug importing and marketing; hyped a pleasant-sounding drug with unsupported claims; refused to share research data per academic convention; engaged in legal means to silence his critics; and presided over a company brought down by fraud and drug licence withdrawals.
There's no need for mediation. I abhor having to revert again and again, but as I said before, I am not going to allow an agenda editor to introduce synthesis, information irrelevant to Horrobin and sources like letters to the editor. If you insist on mediation, or any other course of action, you are certainly welcome to go ahead, but I would suggest that you first examine your motivations and conflicts and consider whether you want a full discussion of your editing history and ties. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been very patient whilst you packed this article with all the negative material you could find. The view which you so eloquently expound above is just one view. It is one which you obviously subscribe to and it is quite clear that you have no intention of allowing any other view to be expressed. You have reverted all of my edits for the last few weeks and now you are threatening me if I seek to call in a third party for adjudication. Now *that* is agenda editing. Just out of interest, are there in fact any edits which I could I make to this article which you would not immediately revert? Beechnut (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this is not actually my problem, it is Wikipedia's. I have followed all the rules, as best I could, engaged in discussion rather than edit warring and attempted to find common ground on at least some aspect of the article. Keepcalm has done the opposite, resulting in an article which now entirely reflects his point of view. It is not even encyclopedeic in tone, being filled with the most sensational quotes he could find through bottom-trawling his sources. It is now little more than an attack article on someone who is in fact considered by some to be an eminent scientist. I don't believe that the AOCS would give its top award to someone they considered to be a charlatan who faked his data. He was't perfect, he was controversial, but the article as it now stands gives a very distorted picture.

I really hadn't expected Wikipedia to be like this. I don't need this level of aggression in my life so I'm leaving the project. I am at least a little wiser - now I know how WP articles are put together I will treat them with the appropriate degree of scepticism. Beechnut (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Faulks, Crow, Schizophrenia and EFAs

In recent edits the protests of Tim Crow about the origin of Horrobin's ideas was highlighted, however Horrobin, as the same editor acknowledges higher in the article, had begun active research in this area more than two decades previously, and so cannot be accused of straight plagiarism, as Crow appears to have alleged.

Recent edits concerning business history, in particular failure of Scotia

Many of the recent edits by Keepcalm concerning the history of Scotia paint an excessively dark picture. The company nexus of Scotia and Efamol was very successful during 21 years of its history, and Efamol remains a successful company today. The deep decline of Scotia did indeed occur under Robert Dow's leadership, not Horrobin's, and Horrobin is recorded to have protested at the management strategies of Dow. Efamol was the one company to survive the Scotia wreckage, and remains a healthy concern today. It also spent the minimum time under Dow's administration, since Dow sold it out of the group as soon as was practicable. And yes, this is all public domain well referenced material. The manner in which Scotia failed was in fact very typical of the Biotech industry of that period. It was indeed rare to vanishing that a biotech truly succeeded. The company that Horrobin set up on his departure from Scotia still exists, as Amarin Neuroscience. Only Scotia, of the three at the time, failed. And only Scotia was under Dow's direction. These facts should be fairly reflected in the piece. Content will be added to reflect the industry background of Scotia's tribulations. And yes, these will be fully referenced. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Patent inventer

Horrobin was named inventor of 116 patents, and this should certainly appear the in the article, as it is germane, and indeed central life's work. I reinstated the link, and then discovered that many of the patents linked from there do not presently work. I therefore removed the link and will seek a further source for this fact. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Access to BMJ articles

On 27 Sept 2009 user 86.3.142.2 commented in an edit: "I cannot see BMJ it is not free,". The BMJ is heavily cited in this article so it might help other editors as well if I point out that much of the BMJ is available online for free. You do have to register, but that's not onerous. Go to the home page (www.bmj.com) and click on "Register for free services" at the top right of the page. Beechnut (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My recent edits

I've added some supporting information and reverted numerous edits about which I share MastCell's concerns. Although I've attempted to explain that Wikipedia relies on WP:RS and WP:V, many of these reverted edits continue to employ original research, primary sources or personal knowledge to question what reliable secondary sources report about Horrobin. Such is fine and commendable for journalism, book-writing, blogging, but it's not the stuff of an encyclopaedia. Here's my reasoning for the edits that some might consider controversial.

