Talk:Gary Null/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Changes

Nowhere in a legitimate publication would a documentary be questioned as to its identity as a documentary. It either is a documentary or it isn't. The statements " so-called documentaries" or "that he calls documentaries" do not make any sense. A documentary is simply a non-narrative style of filmmaking. To prevent further dispute, I suggest we call them "films." Is this too neutral for you?

Saying that his films are "self-made" and to suggest that they only screen on YouTube is misleading. All films are "self-made" by their director. Why not again just say "films" or "films he has directed?" That they have screened in festivals around the world is a fact.

"Aids denialism" is not a term that people use to describe their own viewpoints, so it is inaccurate to say that someone "promotes AIDS denialism." That is why I've changed it to "outlines the debate." I've also added the names of two scientists who agree that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, referenced in Wikipedia articles. To leave them out suggests that Gary Null is alone in his views or is unsupported by anyone in the scientific community, which is simply wrong.

I challenge t hose who are undoing my edits to please come up with their own reasons why they are not accepting what I am adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the changes proposed in your third paragraph. He doesn't have to self-identify as someone promoting AIDS denialism for wikipedia to be able to state that. You should also look at WP:SELFPUB and WP:RS. And have a look at the articles of the scientist you're referencing. Verbal chat 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To take these in order: first of all, I agree that "so-called documentaries" is silly, and "films" would be fine. "Self-made" is an obvious distinction, the import of which is obvious to most readers: a film subsidized and distributed by a studio is very different from a film which is self-made and published primarily on YouTube. "AIDS denialism" is a term which is widely used to describe the viewpoint that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence that it does). We could consider other wording, but "outlining the debate" is obviously non-neutral, creates a false equivalence, and misleads the reader (as there is no debate in any substantive sense). MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I will stick to my contention that he does not promote AIDS denialism; no person who disagrees with the AIDS orthodoxy would call themselves an AIDS denialist, as the term itself is a slur. I have no problem with stating once that he is in the AIDS denialist camp, just with stating that he "promotes" it. What he promotes is a different viewpoint.

Now I see what you mean by self-made, but the the term is still wrong. FIlms are not "published," they are distributed. So "self-distributed" would be the accurate term. "Self-made" implies a home movie.

I see no problem in referencing scientists who are the main proponents of "AIDS denialism." They are discredited on Wikipedia anyway, so you should not be threatened by links to them. Leaving them out implies that Null somehow has made this up, when he is only following a side of an already existing debate that is years old now within the science world. To insist on leaving it out is obvious censorship. Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you are already mentioning that he sells his films on his website, it is a repetition to call them self-distributed. Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but very few films are subsidized by studios. Most documentaries are self-funded or funded privately, and actually I know of VERY few documentary films that have been subsidized by studios. Documentary films are simply not a viable source of income for movie studios. Some are subsidized by television studios, but many more documentaries shown on television are first made privately, and then sold later to television stations. Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha very respected scientists!! RetroS1mone talk 05:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the reputation of scientists make it so that they should be deleted from historical record? Do you think that people you consider wrong or evil should be erased from history? Mister Hospodar (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a "criticisms" section here for negative comments about Gary Null. We don't need to include them in EVERY section. If you want to put extremely critical links in, they should be in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain where this "alleging an attempt to silence him" comes from? I found the quote itself on the link, but the quote sounds neutral, not like an attempt to silence anyone. Plus which, "alleging" already suggests hearsay and not fact. Will someone please explain why they keep putting this stupid phrase back into the sentence? Mister Hospodar (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that every editor who's commented here is open to proposals of alternative wording, but "alleging an attempt to silence him" seems fairly accurate to me. Null is clearly stating that a nebulous "orthodoxy" has decided to deny his access to an audience. I'm not sure if the current wording is the very best summary possible, but I wouldn't call it a "stupid phrase" either. In any case, Verbal did not put the phrase back in with the most recent edits, Verbal merely removed the superfluous fact tag. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mister Hospodar has again inserted the fact tag, and Verbal has correctly removed it. It's not needed, and there's no consensus for this edit. Please stop, Mister Hospodar, and please discuss your edits, all of which seem to be controversial. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording "alleging an attempt to silence him" has been put back many times. As it is unreferenced, it is clearly the opinion of someone who wrote it. Someone has to allege something before it can be stated that it is "alleged." Even then it should not be allowed, because it is not fact, only "alleged," that is, someone made it up or has repeated it through hearsay. Let the readers decide for themselves what his statement means. Okay?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not "unreferenced". The cited reliable source, TIME magazine, states: "Even his recent problem at PBS, he implies, may have been an attempt to silence him." Our wording is a straightforward representation of this reliable source. The most charitable interpretation possible is that you don't understand Wikipedia's content guidelines, in which case I urge you to review the verifiability, neutrality, and sourcing guidelines before continuing your crusade of edit-warring. Less charitable interpretations exist. MastCell ^Talk 03:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include the "ACT-UP" link, it should be in conjunction with a statement that ACT-UP is unhappy with Null's views and with his films. I have no problem with that. But it's referenced after saying that he has films available on his website, so the link there should be to his website only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not introduce more commercial links, please. Also, there's clearly no consensus for your continued edit-warring over how we should use the TIME source. The current language is as close to the source as we can get without actually quoting it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The language you are using for the TIME source REVERSES the meaning of the quote. I actually had no idea what the quote was about until you quoted it verbatim. The language as you have it really does imply that Null was attempting to silence the person he was speaking to, and not that Null felt others were trying to silence him. If there is a question or a doubt as to the meaning, then why not stick with the original quote? What is your reasoning for insisting on twisting the language around? I thought we had finally cleared up the oddness of that sentence, so that readers would understand what it is about. You either do not understand the English language, or you have some sort of agenda to keep the language confusing.

I have referenced Null's film festival screenings before, but doing so only has resulted in the information being taken off, as if it's too supportive of him. It's quite easy to supply links about his film festival history.

It is simply incorrect to put that ACT-UP link there without explaining what it's doing there. It really does not go with the text before it. If you are going to put a link up, you MUST have that link refer to text. What is the point of keeping that text out?

What did I add that was promotional? Providing references and links is required, and yet when one does so they are removed for being promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to Gary Null's selected film festival history:

http://www.speaking.com/speakers/garynull.php

I won't included it in the article, as you will say I am promoting him, but here it is for your own reference.

Mister Hospodar (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit--yes, I'm actually quite proud of it--to my now not-so-secret agenda to twist and subvert the English language as Ha Shem did to the ancient tongue back at Babel...honestly, Mister Hospodar? There's nothing ambiguous about "Null responded by alleging an effort to silence him". Let's take the sentence apart: subject (Null) alleges (verb) (there is) an effort to silence him. Him being Null, as there's no one else him could well be. As for promotional links, I believe MastCell and others may have pointed you in the direction of our reliable sources guideline. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Null responded by alleging an attempt to silence him" suggests that Null's response itself was an attempt to silence the person he was speaking to. When you were taking the quote apart, you left part of it out: the part that says, "Null responded by," which changes the meaning of the sentence. If you say, "Null alleged that this was an attempt to silence him," then the sentence would mean what you say it means. With the added clause, it means something entirely different. I can't understand why the original sentence had to be distorted so.

