Talk:Norman W. Walker

Neutrality

There is no discussion of the real facts and scientific research on these topics, nor is there any discussion of whether Mr. Walker's ideas have any merit, nor what those who would criticize his ideas would say.

This is a one-sided speech couched in "Mr. Walker says..."  DavidDouthitt  (Talk)

He advocated eating more fruits and vegetables, there is plenty of science out there supported those claims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.106.192 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

@IP: Everyone can claim there is "plenty of science" to support anything... specially with such a fuzzy and much-abused topic as nutrition. It is a very different thing to support that claim with literature from prominent

@DavidDouthitt Indeed the article is just a list of "Walker says" - but I don't see an inherent problem for neutrality in the article - there is no discussion if those ideas have a merit and there doesn't need to be one, even further, there must not be such a discussion such a discussion was not done by a qualified person who published it in something we can regard a reliable source.

I dunno - any nut can claim anything and this is specially true for nutrition, whose basic fact is that humans can digest a pretty wide array of weird things without taking any apparent harm quickly. If you can provide a prominent opinion on the merit of his opinions, feel free to add them, if there is none, then it's not Wikipedias place to provide one and the neutrality tag that has been in there long enough should be removed. Iridos (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, why is this calculation used on his autopsy claim for only 4 years when he practised medicine for over 70 years. "Walker claims that "out of 100,000 autopsies that I had attended, less than 10% of the people had normal colons." The number of autopsies Walker claims to have attended seems unreasonably high. He would have had to attend an autopsy every five minutes, eight hours a day, five days a week for four years in order to match his claim." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbombadill (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, NWW was not a "medical doctor" & none of his books give any clue as to why he called himself "Dr." It may well have been an assumed title to give his words more weight than they deserved. As to the 100,000 autopsies he claims to have attended, exactly who would he have known that would even allow to allow a "layperson" such as himself to stand around observing autopsies? And 100,000 at that? Was he a personal friend of many County Coroners? At this point, & on its face, this story makes no sense. 173.228.71.128 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, from his biography there is no clue when he _could_ have become a Dc.S. or a Ph.D. He's a person who built a juicing machine.... possibly while observing colonoscopies? The calculation as such probably should be removed for being an obscure form of WP:OR... although the claim that that number seems unresonable high is sensible. If he would have been a medical doctor and worked in gastroentrology for 30 years (35 to 65?), that would still mean, assuming working 5 days a week 100000/(30years*12months*4weeks*5days)~=14 colonoscopies a day — for 30 years! 79.234.83.245 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were talking "autopsies" (dead people), not "colonscopies" (live people)---how did you jump to that?173.228.71.128 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the "facts" in...

the Walker Wikipedia page are not in evidence & in my opinion should be removed,

This would include the French farmhouse carrot-cutting story.

And would also include the "fact" that Walker was in excellent health mentally & physically at his death. Except for his book publisher's claim via a published "eulogy" (& he could definitely have a bias), there currently exists no official evidence (death cert. or coroner's report) in the public domain that proves this allegation was true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.186 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.167.78 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability

A comment on notability: Norman Walker's page needs work, it is true. But why is his notability in question? He advocated the juicing of raw vegetables in the 1930s! Is it seriously suggested that in 1936 he was recycling old ideas with no individuality or impact of his own? I'd like to know more about him, not less (including proper scrutiny). Timray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

I would also thing that notability is granted... he published several books. And yes, the article could need a lot of work Iridos (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is always a "greyzone" of what is fact. Just because it is not a "general accepted fact or officially stamped truth" does not mean it is not valuable and should be cited for those in need of this particular information. Norman Walker is a pioneer of green/organic/natural living - a modern philosopher promoting natural health - information much needed in this age. --- However, as always pioneers can not be mainstream thinking - this would be a contradiction! Yes, there are always greyzones - but at those points --- I find this article about him is important - and I would even cite more - he certainly found a key for improved health and his news are not "new" as nature is still as it was a 1000 years ago - but he reminds in his writings of an natural angle which confirms what all of us know. Just as Newton did not define Gravity but thought to understand it factually - yet --- it is not as if not every commoner would have known it to exist - even if he could not write it down in mathematical formular. We have to allow people to find out by themselves and use scrutiny and I agree with Iridos and Timray that Notability is granted by "common sense proof his work and books". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proserpina1 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Norman Walker and his original "Norwalk" juicer are given a prominent place in the promotional film on the Gerson Institute, The Gerson Miracle, for link to which, see Max Gerson. In this 2004 film, then 81 year-old Charlotte Gerson (who is now 88) says she is completely healthy due to the Gerson diet (which strangely doesn't include all that calf's liver), states that her father died of arsenic poisoning (we are left with the implication that he'd still be going, if not) and that the father of juicing Norman Walker (prominently mentioned along with his original juicer, and footage of it working) lived to be 117. That's what Wikipedia is for: we can look up Walker and find that he made it to 99 years 6 months, which is a pretty good run, but far short of the 117 which would be world-record for a man (see supercentenarian-- the oldest verified man ever, did not reach 116). This guy is the father of the Jack LaLanne diet stuff and has heavily influenced food faddists. He is certainly notable. SBHarris 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)