  • Remove "chiefly in the field of eicosanoids". I'm not sure there is a "field of eicosanoids". Eicosanoids are simply fatty acids with chemical alteration. We already address Horrobin's interests in the next paragraph.
  • Remove "for research" because it's stated later in the sentence. Actually, now it's a bit later, since I've added an example of Horrobin's product research from a reliable source.
  • Remove "in 1977" because reliable sources report 1972, 1977 and 1979. It's not really that important, so let's leave it out.
  • Remove Efamol website, let's stick with independent, secondary sources where at all possible.
  • Remove primary sources and original research about Efamol.
  • Restored Allport quote removed with the edit summary "This highly subjective statement was unsupportable. Who can know what his personal intentions were? The journal is a respected member of Elsevier's stable." The statement was supported by the source. We don't care what the philosophical objections are, we care about what the source says. I've rewritten to make it clear where this comes from. The current publisher is irrelevant.
  • rv synthesis and excessive quoting summarised by "The fact that Faulks was so influenced stands alone. Crow's gripe is another matter." Until my addition of the Crow article, there was no source for the Faulks sentence, and NC77 has not provided one. The Faulks issue is relevant to Horrobin only in the context of Crow's objections. Faulks's opinions about Crow are irrelevant to this biography. Stating that Horrobin began work on his hypothesis in the 1970s is not only wrong (the source clearly implies it was the 60s), it's also synthesis, since Horrobin could still have received unacknowledged influence from Crow in the further development of his hypothesis. It doesn't really matter if Crow is right or wrong, anyway, only that this is a notable commentary on Horrobin's book and intellectual behaviour.
  • "his company, Scotia, failed". Scotia was his company, and it failed. "His only company, Scotia" would have been inaccurate, but that's not what was written.
  • NC77 wrote, "There is no need to include "many" which is misleading and was retracted as stated in the reference." I've read the sources again and have replaced "many". "Many" is used in two obituaries appearing in two independent publications with respected editorial oversight. Neither the obituaries nor the word "many" were retracted by either publication. BMJ published several spelling and other minor corrections to its obituary and commented on the word "many": the word "can be" (not "is" or "was") misleading, and the editors "might have" (not "would have", not "Richmond should have") used the word "some" instead. As Beechnut suggested, this rather weak statement could be explained in a footnote, but "many" is clearly the verifiable word here.
  • Other changes include addition of more sources, including three more sources for the section NC77 felt was unfairly weighted towards the Guardian and Quackwatch sources.
  • NC77 wrote, "The figure of "about 30" comes from Richard Smith, writing in the Responses section of the C.R. obit, as referenced." Letters to the editor are not reliable sources. According to ISI and PubMed, between 15 and 20% of Horrobin's approximately 500 scientific articles were published in his own journals. I'm pleased that NC77 has self-reverted.
  • "Corrected quotations and opinion according to the actual weighting of the referenced material." The reference says that Horrobin himself, not just his hypothesis, "was ignored by mainstream scientists" because he provided only circumstantial evidence for his fatty acid hypothesis of schizophrenia and did not present a mechanism. Incidentally, this was Horrobin's major hypothesis. The rest of his work was, according to several of our sources, a means to the end of his schizophrenia research. And the flaws in this hypothesis appear to be general to his work. NC77's summary "appeared to lack a crucial premise" is editorial commentary; the source states it was much more than that. Also, the source states that Horrobin's research was unorthodox, not his business.
  • "Added balancing material in line with references." This "balancing" material is misplaced. The "Hamlet without the prince" quote could perhaps go into the business section, since it shows that Horrobin's personality and charm was what kept investors from running earlier. The "three years after his departure" has been stated already in the article and has nothing with the obituary controversy.
  • "The divergent tone of these obits was the whole reason for the controversy at all." The remark "divergent tone" is editorial comment, without support from a source.
  • The unexplained addition of "currently conducts research based on Horrobin's intellectual property as subsidiary of the biotechnology company Amarin" is sourced to a four-sentence "snapshot" that establishes no more than the existence of a company called Amarin, formerly called Laxdale. There is nothing here about Horrobin, and the structure of Amarin is irrelevant to Horrobin's biography. The editor's insistence on continued repetition of the date of Scotia's failure as part of an attempt to absolve Horrobin of any blame for the company's failure is contrary to what the reliable sources tell us about problems at the company and is unacceptable.