As for the other changes I suggested - such as the fact that Null's films, if mentioned at all, should be mentioned in terms of where they've actually screened - and that a link, if provided, (the ACT-UP link) -should reference an actual topic or statement- they seem entirely reasonable and should not be the subject of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: in TIME there were two sentences: one that referred to the fact that Null implied that others were trying to silence him, another with Null's quote. They should be separate if the meaning is to be clear. The TIME writer clearly knows how to write clear sentences, so quoting him is not a bad idea. Mister Hospodar (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should say: "Null described PBS' decision as part of an attempt to silence him, saying..." Would that be clearer? MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's better, but it is still not a description, it's an IMPLICATION, as per the TIME article. So you could say, "Null implied that PBS' decision was an attempt to silence him, saying..." The word "allege" here, even if it was clear in the sentence structure, suggests that Null directly made an accusation, when he in fact did not. So Null is also not describing or alleging anything, the TIME writer is inferring the meaning from his words.

ALLEGE: - to assert without proof - to bring forward as a reason or excuse

IMPLY: - to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement (rights imply obligations) - to contain potentially - to express indirectly (his silence implied consent) SYNONYM: infer

Thank you for discussing and trying to come to an agreement, it's much appreciated.

And can anyone comment on the reason for leaving the ACT-UP information? Again, the ACT-UP link comes after a sentence that says that Null sells films on his website. What is that link doing there? The link refers to a complaint about Null's films airing on television, it's not a link to Null's website. So I think it should either be taken off, or that it should be placed in reference to its content. I tried to put up text to explain what that link was, but the text was taken off. If it's a footnote, it needs to refer to the thing it says it's referring to.

And if places are listed where Null's films have shown (YouTube), then other places they've shown should not be left out (film festivals). The implication is that he ONLY shows his films on YouTube and is an amateur. Also, there's not much of Null's film work on YouTube. It's mostly clips, like most stuff that gets out there on the internet. Mister Hospodar (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Keepcalmandcarryon is not using WIkipedia correctly. I have read the policies of Wikipedia again, and they state that when new information is added, that is should only be taken down if it is problematic. Minor changes, such as adding information to preserve a neutral point of view or to fix grammar, are encouraged. That is all that I've done here, and yet my edits keep being removed without adequate explanation. Here is some of the stuff I read in WIkipedia's guidelines:

Instead of removing text, consider: rephrasing correcting the inaccuracy while keeping the content moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced requesting a citation by adding the tag adding appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections Though many problems can be fixed without removal, in certain cases you may remove problematic material, at least temporarily. For example, material that contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view may be removed.

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes – nobody owns articles.

So nowhere is it stated that information that it already up has any kind of priority. NOBODY OWNS ARTICLES. Not only have my perfectly referenced and proper edits all been deleted, even those that were only grammar corrections, but I have been warned and blocked, as If I am the one who is causing the problems. I feel this is an abuse of WIkipedia's guidelines and policies. So in future, if anyone is going to revert my edits, please give me the courtesy of explaining why they need to be reverted. But the fact is, minor revisions should be allowed. No point of view has been added, I am simply trying to preserve NPOV. I have no connections with Gary Null and no affiliations or interests in AIDS denialism, I just felt in reading these pages that they were not neutral, and was trying to fix them. I have no problem with my edits being taken down if there is a good reason for it, but it seems as if some people feel they own this article and will not allow changes of any kind to it. This is not right. I am going to put back my text until a valid reason is given why it should be taken down, then I will discuss. Mister Hospodar (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please use this talk page to discuss edits to the article, not to make accusations. Could you itemise the edits you want made, with a short justification for each, please? For example: 1, remove allege and replace with implies, because... Verbal chat 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Replace current sentence with this one: "Null's recent problem at PBS, he implies, may have been an attempt to silence him." (like original quote). The current sentence suggests that a decision was made by PBS, and that Null "described" something, when in fact the TIME writer INFERRED the meaning from Null's sentence.
• 2. Replace "self-made films" with "films produced by his own company, Gary Null & Associates." Self-made implies a home or amateur movie.
• 3. Allow this sentence or one like it before the ACT-UP link, instead of having the link right after a sentence saying that Null's films are available on his website: "Many individuals and groups, such as the organization ACT-UP, have strongly protested the messages conveyed in Null's films about AIDS." Otherwise as a footnote it doesn't make sense.
• 4. Replace this sentence: "Null has made several self-funded and published documentary films on public policy issues, personal health, and personal development that are posted on YouTube." with this sentence: "Null has made several self-funded and distributed documentary films on public policy issues, personal health, and personal development that have screened at various film festivals, some of which are posted on YouTube. " Mentioning only YouTube suggests that YouTube is their only venue and that they are home movies or that no one would ever screen them in public (an implication that's already contradicted when the PBS controversy is mentioned).

I've already made and suggested all of these changes before. Now I think the burden is on the other side why they would not accept or allow such changes, which only serve to make the article more neutral and properly referenced. Mister Hospodar (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Verbal, if I am making accusations it is because the policies of Wikipedia are being abused, re: the text I've quoted from WIkipedia's policies above. It is NOT a rule of WIkipedia that new edits must be discussed and approved before being made, nor that reasonable and referenced edits should be removed for no reason. So you can say what you like about what I must and must not do, but you DO NOT OWN THIS PAGE, and you are just as subject to rules as others. Meaning: you should not take down my edits without a proper reason. Saying "please discuss before changing" as a reason is completely bogus. Mister Hospodar (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If your comment relating to point 1 is correct, then your suggestion is faulty. Perhaps

I consider point 2 inappropriate, even if completely accurate. Perhaps some other term would be appropriate, but "produced by his company" is not an appropriate alternative to "self-made".

Point 4 isn't correct either, perhaps "screened at film festivals and posted on YouTube" would be appropriate.

And it is questioned in the real world whether his films are documentaries, rather than straight propaganda, so it should be questioned here.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For 1, how about "suggests". I agree with AR that point 2 is not a good change. Point 3: The ref confirms the availability of his films on his website, so should remain. And if a statement like the one you propose isn't included, it should probably be added. 4, agree with AR again. Verbal chat 08:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I note that Null implies in his quote that the PBS authorities are not the only parties involved in the alleged attempt to silence him, as he refers cryptically to "their friends." This would appear to be a full-blown conspiracy theory.

2. and 4. YouTube, film festivals, or both, we can't well add film festivals without reliable sources. In any case, "home", "amateur", "self-made" and "produced by Null's company" would seem to be largely equivalent.

3. It's not a footnote. It's an inline citation. And to add a broad statement about a wide range of individuals and organizations "strongly" protesting would require a source.

