Talk:Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Re speedy deletion

The argument re speedy deletion is solely because the previous Aajonus entry was deleted for spurious reasons, solely due to lack of notability. However, Aajonus Vonderplanitz has been featured in several newspaper articles, books and magazines, so is clearly notable enough for wikipedia - I will now add various references and further text..Loki0115 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding further information to the page now that I've added enough references to make it notable. Further sentences will follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aajonus article now easily meets Wikipedia's criteria re notability/length etc., so there's no reason for its deletion. It's also quite different from the much shorter entry that preceded it.Loki0115 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is tagged for "neutrality". I fail to see how a simple recitation of facts can be considered "not neutral". I don't see any bias or opinion in either direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Hayles (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights

• Since much of the article cites it, it's probably worth evaluating the reliability of this book. A reviewer wrote: "A blogger and advocate journalist stacks the deck against the government's over-regulation of food, employing salient stories of individuals 'entangled in the enforcement crackdown' amid their efforts to provide nutrient-dense products, including raw milk and fermented foods." and also (relevant to this article): "Still, he does not write with an overly alarmist tone and fairly portrays the quirks and flaws in the individuals involved—e.g., author and war food activist Aajonus Vonderplanitz." The publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing seems to publish a lot of political books. There are various articles citing it. —PaleoNeonate – 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• The citations use an inconsistent and ugly format. When many notes point to the same book it's probably worth using {{sfn|Gumpert|2013|pp=pages}} with the source listed down with |ref=harv (Help:Shortened footnotes). —PaleoNeonate – 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  Done for this, —PaleoNeonate – 00:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

This article goes in too much unnecessary detail. The style is also not really that of an encyclopedia. As another editor noted at WP:FTN, it uses ages rather than dates. I would add that it even does for non-important events. As for the presentation of the claims, this was an alternate medicine and fad diet advocate but this is never clear (the point of view is not Wikipedia's WP:NPOV). Several times in the article's past it was pruned, possibly too much at times, but the main editor appears to have restored the lengthy details gradually again. Some are based on a promotional primary source (We Want to Live). But most material is based on another book, listed above, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights, that is mostly concerned about political advocacy (like most Gumpert's books it seems, he's described as an "advocate journalist"), rather than about scientific merits and developments. As such it would be best to present the book's POV in a context of history of advocacy and perhaps summarize that in its own section... Some aspects even touch on some conspiracy theories, but we wouldn't know reading the article. I'll have to look again when time allows, but the topic is of little interest to me and it is unclear if any lengthy work would be worth it considering the attitude when confronted about advocacy and article ownership in the past: 1, 2, and that the work might not stand. —PaleoNeonate – 09:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding: the lead is better than the article itself as it does tell his views were controversial and included some conspiracy theories, albeit without being specific. —PaleoNeonate – 09:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)