  • "This more accurately reflects the commisions findings, in their own words, and avoids highlighting contentious statements of opinion without balancing material." The PCC source is relevant to this article only to the extent it tells us more about Horrobin and what others thought about him. The earlier version, to which I revert, balanced the PCC's quote about Horrobin's family (the son-in-law still considered the BMJ's words about Horrobin "slander") with the PCC's quote of the BMJ's position (Horrobin was a "charlatan", as per BMJ's evidence). Extensive detail about what the PCC is, the limits of their oversight and their praise for the BMJ is beyond the scope of the biography and would be better suited for an article on the controversy alone.
  • "The phrase "very good at generating ideas, but are complete klutzes in the field" is unreferenced, and appears in only one google hit, namely the editorial version being altered." It may be difficult to believe, but we use reliable sources on Wikipedia, not Google hits. This direct quote from Horrobin himself (who better than Horrobin to describe the motivations and reasoning behind his own journal?) is found in the source at the end of the sentence. NC77 has replaced Horrobin's own referenced words with a weasel-worded and unsourced editorial statement.
  • "Laxdale was not primarily concerned with Schizophrenia, but Huntington's disease and Treatment-unresponsive Depression, as the reference shows." Again, NC77 is invited to consult WP:RS on the distinction between primary and secondary sources and on the importance of independent sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Wiki alf, who has chosen to edit this article from two IP addresses rather than with an account, has reverted with the summary, "maverick does not appear in cited article, PCC uses "charlatan" not either of the the two obits, which is written as BMJ saying it, so again is not accurately using the cites." The word "maverick" is used in the Independent obituary, and is in any case not quoted; it is an accurate summary of what both articles write. The "charlatan" quote is from the BMJ editorial board; there is no claim or implication that it is from the BMJ obituary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The Independent source does use "maverick" but the BMJ source does not. If there is a summary of the two obits cited by another party (other than the two obits which the line, as you are writing it, is all that is suggested), then it needs to be stated that 'so and so said...' Currently the line reads:
"Notably controversial obituaries by Horrobin's former colleague Carol Richmond in The Independent and the British Medical Journal portrayed Horrobin as an unethical maverick who sold a "remedy for which there is no disease", with the BMJ describing Horrobin as perhaps "the greatest snake-oil salesman of his age" and a "charlatan".""
The problem with this is that (despite the fact the controversy has a whole section to itself and is overweighting the lead, which I feel should only note the fact that there was a notable controversy over the obits Carol wrote) it reads as both The Independent and the BMJ as portraying his a maverick, when only one of them used the word. If it is an accurate summary by another party, that party should be noted as it is their summary of the two obits, which it is not currently noted as. If the BMJ medical board wrote that he is a charlatan then it is their view and needs to be properly attributed in the line. I cannot read the current line in any other way than the two obits having said he's a maverick and a charlatan. Some progress has been made in that that 'the greatest snake oil...' has been distinguished. Unless the lines are clearly demarked, we are doing a disservice to reprent Carol as having such as much with saying the BMJ editorial board said her obits characterised him as such. Re-cast the lines and improve the accuracy of the placing of citations as to which claim is from where, to make this difference and the problem does not exist. I still believe though, as I said above, that your over-egging the lead with detail better suited to section, the lead should mention the controversy and move on.86.3.142.2 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed "charlatan" to avoid confusion. Horrobin is clearly portrayed as a maverick in both obituaries, even if only one uses the word. If you like, I will simply quote and attribute every word in the sentence. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That does improve it. If the 'maverick', 'remedy' 'snake-oil' have to be there, which I don't think they do, I think we should note that Carol wrote two controversial obituaries and maybe have her call him a 'snake-oil salesman' and leave the rest to the relevant section. I haven't read the guidance for writing lead sections recently but think having those sort of 'tasters' is frowned upon.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