Asking an editor to discuss edits before changes is far from "completely bogus" when that editor has had unanimous and well-reasoned opposition from the first to his/her edits; has an unconcealed agenda; and has engaged repeatedly in edit warring against consensus. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Arthur Rubin's comments:

What I am questionng here is not the value of his films or whether or not they are propaganda, but whether the term "self-made" is accurate. If you or anyone else has referenced information to provide about the quality of the films or their use in the market, that is a different issue. But "self-made" is not the correct term for a privately made and funded film. The correct term is "independent."

"Screened at film festivals and posted on YouTube" is fine by me. But "YouTube" alone is misleading.

Thank you for agreeing with me that a statement about ACT-UP should be included in order to justify the link.

Re: Keepcalmandcarryon's comments:

1. There is no evidence of a conspiracy theory. Quoting the text exactly as it is in TIME seems to me to be the only way to keep it neutral.
2. There are sources online about Null's films having screened at festivals, and even having won awards. These are not just on his website but on other websites. Your opinion of their integrity doesn't count here, as we are trying to make a biography of a living person, and the fact remains that his films have screened at festivals. I maintain that if there is to be a list of where his films show, then it MUST be more accurate or taken out all together. And you are dead wrong about the equivalence of the terms you mention. The online dictionary gives these definitions:

Home movie: a film made at home by an amateur photographer
Amateur: a person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
Self-made: made by itself or oneself: a self-made pond.
None of these apply to Null, because his films are made to be screened before a general public, and are not made by himself, as in one person making something like a craft project, but by a production company which includes regular personnel such as a DP, an editor, a producer, a sound man, etc.

Whether it's a footnote or an inline citation, the ACT-UP link is out of place there, as it has an obscure relation at best to the text before it, and seems only to be there as a way of diverting clicks away from his actual website which is referenced, and instead to a letter against him. Very strange and improper.

None of the changes that I've continued to try to implement have been the subject of any consensus whatsoever. You refer to "unanimous and well-reasoned opposition," when my edits have been taken down repeatedly without any explanation until the last day or so. Now that there is finally some discussion it's plain to see that there is no consensus, and that no one is unanimously agreeing with you at all. Mister Hospodar (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do people agree with "self-produced?"

Suggestion: move the ACT_UP link and comment about it to the "Criticisms' section.

I have gone ahead and quoted the TIME article more closely, as I feel that's the only way to keep it neutral and accurate. Any other type of phrasing seems to change the meaning of it.

I went ahead and took out the YouTube reference, and think it should be left out unless others agree to also include other venues where his films have shown.

I have taken out the phrase that he "promotes AIDS denialism" and replaced it with a neutral phrase. As I have maintained before, NO ONE self-identifies as an AIDS denialist, it's others who call them that. Besides which it's syntactically impossible to deny something and promote it at the same time!

To Arthur Rubin again: saying my suggestion is faulty re: point 1. does not make it so. What can you possibly mean? What is faulty? Are you saying that quoting something directly from its source is faulty, but that changing the language to mean something else is correct??

One more point for Arthur Rubin: having a film be a propaganda film does not change its status as a documentary. A documentary is simply a type of non-fiction film. Saying it is a documentary is not a testament to its accuracy, integrity, or quality. Mister Hospodar (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Here are a few links for the doubters out there about Null's film festival history:

http://www.speaking.com/speakers/garynull.php

http://www.screendaily.com/saint-monica-wins-sarasota-film-festival/4012066.article

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/oct2006_itn_02.htm

http://www.accoladecompetition.org/Film/Honor.aspx

Try please again to justify your keeping this information out of this biography And please don't tell me they are not valid links. Mister Hospodar (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Mister Hospodar (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cybernetics

Was following Mr. Null and practices late last year, and I have reasearch studies on how, simply by the way persons use computers and artificial intelligence, that one's motor nerve skills will improve immediately with certain knowledge and technique: communications abilities through networks sensitize psyche, and enhance perceptions, and many other healthy benefits. Just wanted to leave a note. I know Mr. Null would be interested. Kabbalah, Tai Chi75.250.35.190 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Books

