Talk:The Omnivore's Dilemma/Archive 1

Dates

The first paragraph says the book was written in 2006, but in the "Criticism" section one of the critics is a reference to 2003. THis doesn't make sense. --Gangster Octopus (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue/Perdue

A good read, but the author seems to think these words are interchangeable. I lost count of the number of times he mentioned "Frank Purdue". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.96.152 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoV/Professionalism

The personal section reads like a blog post and needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.27.61 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The criticism section needs to be renamed to "Reception" and have the criticism as a subsection within it. There are thousands and thousands of reviews of praise for this book and it even got on the New York Time's top ten books of 2006 and, yet, the only positive mention of the book (besides the award) is someone who said we're made of corn, which isn't really positive or negative.

The only reason this book is at all popular is because of those positive reviews and, yet, there are none here. This book has a cult following and yet there's nothing positive here, only negative. That shows a severe slant within the article. I don't know enough about the book to feel comfortable adding much here, but I'll try if no one else more familiar with the subject will. --13² 21:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree. The article has a very negative POV about the book. 71.162.163.78 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. This is quite a negative article. reads like a mild hit piece.65.101.185.60 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. In the other direction, however, the opening reads like an advertisement or endorsement of the book - "absorbing narrative" and "deploys his unique blend of personal and investigative journalism". Jtradke (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and criticism seem one and the same in this article: all negative. This is one of the most highly praised books on food to come out in the last few decades. A lot of the criticisms have been addressed, and many of them have been found wanting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.232.232 (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed obvious POV and trimmed excess words

Following WP:BEBOLD, I trimmed the lede to make it read less like an advertisement and also trimmed a little text further down the article.Autarch (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim verbiage from Pollan's web site

I don't have the time to go into this at any depth but I did notice that the opening has some of precisely the same verbiage as Pollan's web site, http://michaelpollan.com/books/the-omnivores-dilemma/. ;Bear (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BSE causality

Deleted reference to corn-based feed causing Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. BSE is linked to the consumption of neural tissues found in cattle feed that includes cattle components, much like variant creutzfeldt-jakob disease in humans. The disease is caused by prions, not by the immune system effects caused by ruminants consuming food for which they are not adapted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.43.99 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Plain Bias

From reading the first few sentences of this book, one can immediately come to the conclusion that this article is biased towards humans. Please fix it according to an objective viewpoint of the planet or otherwise explain that this book was targeting specifically a human audience (stop trans-species discrimination!).

Sincerely, Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I meant the first paragraph about the actual "Omnivore's dilemma" (about not knowing what to eat) which does not apply just to humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.37.68 (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT CORRECTION

At the beginning of the article, the "omnivore's dilemma" is described as relating specifically to people when in fact Michael Pollan intended for it to apply to ALL omnivores.

Please correct it! Abdullah H. Mirza (talk)