suggested wording

Considering the points I've raised below and the previous line in the article talking about obituaries, I would phrase it:

Two obituaries written by Carol Richmond caused some controversy.[8][9][10][11] Writing in The Independent she described Horrobin as a maverick and that "Evening primrose oil deserves a place in history as the remedy for which there is no disease."[7] whilst her piece for the British Medical Journal stated he "may prove to be the greatest snake oil salesman of his age."[12] 163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"unethical"

Looking at the use of "unethical" in the Telegraph, the only uses of ~ethic~ are

"He had thousands of friends and followers. He also had enemies, who described him as unethical and given to escaping his responsibilities; a "rotter"."

So Carol is saying that his enemies described him as unethical. The Wikipedia article does not say that. This is a Biography and utmost care must be taken with negative comments. The lead should not include "unethical" unless it's in BMJ as such - and again, if the BMJ are saying some other people/person is saying that, it needs to be dealt with in the section, not the lead. and

In February this year he published a personal paper in The Lancet, "Are Large Clinical Trials in Rapidly Lethal Diseases Usually Unethical?"

So the title of Blaylock's paper includes the word "Unethical" - him questioning whether clinical trials are usually unethical is not relevant here.86.3.142.2 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Looking at the use of "unethical" in The British Medical Journal, the only uses of ~ethic~ are

In February this year he published a personal paper in the Lancet, "Are large clinical trials in rapidly lethal diseases usually unethical?"(Lancet 2003;361:695-7)

- same as above, not relevant, and

He often wrote about ethics, but his—or his company's—research ethics were considered dubious.

So here Carol is saying either his, or his companies' research ethics were considered dubious. She does not actually use the word "unethical" and not say who considered him...or his company...to have dubious research ethics or indeed, whether that is her opinion or another's, again this is a contentious use of "unethical" as it does not properly represent what the source actually says, and

He also had enemies, who describe him as a "rotter," unethical, and given to escaping his responsibilities.

- same as above, she is reporting that his enemies described him as unethical, again, this is not how the Wikipedia article is treating this information.

The word unethical should therefore not be applied to either of the two obituaries as including it requires further expansion to ensure the source is not misrepresented, unless another party has, in fact, summarised either, or both, of the obits as 'portraying him as "unethical"' in which case, that should be made clear by giving the correct attribution for that view.163.1.147.64 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"snake-oil salesman"

Whereas as both The Telegraph and the British Medical Journal use the words, the first actually says

Horrobin was a maverick who introduced dozens of fresh ideas to refresh the stuffy and authoritarian institution of medicine, but he will probably be remembered mostly for his role as snake-oil salesman.

So here Horribin is being desribed as probably being remembered (notion of current rememberance and/or future) for his "role as snake-oil salesman". The second however says

The products contained evening primrose oil, which may go down in history as the remedy for which there is no disease, and David Horrobin, Scotia's former chief executive, may prove to be the greatest snake oil salesman of his age.

So here we see that the product he promoted may (in the future), be said to be a "remedy for which there is no disease", which is also the same stance as Carol took in The Independent which says "Evening primrose oil deserves a place in history as the remedy for which there is no disease." Carol is saying here that he 'may prove (in the future) to be the greatest snake oil salesman', not that he probably/perhaps was, so we could only say that 'the BMJ article stated that he is likely to be remembered as probably the greatest snake oil salesman of his age. So in conclusion, actually saying that the BMJ obituary describes Horrobin as perhaps "the greatest snake-oil salesman of his age" is misrepresenting the sources, as it has already made the decision, rather than saying he may turn out to be the greatest snake-oil salesman of his age. Another good reason for mentioning the controversy and leaving the details to the relevant section, as it becoming increasingly clear that the cites are a way off from the wording used in the Wikipedia article.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion, 163.1.147.64, I think you meant "Independent" rather than "Telegraph" in the above comment - the Telegraph desn't memtion snake-oil. Beechnut (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Wiki alf is engaging in sophistry here as a continued attack on my editing for reasons beyond my understanding. Richmond called Horrobin a maverick in the Independent column. "Maverick" was used in several other obits and accounts of his life. There's no rule barring an editor from using a reasonable word to summarise a source. Maverick is a reasonable summary of what Richmond said.
Unethical: Richmond states that Horrobin's enemies considered him unethical.
About may and future, etc: If I write "Angela Merkel may prove to be the sexiest German chancellor of all time" and "Angela Merkel may be remembered best for her role as chancellor", Wiki alf would have us believe this means I am implying Merkel may not actually be the German chancellor. Nonsense. It means I am being a careful writer and allowing for future events. Perhaps the rather sexier Ben Becker will someday become chancellor. Perhaps Merkel developed a secret cure for cancer, and when it comes to light, she will be best remembered for that. In any case, it matters little whether my statements are bold or puny; if they cause a monumental controversy about Merkel, they are notable.
I've trimmed and rewritten the lead sentence again; I hope some of these objections are now addressed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with "maverick" properly attributed, I said as much above. Your editing continues as I described it. I am glad you agree that Richmond states that Horrobin's enemies considered him unethical, that's not how your versions utilised that words though. Richmond is hedging her bet, why not quote her direct then with "may prove to be the greatest snake oil salesman of his age" so it doesn't at all misreprent the source?86.3.142.2 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?

The system thinks it's time we shortened this discussion by archiving some material. We could archive everything down to (but not including) the section 'Requested comment' and still keep everything relating to the current round of edits. On the other hand, there may be relevent discussion in the earlier sections. Is there a consensus, on this at least? Beechnut (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Horrobin/Archive_1&oldid=1136652031"