Wikipedia is not a repository or book catalogue. This list is far too long and needs trimming to the most notable or representative examples of his work. Verbal chat 09:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Be a Healthy Woman!. Co-author, Amy McDonald. Seven Stories Press. (pbk), Feb. 1, 2009. ISBN 978-1583228579. 800 pages.
• Living in the Moment: A Prescription for the Soul. North Atlantic Books, Aug. 19, 2008. ISBN 978-1556437632. 277 pages.
• Gary Null's Power Foods: The 15 Best Foods for Your Health. :NAL Hardcover, Dec. 5, 2006. ISBN 0451219763] 336 pages.
• Gary Null's Mind Power: Rejuvenate Your Brain and Memory Naturally. :New American Library, December, 2005, 326 pages. ISBN 0451216733
• Get Healthy Now! with Gary Null: A Complete Guide to Prevention, Treatment and Healthy Living. (2nd rev.ed., Amy McDonald, Senior Project Editor)(pbk) Seven Stories Press, Oct. 1, 2006. ISBN 1583227534 1146 pages. 2nd ed. (pbk), Dec. 30, 2000, ISBN 1583220429, 1037 pages. 1st ed. 1999.
• Healing with Magnets. Carrol & Graf Publishers, August 2, 2006. softcover, 240 pages. ISBN 0786705306
• The Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing: A Comprehensive A-Z listing of Common and Chronic Illnesses and their Proven Natural Treatments. (rev.& updated ed., Oct.1, 2005) :Kensington. (pbk) ISBN 0758213167. 320 pages. Also (pbk) :KTrade Paper, 2000.
• Gary Null's Power Aging. :NAL Trade, Dec. 7, 2004 ISBN 451213082 400 pages.
• Germs, Biological Warfare, Vaccinations: What You Need to Know (with James Feast). :Seven Stories Press, 1st ed. Feb. 2003. (pbk) ISBN 1583225189. 304 pages.
• Gary Null's Guide to a Joyful, Healthy Life. :1st Carroll & Graf Ed., January 2000. (HB) ISBN 978-0786707126. 848 pages. :Carroll & Graf Publishers, July 10, 2002, reprint ed. of three books: Who Are You Really, Be Kind to Yourself, and Choosing Joy. (pbk) ISBN 978-0786709946. 768 pages.
• Women's Health Solutions. :Seven Stories Press, 1st ed., Jan. 9, 2002. ISBN 1583224199 640 pages.
• The Joy of Juicing: Creative Cooking with Your Juicer (with Shelly Null). New York: Avery, rev., updated. May 31, 2001. ISBN 58333-102-6. 240 pages.
• AIDS: A Second Opinion (with James Feast). :Seven Stories Press, 1st Ed., December 2001. (HB) ISBN 978-1583222067. 400 pages.
• The Baby Boomer's Guide to Getting It Right the Second Time Around (with Vicki Riba Koestler). :Carrol & Graf Publishers, 2001, (pbk) ISBN 0786708514. 384 pages.
• For Women Only! Your Guide to Health Empowerment (with Barbara Seaman). New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, reprint (pbk). 1999, (HB). ISBN 1583220153. 1573 pages. Oct. 10, 2001 (pbk) ISBN 978-1583222978. 1600 pages.
• Gary Null's Ultimate Lifetime Diet: A Revolutionary All-Natural Program for Losing Weight and Building a Healthy Body. :Broadway, Jan.2, 2001. (pbk) ISBN 0767904742 720 pages. (Retitled Kiss Your Fat Goodbye :Broadway, Feb. 28, 2006 ISBN 0767925174.)
• Gary Null's Ultimate Anti-Aging Program. :K Hardcover, 1st ed., Feb. 15, 1999. ISBN 1575664095 (HB) 498 pages. And :Kensington (1999)(pbk)[ASIN: B000HZXEC4]. And :Broadway, reprint ed., Dec. 1, 1999. (pbk)ISBN 0767904360 608 pages. And :Broadway Books (2000). (pbk) [ASIN: B000GRS85Q]
• The Clinician's Handbook of Natural Healing: The first comprehensive guide to scientific peer review studies of natural supplements and their proven treatment values. New York: Kensington Publ. Corp., March 1, 1998. (HB) ISBN 1-57566-720-7. 870 pages. And Nov. 1, 2000, (pbk) ISBN 978-1575667201. 880 pages.
• Choosing Joy: Change Your Life for the Better (with Vicki Riba Koestler). 1st Carroll & Graf edition. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, April 1998 [ISBN 0-7867-0522-1] (pbk) 311 pages.
• The Joy of Juicing Recipe Guide: Creative Cooking With Your Juicer (with chef Shelly Null). :Penguin Group USA, Inc., 1996 (pbk) [ASIN: B000J33RKS]. And :Avery, April 1, 1992. (pbk) ISBN 0895295927. 240 pages. And :Golden-Lee Book Distributors, Inc. (1992) (pbk)[ASIN: B0000J00HPG]. And :Gary Null & Associates (1991) (pbk) [ASIN: B000MPR0E8].
• The Women's Encyclopedia of Natural Healing. :Seven Stories Press, Nov. 1996 ISBN 1888363357 (28 ailments) 411 pages.
• Who Are You, Really?: Understanding Your Life's Energy. New York: Carroll & Graf, July 1996 ISBN 0-7867-0326-1 (pbk) 218 pages.
• Be Kind To Yourself: Explorations into Self-Empowerment. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Sept. 1995. ISBN 0786702695. 256 pages.
• Nutrition and the mind. New York/London: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1995. ISBN 1-56858-021-5
• The '90s Healthy Body Book: How to Overcome the Effects of Pollution and Cleanse the Toxins from Your Body 1994.
• Change Your Life Now: Get Out of Your Head, Get into Your Life 1993.
• Ultimate Training: Gary Null's Complete Guide to Eating Right, Exercising, and Living Longer (with Dr. Howard Robins). :St. Martin's Griffin, March 15, 1993. ISBN 0312087968. 224 pages.
• No More Allergies: Identifying and Eliminating Allergies and Sensitivity Reactions to Everything in Your Environment (The Gary Null Natural Health Library). :Villard, 1st ed., Nov. 3, 1992. ISBN 0679743101. 464 pages.
• How to keep your feet & legs healthy for a lifetime: the only complete guide to foot and leg care, with sections for walkers, joggers, and runners (with Howard Robins). 1st ed. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, c1990, ISBN 0-941423-36-0
• Black Hollywood: The Black Performer in Motion Pictures. :Carol Publishing Corp. (pbk) Reissue Ed., April 1990. ISBN 978-0806509082. 254 pages.
• Good Food, Good Mood: Treating Your Hidden Allergies 1989.
• The Egg Project 1989.
• The Complete Guide to Health and Nutrition: A Sourcebook for a Healthier Life. London: Arlington, 1984. ISBN 0-85140-655-6. And :Dell, Aug. 1, 1986. (pbk) ISBN 978-0440506126. 608 pages.
• How to Get Rid of the Poisons in Your Body 1977.
• Man and His Whole Earth. Harrisburg, Pa: Stackpole 1976. ISBN 0-8117-0969-8. :Pyramid Books, 1977. (Mass Market PBK) ISBN 978-0515036206. 159 pages.
• Handbook of Skin and Hair 1976.
• Biofeedback, Fasting & Meditation 1974.
• The Complete Handbook of Nutrition 1973.
• The Conspirator Who Saved the Romanovs: The untold story of Aaron Simanovitsch-Kiev jeweler, Rasputin's secretary, etc. by Gary Null. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, (HB) 1971. 177 pages.

Agreed that just a few should be picked out. When I started sorting these out a while ago I had no idea there were so many. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Advisor

Was curious if Mr. Null has Romanian Ancestral background. Programs contain excellant photography, especially in the gardens. Such a relief on the psyche considering those types of things aren't showed as much on television. Wouldn't it change things atmospherically if there were more Nature shows, and positive Universal answers through transmissions that affect psyche, enviornment, and atmospheres?75.200.146.106 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How will this improve the article? Bearian (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aids Denial[sic!] no existe pas in Garry Null writings nor films

Dr Garry Null does not deny AIDS - he does bring scientists together that dispute the HIV as AIDS cause , he challenges the establishment on that - watch his documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_skY80oNQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.182.5 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we, and the real world, define AIDS denialism as denying (or even questioning) the connection between AIDS and HIV, rather than denying the existence of AIDS. Even if Null were correct, he would be a supporter of AIDS denialism, as presently defined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

by the real world you obviously mean The Real World, don't you? By clever use of twists and turns (not without huge profits involve) the lack of proof for the existence of HIV has been made into a dogma and challenging the dogma has been made into heresy - 21st century version of inquisition... Between big Pharma and corporate quest for profit and general greed in the present society, then any challengers to these 'real word views, no matter how scientifically sound and strong, matter not a bit. I would call your 'real world' a 'funny one' and immune to logic and scientific inquiry. Logically and scientifically speaking Gary Null does not deny AIDS, and this is the heart of this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.182.5 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with you, but we would need to have reliable sources, and the place to start would be in AIDS denialism, rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Entire article biased

This is a puff piece; there is so much left out, I don't know where to begin. What about reputable doctors' comments on Null? What about his broadcasts (before his recent return to WBAI) denying the Holocaust? The entire article should be deleted. 2Frann89 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)2Frann89

Not sure what you mean. Every paragraph has something critical about him. Feel free to add more, but it has to be referenced, also take a look at the talk archives on the right Bhny (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I was going to suggest a compromise for the lede, but Nononsenseplease (talk · contribs) selections had no reliable source in the lede. Perhaps some of his additions to the body (but not the bibliography) could be acceptable, if supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin:

Whatever else one could say about Gary Null, that he has written a large number of books and is a prolific documentarian is merely a statement of fact. The same applies to the fact that many of his books became best sellers, and that two of his documentaries won awards. Each of these points are supported by trade publications that are more of a reliable source than Stephen Barrett of "Quackwatch". The bibliography is standard for any writer with a page on Wikipedia.

