Talk:Nelsons (Homeopathy)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Declaration of Interest

I've created this page as I believe the Nelsons company is notable and should have a page of its own. However, I work for Nelsons myself and while I have tried to ensure that what I have posted is generally Npov, obviously this should be peer reviewed to ensure this is achieved.

At this time I've tried to just list the factual history of the company and a list of its major products with minimal copy so as not to appear to be 'advertising', which is not the intent.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy Controversy

Please can we avoid putting this page into the ongoing controversy about Homeopathy. The intention in creating the page is to document the history of the Nelsons company, which has been a significant company in this field for over 140 years, and notable facts about its ongoing business. I've tried to avoid putting any significant healthcare claims in the initial copy, if you feel I've not achieved this, please post here so it can be debated.

I genuinely want to create an Npov article dealing with the company and not make this into a controvercial topic.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

"It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

Nelsons has been in business for over 140 years and produces internationaly recognised brands. I think it therefore clearly constitutes as notable and it is reasonble for there to be an article about the company. it was already listed in the dis-ambiguation page for 'Nelsons' but there was no linked content just a headline.

As per the SDC cluase quoted above, simply having a company as its subject does not qualify an article for speedy deletion, it has to do 'nothing except advertise'. As stated below I tried to remove any copy that is partisan or could be considered advertising and simply list facts about the company and what it does. Indeed most of the copy is historical in nature and the product section was kept very plain and sparse due to the inherent issues with making this npov and not advertising.

While I have declared below that I work for the company, to clarrify I work in the IT dept and edit wiki pages as a hobby. I've put this page up as it seemed a reasonable thing to do, not as part of any advertising campaign.

Before making any further moves for speedy deletion or other sanctions, could you please discuss the issues with the page on here, or simply edit out copy that you feel to be advertising rather than factual. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(following comments moved from the controversy section as more appropriate here)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about any controversy, I'm concerned that there are no sources in the article besides the company's homepage. Can you find some articles in newspapers or magazines on the company? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. You are right to say there are no sources yet, and that is something that could clearly be improved upon. However, I don't think the immediate absence of sources at article creation is sufficient for speedy deletion. Many articles are created with minimal sources that are then improved over time, I've personally undertaken to improve other articles I've found in the that state.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the reviewing administrator, I declined the speedy, for it's fixable. One thing that might help is not to make separate headings for each product. And add some product reviews. Something about market share would also help. Please check WP:BFAQ for more advice. DGG (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I'll try to put some refs in over the next few weeks.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing, copyedit

The original article was copied and pasted from various pages of the company's Website, e.g. The Nelsons story [1] and Our Products [2]. Readers interested in such promotional detail may find it by following the external link. Fenwayguy (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

the company website was used as source, but if you compare the two it was clearly re-written specifically to remove overt promotional bias. Rather than just deleting the whole thing out of hand, why not try to improve the article. The material there was clearly factual in basis detailing the company history, it was also reviewed by a admin who didn't think it overly promotional. I'm reverting the deletion as that is clearly over the top. Please discuss here before taking this sort of action again.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I've added a few refs to the copy to help support what is being said and to meet wiki guidlines. I've specifically avoided using the company websites for refs, although for some things (e.g. what international offices there are), this makes it pretty much impossible to get a ref. But I'll let someone else add those if appropriate. As stated before, the aim has been to write this as npov, if it fails to do this please improve the copy or else discuss here what could be changed. There is no need to delete the entire article for minor copy issues (as was stated in the speedy deletion comments above). I'll try and add more refs over the coming days in line with the admin suggestions above--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now re-written most of the copy on the page so it is much more clearly different from the original source material on the company website and therefore would not be in breach of copyright and should meet wiki guidelines. I will continue to add more and better refs as I find them online so as to ensure the article follows wiki rules. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

Why the page move? While Nelsons history is heavy on homeopathy, thier current products are a range of alternative health products. In fact homeopathy is a minority product, with the majority being related to the Bach/Rescue Remedy product lines. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Medicine wikiproject

Homeopathy is part of the medicine wikiproject, as are most of Nelsons other products, not all of which are controvercial. e.g. Spatone has clinical trials proving its effectiveness. Nelsons is regulated by the MHRA, its products are mostly sold in pharmacies and indeed it owns and operates two retail pharmacies itself, so it seems entirely appropriate for it to be within Medicine.

Beyond the biggest topics, WPMED does not usually support articles in Alternative medicine. So we might help with the Homeopathy article itself, but not with any homeopathic company or product.

