This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
I fixed that, but by removing much of the text (and rewriting the rest), so that the article could continue to at least exist per the AfD close. Anyone who wants to expand the article back out using free text is encouraged to do so. Herostratus20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is this guy notable? The article makes no claim that this person is somehow exceptional in his field. I've added the prod for that reason. I'm also pasting below a related thread from my talk page. Rklawton01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors voted to keep the article. Two voted to delete it. A prod does not violate policy - and it puts editors on notice that the article is severely defective. In this case, that's fully appropriate. Rklawton01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A second Prod does violate the guidelines. The template says "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." As I have explained above, if you continue to think that the article should be deleted you should submit a further AfD. In my view, now that the copvio issues have been dealt with the article is not 'seriously defective' - there are thousands of much worse stubs. To be included the guy needs to be 'notable' not 'exceptional'; a distinction with a difference. In my view this is an entirely proper stub for WP. TerriersFan21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference to his "expertise" that was based on an article that was neither peer reviewed nor published by a journal. Likewise, the article made no reference to the author's expertise. Said "expertise" was a POV comment added by the editor. Please avoid POV comments. If this guy is an expert, surely there's a source out there that says so. If not, then he isn't. Rklawton02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to spend some time adding information to this page. Please contact me before deleting content. If there are any questions regarding verifiability, we can contact Derrick directly. The information I am adding is largely drawn from reading his books which are already referenced in the article. I don't see the need to add references sentence by sentence.shbrown (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; your assessment as a result of reading his books is original research. And yes; sentence by sentence sourcing is required. We also don't include content on the say so of the subject. "He argues persuasively" is a POV. Consequently, these additions must stay out until sourced by reliable, third party sources. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over this line by line.
"Dr. Lonsdale has been using various thiamine sources in research trials and clinical practice for more than 50 years."
I believe reference 3 in the article points to his bibliography which supports this statement. His book on vitamin B1 also supports this statement. I'm happy to add these references.
"He has steadfastly drawn attention to the fact that thiamine is a special vitamin because deficiency causes beriberi, one of only four pandemic human deficiency diseases."
How about changing to, "He has drawn attention to the fact that thiamine deficiency causes beriberi, one of only four pandemic human deficiency diseases."
Which of his publications do you want me to reference? Are you disputing that Derrick has drawn attention to the relationship between thiamin and beriberi?
"He is the author of the only book written in English devoted entirely to thiamine."
I suppose this is original research. Wikipedia really has a problem with that? I wrote this as a rebuttal to other comments on the talk page asking why Derrick Lonsdale was notable. This seems like a straightforward, verifiable assertion meant for Wikipedia. If there are other books, let them come forward. I'm happy to write that he is the author of one of only two books written in English.
"He argues persuasively that chronic, borderline beriberi remains commonplace even in Western societies."
I have no problem deleting persuasively. I agree this word was inappropriate. The rest of the sentence is factual. He has argued this in many of his publications. A good recent example is this one. Here is the direct quote from this article. "In our own clinical experience vitamin deficiency is undoubtedly extremely widespread and thiamine figures very high in this deficiency because of its biochemical association with glucose metabolism."
"According to Lonsdale, symptoms of borderline beriberi include anorexia nervosa, insomnia, sleep apnea, dementia, depression, impotence, and infertility. His extensive published research provides statistically significant data supporting this position."
This statement is supported by Lonsdale's book on vitamin B1.
"Much of his work discusses the use of thiamine to treat conditions that he believes are caused by disorders of the subconscious nervous system. The subconscious nervous system controls functions such as emotions, attenuation of the senses (e.g. strong odors become harder to smell after prolonged exposure), dilation of the pupils, digestion and movement of food in the digestive tract, sexual function, and appetite."
These are verifiable facts. Any reader can read his work and judge. Why is this a problem?
"Lonsdale is one of only a handful of American physicians to prescribe a fat-soluble form of thiamine named TTFD."
I agree that this statement is original research. I have a hard time understanding why it is a problem. It is a fact. It is easily verified. Any reader can ask around - TTFD is an obscure compound. Would it help to rewrite as follows:
"Lonsdale prescribes a fat-soluble form of thiamine named TTFD. TTFD is not available for sale in major pharmacies."
"All thiamine sources, including TTFD, are degraded by digestion into forms of thiamine that require special proteins for absorption into the bloodstream and distribution throughout the body. TTFD is produced and used extensively in Japan, but remains obscure in the rest of the world. TTFD is fat soluble. Once in the bloodstream, distribution throughout the cells of the body occurs by passive diffusion. No special proteins are required."
Each of these statements is found in Lonsdale's book.
"Lonsdale has recently developed a skin cream containing TTFD. Applying the cream results in a time-released delivery of TTFD directly into the bloodstream with minimal degradation. The Japanese developed TTFD after it was recognized that molecules with similar properties are among the most important active ingredients in garlic, accounting for the ancient practice of using various methods to apply preparations containing crushed garlic directly to the skin."
Lonsdale's company, Westlake Labs, sells a skin cream containing TTFD. I did not think that Wikipedia would want a link directly to a commercial website.