You'll notice, moreover, that I did not alter the section dealing with Barrett's indignation or with the vitamin poisoning incident. I did move the latter paragraph back to its own section in the body (where it was where I found it) because the incident is over two years old, was of little consequence, and is far from central to the subject (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The incident itself was not deleted as you claimed in your edit summary; indeed, it has an entire section of its own.

No one can say that this article is lacking in criticism against Null's work, and though the importance accorded to the subject's naysayers in this article probably violates NPOV every single sentence of negative criticism that was there when I edited the page is, as you know, still intact.

I'd revert any attempts to delete said criticism, had this happened. Moreover, I did not add any positive reviews and opinions to counter these.

Thanks.

Nononsenseplease (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, material needs to be attributed to a suitable source. That is especially true of material which is either negative or promotional. Your edits contained a great deal of promotional language, but were not backed by sources that (in my opinion) meet the bar for reliability and appropriateness for this site's biographies. I'm not opposed to describing the number of books Null has written, but that description (like other material in the article) needs to be appropriately sourced for us to include it here. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As I mentioned above I added only the mention of some of Null's work, with trade publication references, with no value judgements or anything else "promotional" and without a word of the extensive amount of censure found in the article taken out. Again, I'd revert any deletions of this latter had it happened. Nononsenseplease (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth looking again at this site's policies, particularly on biographical articles. That policy reads, in part:

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source... Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

(Emphasis in original). This material has been challenged, and needs to be attributed to a reliable, published source. Looking at the sources you've repeatedly reinserted: wnd.com is generally not recognized as a reliable source for our biographies. Nor is abetterworld.tv, nor iamplify.com. Nor is imdb.com (see WP:IMDB). MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Those were pretty terrible sources, there was a fair bit of trivial promotion (that he's a runner for instance, not particularly noteworthy; that he's won several incredibly low notability awards, to the point that I can't figure out who hands them out - equally not notable, particularly given the extremity of his claims about health and nutrition). There appears to be a pretty clear consensus against these edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Lawsuit

It is noteworthy, and has been covered in the media, that Mr. Null filed a defamation suit against Wikipedia, which was dismissed with an agreement that Mr. Null pay for part of wikipedia's legal costs in defending the suit, over the content of this very web page. I feel this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snertking (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why don't you create such a report with a footnote to an article about the lawsuit. I have noticed that wikipedia pages about those in the alternative health food area, and anyone who criticizes orthodox medicine, are usually negative, and this page about Null is no exception. It's not neutral, it is critical of Null. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. And I say this being myself neither a vegetarian or someone who goes to health food stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonErber (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments deleted

This is supposed to be a talk page. Why are comments here deleted? It makes no sense to have a talk page discussing an article, and delete comments. I don't believe my comments were abusive in any way, but I did point out that Quackwatch is not an angelic and perfect organization, and that they are unfairly demonizing many people, one of them is Gary Null. If you want to repeatedly silence me for that, then I'll have to call you biased. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments, and the article you point to, are clearly libelous, and do not relate to improvements (or "improvements", or even changes), in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Arthur posted while I was typing. see WP:BLP for more help on this, per Arthur's edit comment. --Roxy the dog (bark) 18:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Since your entire article seems to be taken from the Quackwatch website, my comments were entirely justified on the talk page. My comments were about Quackwatch and the dangers of basing your opinion about something on a single source. I had read the Quackwatch article just before reading this one, and the two read almost the same, except for the arrangement of information. There are a few more references to only negative things here than there, such as the AIDS thing, which is not mentioned in the Quackwatch article, but the characterization of the person of Gary Null is way way off because it seems to have been written by a scandalmonger, and not someone who was trying to present the person as he really is. That I found a reference to a website that you have dismissed as libelous is immaterial. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm betting you're not either. Quackwatch is a bully organization, that's my opinion, and you've no right to silence me. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the link, WP:BLP ? --Roxy the dog (bark) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in regard a right to silence you, we do have a right to do so. Your opinion that Quackwatch is a "bully organization" (whatever that may mean) may be removed from Wikipedia except where it is relevant to improving articles. Even though WP:BLP doesn't apply to groups of persons, making false statements about such groups is not considered constructive, and any statements may be removed from Talk:Gary Null if not relevant to editing Gary Null. Quackwatch, by a long-standing consensus, is generally considered a reliable source for matters within its expertise (medicine and things claiming to be medicine). The many false statements in the ANH article would only be relevant if the organization had a reputation for reliability, so I see no need to go into them here. If you were to propose specific edits to Barrett's Wikipedia article based on the ANH article, we could go into them then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You people are so lazy. I made specific edits to the article, and used the noticeboard to voice my complaints which are specific about exactly what I feel is not neutral in this article. My specific edits were reverted, although they were not controversial, and were based on generally available knowledge to anyone who just goes to Amazon or youtube.com, I also did not delete any information in the article, I simply tried to restructure it in a more neutral way. If you can't be bothered to look at a)my talk page to view the notes of others who made changes to my edits b) the source of the page to see the reverts that have happened in the page and c) the biography noticeboard, even after one of your fellow editors has pointed it out to you... then you're simply lazy and are trolling me to get a reaction. You won't get a reaction from me. Do your homework. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External Links

I've deleted an external link because it was preciusely the same as an inline reference. Please see WP:ELRC. As on many wikipedia biographies of living fringe science figures, the balance between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE seems badly out of whack. Right now I'm focusing only on non-controversial copy-editing, MOS and WP:OVERLINK issues. There are plenty here. But they're only one category of problems I see on this page.

Including links to the same "Quackwatch" page about the living person who is the subject of this article in both the article itself and its External Links section is a near-perfect example of a more serious problem. I'm going to ask other BLP-savvy editors to take a look at this. David in DC (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your edits are improvements; it makes sense to remove the duplicate Quackwatch link. I think inviting additional experienced editors is always a good idea. I guess I don't see the balance of the article in the same light that you do. To me, we're talking about someone who's clearly regarded by virtually every available independent, reliable source as pretty far out there (to put it charitably). If we write an accurate, neutral biography that reflects the best available sources, then we're going to reflect that predominantly or entirely critical view. That said, there are undoubtedly improvements to be made here. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The article will read more negatively than the average BLP because the coverage in the most reliable sources is uniformly negative, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits

Please stop sytematically editing my edits Although 3RR does not apply to BLP's, the rules against edit-warring do. I guess I'll just reply to each edit here.

[1]. Quackwatch and its refs support the version I've inserted. He's identified, with refs, as its chairman, and it says, with refs ,"Quackwatch is overseen by Barrett, its owner, with input from advisors and help from volunteers..." In what sense is it wrong to describe it as his? Also, describing it athat way helps temper the BLP/WEIGHT issues. It's one critic's essay, posted on a site he controls. It would be good to make that explicit.

