Talk:Jen Gunter

NPOV

This page is about the individual and her work; it should not be focussed on promoting her views of alternative medicine as if they were the truth . (FWIW, I think that I personally would support her positions, but that's irrelevant.) DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How come this whole Wikipedia page looks like a promotional resume for Gunter? What is the notability argument here? NeneCaretaker (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality and Advertisement Tags

These tags were added today[1] but it's not apparent which parts of the article are of concern. Please clarify. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

her views

There is no special attention paid to her views about fetal tissue research or Donald Trump's health. She is not a recognized expert about either topic. Her notability is not based on her views about either topic. They certainly do not deserve sections of their own, and I don't think they need to be mentioned more than any other views she may have about general health issue-- neither is directly related to baginal health or dubious medical claims by alt med proponents, which are her two principle interests. Unless we can find significant third party comment about her views on these points, ther's no basis for including them. The place for her to state her views in general are her own publications and her own website. Including them here is overemphasis and promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First, WP has no policy or guidelines that refer to “special attention”, so that’s an arbitrary assertion without any clear basis in fact. Secondly, her views on both Carson’s position regarding fetal tissue research and Trump’s doctor’s note, referenced in the article, are both attributed to a reliable source, and there are other independent reliable third-party sources of high caliber (eg, Washington Post, CNN, Newsweek, The Atlantic), that also back it up.[2][3][4][5][6] Third, there is no WP policy or guidelines that limits a bio to referring only to subject matter that falls directly under their presumed umbrella of expertise, and fifth, Gunter is an MD and therefore her area of expertise is anything that falls under the umbrella of medicine, which both of these subjects do. Lastly, the issue (non-issue in actuality) you raised has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:PROMO policy, so the tags have been removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

PROD removal

PROD concern stated as:

"This article is about a living person who does not meet the requirements for notability. Publishing in academia journals and participating debates about topics or interviews does not qualify a person for a Wikipedia article. Having a professional degree does not warrant an article either. Many of the citations in this article are about the subject trolling people on Twitter. That is not notability. See Wikipedia:Notability for more information."

As this article was previously at AfD, it is not eligible for PROD. Also, the sources added to the article (eg fromThe Toronto Star, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail) show that the subject meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, and thank you. I do agree the article was in poor shape, I'm going to keep working on it tonight. Thanks all around to the other editors lending a hand, it's all very wikipedian. Robincantin (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi there! I wanted to write a note here to say that I made some edits to this page today, as I could see there was a lot of work done to create and establish the page -- WELL DONE! -- but I saw duplicate citations and citations that were inconsistently listed. So I wanted to assist in pruning those duplicates out and hoped to make the citations consistent among themselves so they would be easily reviewable in supporting notability as clearly as possible. In order to do that, I made the citations inline -- as I think that was part of the reason there were duplicates, possibly -- and due to my own limitations I personally also have a hard time verifying citations (and therefore notability) with the end cite style, as I like to see the cite around the place it is being used. So I wanted to acknowledge I did that and hope it was okay -- with the main intention here on making the article as good as possible. I also knew that Dr. Gunter frequently writes for various publications, including academic journals, and hoped to add a selected number of those to the page in an easily viewable format in a new Works and publications section. Hope this is seen in the way it was intended, which was to reinforce Gunter's notability and output and contribute a bit of OCD here. Thanks so much! ♥ MootsieOrangeville (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That is fantastic work, MootsieOrangeville and thank you for leaving a note on the Talk page. Yes, citation style had gotten a little slack with different editors contributing. I'm not a fan of inline citations, but that's certainly a legitimate choice and it does make it easier to track what goes where at a glance. Kudos to you! Robincantin (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)