Note please that overtagging does not help Wikipedia in any way: it wastes resources and editor time. Note also that projects have the right to remove their banner from articles that they do not intend to support. As a member of WPMED, I am removing the banner because I see no indication that the project will ever support this article. If you can produce such a member, then feel free to rate this article as having the lowest importance according to our assessment guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Section ordering

Re the swapping of controversy and products. The controversy section lists a single incident with one pharmacist at one pharmacy from the company's 150 year history, whereas being a retail manufacturing company the products actually define what the company is and does. There is clearly a place for the controversy section, but it's hardly more important than the main business of the company.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The list of products is less important than the description of the company, and the controversy belongs in its proper place in the history section, not shunted off to the bottom. The main business of the company is dealt with in the proceeding sections and the lead. As you have an admitted WP:COI, perhaps you should keep your editing of this article to the talk page only. Verbal chat 12:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made the controversy a subsection of the recent history section. Verbal chat 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a reasonable middle ground. Having an entire top level section to itself gave undue merit to what is a single realtively small incident in the company's history. I've been very open about my COI with regards this article, and it has been reviewed by a number of admins through the course of two delete debates. No one has had major issue with what I have written and indeed I've been told the COI issue has been dealt with clearly and properly. I've tried hard to be more than accomodating in finding neutral positions on anything that has come up, as I'm hopefully doing again here. As always, if everyone assumes good faith, a workable solution can usually be found. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation

Re the category of Homeopathy vs Alt Med. Homeopathy is a sub-cat of Alt med, not the other way round (as mentioned by Verbal chat in the most recent edit). Despite the page title (which was changed from the original) and the company's history, Nelsons are not just a homeopathic company. In fact homeopathy is a minority product range, with most sales coming from the Bach Flower products (which are related to Homeopathy, but not homeopathic themselves). They also produce herbal medicines, a mineral water (although technically that isnt alt med at all as it's clinicaly proven) and a natural non-homeopathic hair lice treatment. I don't think the exact categorisation is fantastically important, but to me Alt Med is more accurate, as the company sells in several alt med fields. On a side note, none of the Bach pages seem to have alt-med categorisation, which they probably should. In fact Flower Remedies should probably be its own sub cat under 'alt med systems'. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

By being in the homeopathy cat the page is also in the alt med cat, because homeopathy is a subcat of alt med. It is a navigational categorisation, not a label. If you want to start a Flower Remedy subcat of homeopathy, feel free. Verbal chat 08:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Product Descriptions

Re the edit to Spatone description. That product is clinically proven to be an effective Iron supplement which is more easily digested than normal Iron supplements. The Iron contained in the water is naturally occuring and not added during manufacture. The cited reference backs these facts up, so I think it unreasonable to call that 'peacock terms' as they are a factual description of the product. Please note that Spatone is a straighforward medicinal product with none of the controversy that is associated with CAM products.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentaly, it's not worth reverting, but the use of the word 'traditional' with regards to homeopathic products is actually relevent because the new licensing regulations for European registration of these products is based around 'traditional use'.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

'COI Edit'

I fail to see how COI is addressed by removing nearly all the information from the article. The history of the company is salient and relevent and would be found on any similar company article. It hasn't been presented in a POV o puffery way but just presents the major events in the company history with citations. If you disagree then re-write it as you think appropriate, but just removing large chunks of cited, relevent info is not a constructive way forwards.

A factual list of products smade isn't pov either, as for any company their product is obviously one of the more notable facts about them. The way those products are described might be, but other editors have reviewed that in the past so there is no COI point there anymore. Again, if you disagree feel free to edit rather than delete.

Lastly, the 'Natural Health' link doesn't beg any question, the article it links to Naturopathy descibes the industry the business operates in. You can question the validity of the industry (most appropriately on that article), but not that Nelsons is a part of it or it exists, which is all that link states. It's akin to removing a link to the beverage industry from the article on the Coca Cola corp.

What has just been done ammounts to vandalism and makes this article useless to the average reader, whereas before it was a reasonable summary of the history and business of the company, which is what an average person would want from the article. It also puts he article into a decidedly non-neutral position. The 'newsnight controversy' was one individual event featuring one employee for a company that employs hundreds and has been in business for 150 years. Having that take up half the article is not a balanced view of the subject.

In view of the above I am going to revert these edits, including the COI tag, can I ask you please engage in a discussion here before repeating them. I appreciate that I have a COI issue with this, which I've always been very open about, and do not want to block all edits or changes to the article (I am a wikipedia editor who happens to work for this company rather than an employee only here to promote the company). In the past I have held off reverting a number of minor edits I thought incorrect because of this issue. But speaking from the perspective of a wikipedia editor I don't see how removing the vast majority of cited relevent material from an article helps the project. I would be more than happy to help re-write the article to remove any POV you think is present.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

further to this I've put in some more citations to improve the overall article quality, plus added a couple of notable recent events with cites. I also changed the topline link from 'Natural Health' to 'Alternative Medicine', which I think removes any issue around 'begging the question' as it's a more direct description of the industry, which is the intention of the link.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)