[2]. Edit summary: "I think this is relevant for perspective." Really? All the facts are in the other refs. This adds nothing but ironic and, I'll admit, funny snark. But this is a BLP. Funny, redundent snark is something I enjoy as much as the next three people. But not here. What dolt do you imagine needs this bit of bullyish "piling on" to get the context, irony or karmic rebound factor? 'Cause I think our readers are fully capable of understanding that this is not a ringing endorsement without being beaten about the head and shoulders with it. Again, I say, just because derogatory information is sourced, that's just a necessary condition for inserting it into a BLP, not a sufficient one.

[3] Like it or not, this fellow is not sui generis. There are other members of the medical community who agree with him. He doesn't oppose them. "Mainstream" is more accurate. And it dies a nice job of posing your own differentiation of the super-majority from the dreaded fringe.

[4] OK, not everyone likes alliteration. I think you're pointing out a distinction without a difference, but so be it.

[5] "Unimportant"? It's 2013 now and the article will exist into the future. I think chronolgy is very important in BLPs. I also think it's nit-picking. But again, so be it.

[6] Don't like assonance any more than alliteration? OK.

[7] As with all of the other edit summaries that deal in style, reasonable people can differ. But do you notice how many of your edit summaries start with "I think"? I do.

[8] OK.

[9] Seems sensible.

[10] Wikilinks are good. But this one's a redirect term. Might you consider a "pipe trick" to link directly to Clinical trial. I'd do it myself, but maybe there's no consensus for this dramatic change.
David in DC (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Systematically editing your edits? For that set, I edited the article without looking through the diffs you made and without distinguishing your edits from Rubins and from what was there before (this is an article I've never edited before beyond the two reverts three days ago). You say " I also think it's nit-picking", but you are looking through every comment I've made and making a comment on each one!

Can we focus on the diffs you specifically disagree with rather than listing every edit I've made? Is it also necessary to comment when I use the word "I think"? I use this word because I am not saying my way is the way of writing, I am deliberately providing a measure of doubt to encourage anyone to freely edit what I have done (that includes you).

Trying to marginalise Quackwatch, an award winning website which has received many recommendations and is highly acclaimed, which uses 100s of advisors etc as "an essay" of Barrett's is a unusual characterisation of the quality of the source. We don't satisfy BLP by unduly marginalising Barrett, who is also a living person. 3RR most certainly does apply to biographies of living people except where you can justify those reverts under BLP policy.

"There are other members of the medical community who agree with him." Can you point me to a medical doctor who agrees with him in attacking medical doctors?

"Might you consider a "pipe trick" to link directly to Clinical trial": WP:NOPIPEDLINK. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski connection

Gary Null is in part responsible for the early promotion of cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski. This fact is IMO interesting, and it is reliably established:

A series of three articles co-authored by Null in Penthouse is credited by [[David Gorski]] with bringing the [[Burzynski clinic]] to prominence.<ref name="SBM">{{cite web | url=http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/ | title=Stanislaw Burzynski: The Early Years | publisher=[[Science Based Medicine]] | date=July 2, 2013 | accessdate=February 20, 2014 | author=Gorski, David}}</ref>

Note that this does not rely on the authority of Science Based Medicine, dismissed by TimidGuy as a blog (but in actuality a project which has a reputation for fact-checking, is a reliable authority for discussion of quackery, and has an editorial board and internal review processes), but is stated as the opinion of Dr David Gorski, who is a noted authority on quackery and especially Burzynski. Gorski has a blog, it's not SBM. TimidGy's rejection of this source is a misreading of the sourcing guidelines; it is a statement of the opinion of a well known authority on the subject, attributed to a place that is authentically his writing, and which does not publish mere polemic. Original sources are cited in the article. It is an uncontroversial source for an uncontroversial statement. You could dispute its significance but not, I think, it's reliability. I think Null is actually proud of it. He's certainly never denied it, why would he? Guy (Help!) 12:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-blog reactions are typically not very enlightened. Unfortunately, we have a problem with WP:COMPETENCE in certain editors (not yourself, Guy) in being able to see which blogs are reliable and which are not. Science Based Medicine is a fantastic source for Wikipedia. We should use it more. However, another technique is to look for the sources they source in the posting. That sometimes works; I'm not sure about in this case. In any case, I should note that I support your revert, Guy. jps (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

NYDN

Red Pen of Doom: You don't have a talk page so I am talking here. Why is NY Daily News "never an appropriate source" when cited as a news item? I can't believe that. It's a newspaper. hello 03:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talk • contribs)

THe NYDN is a salacious tabloid. We only use reliably published sources particularly for potentially controversial content about a living person. (and I do have a talk page, I dont have a user page.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

The article, and specifically the lead, present Null in WP:UNDUE light, not adequately positioning him as he is viewed by mainstream academic health researchers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

hello 00:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) it seems you would have Wikipedia share the obvious prejudice of prior (and current) editors of this article. Wikipedia ought not take the view of researchers, but bring to bear principles of objectivity to every subject. That would be like saying Mario Andretti fails because he cannot adequately engineer a race car. Null has a specific place that he has earned consideration due to his prolific and successful publishing track record in radio, print, and film. He is a proponent of health and wellness who has at times challenged establishment thinking, and at times advocated many tenants that establishment medicine holds dear -- that diet and exercise can make a person healthier.

He does have a Ph.D. from an accredited institution which was formed by other respected (Bard College, Swarthmore. and more) institutions, so I am not sure exactly about your argument. If he has a Ph. D. from an accredited institution and he discusses nutrition, doesn't that make him part of the establishment in a way? Kindly elaborate more specifically? hello 01:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation for further participation in editing this page by the entire community

Per my comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive199#Gary Null Article, I am restoring the article to status quo ante—that is, to the way it was before the flurry of edits (what, nearly fifty?) made without prior discussion by Ian McGrady. As I noted there, a very large number of changes were made, all aimed at slanting this article in a particular way, and sometimes accompanied by dubious, misleading, incomplete, or just plain wrong edit summaries that make it difficult to follow exactly what McGrady changed and his reasoning for so doing.

Particularly given McGrady's acknowledged personal interest in the article subject (and arguable conflict of interest), he would be wise to discuss his proposed changes to this article here on its talk page before engaging and further wholesale revisions.

I apologize now to the other editors who have partially reverted McGrady's changes or attempted to edit them back towards a more neutral treatment; I'm afraid that too much material was lost without discussion, and would likely stay that way if not caught now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

My revisions are not wholesale: I just undid an ENTIRE reversion. The article was being developed more fully. Just because I have an acknowledged conflict of interest, there is *nothing* in Wikipedia that says I CANT work on the article, moreover. (Find the passage that expressly forbids it.) The contributions are valid. Out of laziness, you'd destroy the work? More of this scorched earth behavior. hello 02:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if you didn't have a personal interest in the article's subject, there's an expectation that editors be prepared to discuss and defend major changes to an article. Frequently, this takes the form encapsulated in WP:BRD: edit boldly, get reverted, and then discuss your proposed changes. All of your edits are still in the article history; you need to figure out which of those edits are actually defensible, and make some calm, concise, specific proposals on this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there has been anything uncalm on my part - as you can see from the cadence of discussion, it is certain editors who apparently uncalm. hello 03:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talk • contribs)

I fully support User:TenOfAllTrades' return of the article to the condition it was in before it was turned into a glowing CV for Null in a swingeing series of edits by user:Ian McGrady. As I said in my edit summary when I did exactly the same thing a day ago, "wikipedia doesn't do CVs" hello? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the article: You'd let THAT stand? It says nothing of his accomplishments which warranted the article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian McGrady (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You've received plenty of advice and even warnings. Heed them. You have a COI, so stop editing the article and discuss any proposed changes on the talk page. Follow WP:BRD and you'll have much more success. Also sign your comments properly, as you have been instructed on your talk page. We have customs and conventions here, so start following them. We edit collaboratively here, and solo editing of controversial articles, like this one, won't work. You'll only get into trouble if you keep this up. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of Fringe and Pseudoscience

OK. Since this is a reality-based encyclopedia, at least in theory, this treatment of Mr. Null suffers from numerous problems. Namely, please review ,WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS

NPOV does not specify "fair and balanced", it specifies that we should provide (particularly on scientific topics) what the weight of the majority of reliable sources specify. We do not present absurd views as though they were plausible; our intent is to educate our readers, not misinform them, and presenting absurd views as absurd is not censorship.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Wikipedia is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work. Every serious, reputable scientific source on Earth regards belief in virtually anything advocated by Gary Null as a form of entrenched ignorance - and potentially dangerous or deadly ignorance, at that. If we pretend otherwise, then we're being dishonest and non-neutral, nor are we reflecting the weight of evidence in the scientific mainstream. This site is intended to increase access to knowledge, not provide a forum for nonsense.

As such, this article is FAR too kind to Mr. Null, and while I won't disrupt those who have spent a significant amount of time working on this article, I would ask that you take a serious look at the policies we are charged with upholding and ask yourself if we are being fair.

I am more than happy to help out on revisions. Supaflyrobby (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much guys for reverting an edit for me fixing a typo, because I am sure you can tell from the context of the rest of my prose what my true intentions were right?

This is curious, especially since people took the time to revert my typo twice, but nobody has had the insight to address my concerns. If you ever do, I will be around. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find out...

...what this comment that (anonymously) addresses me was in reference to. I don't seem to be able to pull up any of the article's edit history - is this normal, or could someone link me to a page showing the comment being referenced? From the December/2008 Talk archive: "There is a major problem with your editing and your claim: not one fact that is stated can be verified. Gary Null does not have a PhD in the same sense as say Richard Feynman or Daniel Dennett. It is totally misleading to credit this BS alternative degree from a non-accredited school. --Mccabem 22:08, 30 October 2006 I wrote the rather poor section, which you cut, because it stands in for the fact that no one has any real information about Gary Null. I therefore place it back as it was."

Please delete this request if it doesn't belong here....not sure where there is no other "Talk" on the talk page. Just asking out of curiosity since this comment made me chuckle and my memory from 2008 has apparently faded. (I used to listen to his show on the way to work, but at this moment I can't imagine what I would've added/removed from the article.) Thanks in advance to whomever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccabem (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind...found it another route...and now the history page is listing all the changes as per normal....must've been a temporary bug. (And the commentor's edit was as expected...glad I found it! :D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccabem (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Some useful things to research

INfo on films etc http://www.cpt12.org/members/files/Gary_Null_Credentials_updated.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Keith Kloor blog source

So an IP editor removed a brief claim by Keith Kloor sourced by Kloor's blog here with the edit summary ("Kloor's blog has problems has been discontinued/ Kloor discredited for Agri-conflicts")

• 30 min later JzG reverts the edit here without any explanation. JzG, had laid low lately during the GMO arbcom case, where his behavior on the workshop page did not sit well even with the arbitrators, but as the proposed decision is drawing to a close, he has resumed his usual rouge/rogue editing, as observed by viriditas here "Why does JzG consistently act as if the rules don't apply to him? "With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section."
• I reverted the reversal because a clearly explained edit was reverted without an edit summary and it looked like a clear mistake. I explained my edit with the summary "Reverting vandalism removal of sourced content" erroneously- it should have read something like Reverting to edit which explained reasoning, discuss if you dont understand.
• This was immediately reverted by TenOfAllTrades, followed by his sarcastic message on my talk page.

Keith Kloor's blog should not be used as a source to trash one of Null's films (quote...is a classic collection of all the untruths, myths, and tropes commonly used by the anti-GMO movement. The scope of its dishonesty is brazen... This is crazy train stuff said with a straight face. The worldview that allows someone to believe such things cannot be penetrated with legitimate scientific information.), because of his ties to Monsanto, per US Right to know A Short Report on Journalists Mentioned in our FOIA Requests. BLP's must be sourced especially carefully as our talk page above states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was following up some obvious agenda-driven IP vandalism. Gary Null is a crank, if your agenda requires you to establish or protect the credibility of Null then you are doomed, I am afraid.. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Er, Wuerzele, the message I left you on your talk page wasn't sarcastic. Your edit summary of "Reverting vandalism removal of sourced content" clearly didn't match the edit that you made, and it looked like a clear mistake. I honestly presumed that you had mis-clicked using some sort of semi-automated editing tool (Huggle or Twinkle or whatever), perhaps intending to revert the preceding edit (made by an IP) which JzG's edit had already undone. I notified you on your talk page so that you would be able to check any similar edits more closely—or file a bug report if your Huggle wasn't behaving the way it was supposed to.

I certainly didn't realize that your intent was actually to fire a shot in an edit war, and I have difficulty seeing how it's helpful to bring the GMO arbitration case into your content dispute here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The relevance appears to be that Kloor criticises Null for his nonsense about GMOs. That's relevant to GMOs only tangentially: pretty much everything Null says is nonsense of one sort or another so the fact that this is a specific sort of nonsense, I would regard as a coincidence only. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades ok an apology then? but it sure looks sarcastic

as far as my edit summary: I already wrote above that it was erroneous, so you should stop beating a dead horse.

Most importantly: Neither of you responded to the obvious point, I raised (the Kloor source), instead you and JzG beat various WP:strawman arguments of agenda and Gary Null, and even GMO (?? I didnt mention the term at all- you are the ones upholding the term in your Keith Kloor quote) none of which interests or applies to me. To the superficial onlooker it looks like you try to discuss, but you are not engaging just talking to the hand. An unacceptable claim and source remains. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a valid comment from a valid source with a valid criticism of Null's idiocy. I advise you to pick your fights carefully. As I said before, if you think Null's views increase the credibility of your position, then you have a very serious problem. This is WP:FRINGE territory, the claims Null makes do not normally get touched by scientists because they are batshit insane. It would be like insisting on official Government refutation of Alex Jones' claim that the San Bernadino mass shooting is a false flag operation. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A Few Small Changes

This article is troublesome. Sprinkled throughout are adjectives that seem to be included to denigrate the subject's (Null) works and credentials.

I had some ideas that I believe would have made the article more "encyclopedic" but I could not manage the edit through all the HTML. Somehow, after an hour of editing, I was unable to save my changes. So, if I am right about thinking the article is slanted against Gary Null, I really don't care about Null, just about Wikipedia. Maybe somebody who knows how to do it will take up the task. Anewcharliega (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Perpetual808

This page in under EXTREME attack.

This quote in in Gary Null's introductory paragraph or first section in his biography: "His views on health and nutrition are at odds with scientific consensus; psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, described Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease". It is not Stephen Barrett's page, it is Gary Null's page. Barrett's view on Gary Null belong on his page as he is not connected to or has working with Null in any capacity, nor is he a peer. Barrett's hobby or occupation of running his website is not relative. Why does that stand? That is not a neutral point of view? Since when is another's point of view permitted in the introductory paragraph of a living person.

Second section: "His credentials, including the degree-granting practices at Edison State and the rigor of the Ph.D. program at Union Institute, have been questioned by Stephen Barrett on his Quackwatch website, who labeled Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease" and a fraud." THAT QUOTE IS REPEATED in that second section and being in the first.

Stephen Barrett himself could be considered a "quack" himself by the his own standards. Gary Null is not sharing his wikipedia page with Barrett's yet it is under attack to promote his point of view. Conversely, Stephen Barrett himself could be considered a "quack" himself by the his own standards. "According to the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, M.D. says this about quackery: Dictionaries define quack as "a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan" and "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed. Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science." He has been trained in psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for over 23 years and was last licensed in 1993. [1] Perpetual808 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is Gary Null's biography promote Seth Kalichman who is a professor of social psychology at the University of Connecticut with an eBook? Seth Kalichman's opinion Null makes money off his AIDS is not relevant to this biography. It could be said Kalichman is trying to make money off AIDS too. Anyone can publish an eBook but does that mean their option belong on another's biography page when they are making a slight at them? Perpetual808 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely normal and usual for a biographical article to report on the article's subject (in this case, Null) with reference to publications by independent third parties (e.g. Barrett and Kalichman). Indeed, it would be very unusual – and a probable violation of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing – not to cite independent sources in writing our article. Where significant, noteworthy criticism exists of an individual, it is appropriate for us to describe and report that criticism; indeed, we are obliged to do so in order to present a neutral point of view. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors who have undone this [11] edit by Perpetual808. The edit has been contested and should remain out unless consensus is reached here to include it. User:BullRangifer has commented on the edit summary by Perpetual808 on the user's talk page.

The removal of the sourced material concerning Seth Kalichman does not seem warranted. The material has been in the article for a long time and addresses the issue of Null's standing in the scientific community.

The addition of the material attacking Stephen Barrett does not seem appropriate. If he's not a worthy source then all mention of his comments should be removed from the article rather than attacking his reliability. Not hat I'm saying he should be removed form the article. I have not evaluated him as yet, but adding an attack to the lede is not the way to go. Meters (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at Seth Kalichman I believe including his comments on Null is justifiable, and attempting to characterize Kalichman as a quack is not. Meters (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to look at Barrett again, rather than Kalichman. Barrett seems to be an acceptable consumer advocate to be quoted in this article. I think that the lack of acceptance of Null's positions is significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the lede, but I'm not sure that it's done as well as it could be. The quote is used twice, as Perpetual808 pointed out when he or she removed it. What do other editors think of the reuse of that quote in the lede as a summary of the more extensive Barrett material in Gary_Null#Early_life_and_education? Meters (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Barrett is one of the world's best known experts in quackery and health fraud. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Somebody claiming to be Gary's Attorney has nominated this article for deletion. They claim the reference "Salon" doesn't work (it doesn't for me either) so this [[12]] is a correct ref. If I can figure out how to do it, i'll put it in (how long have I been here???). I'm goibg to respond at the deletion discussion [[13]] -Roxy the dog. bark 16:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help covers the proper procedures for living persons or those acting on behalf of living persons to change or draw attention to potential factual issues about them in our articles. Contributing to the AfD discussions and replacing bad sources with better ones also helps. Thanks, and good luck! loupgarous (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Why have you addressed your edsum at me? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Gary Null radio link

I removed this link in the external links section http://prn.fm/ per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL as it is available on Null's other websites. As such, I see no reason that it should be added. Jim1138 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) There is

• Gary Null's website:
• The Gary Null Show: https://thegarynullshow.podbean.com
• The Vitamin Closet: https://www.garysvitamincloset.com/
• Gary Null TV: https://www.youtube.com/user/GaryNullTV
• Gary Null on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Null/100009205457958

The list is quite long. One link is enough. Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but one bit of weirdness is that garynull.com is not a personal homepage as one might expect, it's just a redirect to a site selling his dubious vitamins.

Maybe get rid of that link and put the radio link in instead. ApLundell (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@ApLundell: I would think the Facebook page might be a better choice. It has a links to the radio channel. An instant-on radio channel seems a bad choice. Or could link to http://prn.fm/about/gary-null/ Jim1138 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I just retuned to status quo ante without seeing this discussion. I'll wait and see what happens. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice it was autoplay. (No speakers on this machine, mercifully.)

I don't have any objection to the Facebook link as the official link. ApLundell (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll change the "official page" to the Facebook link. Jim1138 (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gary Null. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811063012/http://aidstruth.org/news/2010/wbai-do-not-put-gary-nulls-dangerous-show-air-sign to http://www.aidstruth.org/news/2010/wbai-do-not-put-gary-nulls-dangerous-show-air-sign
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306011355/http://www.current.org/mo/mo901n.html to http://www.current.org/mo/mo901n.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Biography of Gary Null

 Removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:NLT and prepare to be blocked. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPN discussions: BLPN Sep 2013 + BLPN Feb 2014 + BLPN May 2014. Deletion discussions: AfD Sep 2006 + AfD Aug 2007.

Contributors are (generally!) not paid by the hour so please be more concise. It is better to focus on specific issues which are lost in the wall of text above. If you intend spending more time on this issue it would be helpful to become familar with some jargon such as WP:TLDR.

Per WP:NLT it is not permissible to use Wikipedia to threaten other editors with legal action. Of course people are free to initiate legal action, but they are not free to use Wikipedia as part of the campaign. Many procedures at Wikipedia are "flexible" and imperfectly enforced. WP:NLT is an exception because it is applied uniformly.

I have mentioned this at WP:BLPN in the hope of getting further contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

web md

Aside from the copypaste, WebMD does not meet WP:RS. I will also note the promotional nature of the revdel'd edits Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)