Michael Yudkin
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
John Yudkin edit
Many thanks for your excellent re-write of the John Yudkin article. It was long overdue and even though I might reasonably infer that you have a familial relationship with John, it remains well balanced. In reading the article, I wondered whether it would be even better balanced to mention the collaborative work that John did with Jack Edelman at QEC into carbohydrate metabolism especially the metabolism of fructans. My understand from discussions in the mid '60s was that this research cemented John's views about the dangers of sucrose. I am now along way from the science, but if you or someone still with active involvement could add a sentence of you, I am sure that it would enhance the article. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 16:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks on the article. I know that John was a colleague of Jack Edelman at QEC, and that the two of them were very friendly, but I've not found among John's published papers any article that has both of them as authors. There is a book called Sugar - Chemical, Biological and Nutritional Aspects of Sucrose, published in 1971, edited by John Yudkin, Jack Edelman and Leslie Hough. Both of them have chapters in there, but Jack's is called The role of sucrose in green plants and it doesn't relate at all to human nutrition. So, while you may very well be right in believing that John was influenced by Jack's work on fructans, I can't find any primary source that I could cite in support of that belief. More generally, I hope to improve the article over the next few weeks by expanding some sections and adding more citations. Thank you very much for your interest. Michael Yudkin (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the reference to Ancel Keys in the section on "Pure, White and Deadly". In response to the helpful and entirely valid point that I had given no examples of Keys's rancorous language, I have now included two extracts from his published papers, both with citations in due form. No doubt it's a matter of opinion, but I do not regard either of them (and there are dozens of other examples I could have included) as maintaining civility. Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
John Yudkin edit
Hello Michael, if by any chance you are a relative of John Yudkin, would you consider looking for a photograph of him that the copyright holder would be willing to release?
The copyright holder is usually the photographer, so it could be a photograph that a family member or colleague took, where the photographer is still alive and agrees to a release, or one where the photographer has died but the photographer's next of kin agrees to a release.
I will explain how to release and upload it (I can do the latter), if you're able to find a photograph. Hoping you can help, and thank you for your work on the article. SarahSV (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to explain that by "release," I mean that the copyright holder agrees to allow the photograph to to be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. SarahSV (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Sarah, Thank you for the brilliant re-editing of the article on John Yudkin. I've just made four tiny corrections: a typo; a duplication of the Fellowship of the Hebrew University; John's age when his father died, and the year in which he began clinical studies. I am having trouble in locating a photograph which is not still in copyright, but I'll go on looking. Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The genius of John Yudkin edit
It seems like you may be related to John Yudkin, and I just wanted to say that I believe someday he will be lauded as one of the great scientists of the 20th century for his prescient work on diet, diabetes, and heart disease. I am reading his book now and I am amazed at how much he knew in 1962/1982. The world is just now catching up, and I am so happy that his book has been re-released, so the world can know how much he knew back then... and how much of a tragedy it is that his brilliant work was ignored, squelched, and even mocked by the inept and corrupt establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.164.105 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your very kind comments. It's exciting to see the change in the public perception of JY's work. Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Pure, White and Deadly edit
As an ex QEC student, I suspect the time has come to substantially develop "Pure, White and Deadly" from its current unsourced stub status. If you have any time and resources to put in to this, I think it is seriously overdue. Regards Velella Velella Talk 17:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I'm not sure what would be involved in developing the article, so perhaps you could be kind enough to give me an idea of what you have in mind. I don't have much time at the moment, but if you could indicate a direction of travel I'd be very happy to consider it in a few months' time. Thanks and regards Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Velella, I'm sorry but I misunderstood your suggestion of 21 April. I thought you meant a rewriting of the article on JY, but I now believe you were referring to the brief article on "Pure, White and Deadly" itself. My apologies. Yes, I'd be able to develop the "Pure, White and Deadly" stub. I'll be away till about the middle of May, but after that I hope to find time to do it. Apologies again and regards. Michael Yudkin (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent! I wasn't quite sure how to respond to your query so I let it mull around in my mind for a few days, but you have now clarified the issue. For the record, I would be happy to help. I have a copy of the original publication, but I don't have any other insights that might illuminate such an article. Regards Velella Velella Talk 12:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Velella, I'm working now on rewriting the "Pure, White and Deadly" article. When a draft is ready, is there any way of taking advantage of your kind offer to help other than by posting the article? Can I send it to you informally? Michael Yudkin (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- I guess the best way might be to create a new version in your sandbox and leave a note here when you have something to review. Very happy to contribute/ review/ make suggestions. Regards Velella Velella Talk 21:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Velella, I have finished a draft of an article on "Pure, White and Deadly" and have posted it in my Sandbox as you suggested. I'd be very grateful if you could kindly take a look at it. May I add a couple of points. My colleague Jack Winkler, who is Emeritus Professor of Nutrition Policy, is extremely knowledgeable about the way in which PWD was received, its rapid disappearance from public discourse, and its re-emergence in the context of increasing concern in the past few years over excessive sugar consumption. Jack, whom I consulted about my draft, thought it was valuable to have some of this history included in the article. I strongly agreed, but persuaded him that he would be far better at writing it than I would. So we agreed that I should show you my draft first, that that should be posted if you agreed, and that he'd then write a supplement which could be added later. Secondly (and much more trivially) in the Sandbox piece I used two consecutive single inverted commas to indicate italics. I've done this before, in the JY article, and it seemed to come out as italics as I wanted, but this time it's come out as a quotation mark, identical to ". Could you kindly tell me how to get the text into italics? Michael Yudkin (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- That looks a very good start but it will need supporting references to be accepted. At present it reads a bit like original research - your view of the book rather than views demonstrated by independent and reliable sources. A very quick search finds many sources. One from the Guardian here is not very helpful, but it is prudent to include sources that support all sides of the argument. One from the BMJ is useful here and one one demonstrating how the name of the book has seeped in the scientific consciousness here. There must be many more, and many in the public and scientific literature that pre-dates the internet - you may well have access to that material. Provided the key and contentious issues are sourced, the bulk of the text can probably stand, particularly if they are short verbatim quotes from the book itself. You can use the format <blockquote> ''your quote here'' </blockquote> to format quotes. However you need to be very careful of being accused of copyright violation if it appears significant copyright text has been copied verbatim to the article. It may we worth looking at article about other books to judge an appropriate balance of sources. For example The Mill on the Floss manages with just four sources, one of which is the Bible!
- I can see absolutely no problem with a knowledgable colleague working on the draft with you. There are no rules preventing two or more editors working on a draft together just as long as only one responds to any issues such as threats of deletion. Best to avoid being accused of being a sockpuppet! Once the article is in main-space anyone can edit it and I think that you can assume that some the protagonists in your father's lifetime or those that were convinced by their rhetoric, will still be around and will want to "re-balance" the article.
- I have fixed the formatted the title in the draft as bold, but on reflection it should probably by bold and italic. I will fix that shortly. On UK keyboards, bold is three apostrophes at beginning and end of bold text, italic is two apostrophes at beginning and end. Hope that this helps Velella Velella Talk 19:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- One further thought. A stub class article already exists at Pure, White and Deadly which is unsourced but doesn't appear to be at risk of deletion. If you added your version to this existing article in a piecemeal fashion - a few sentences at a time with some sources, there should be no problem with notability. If two editors were adding complementary material that would also pose no problems. Some editors get suspicious when large blocks of text are added in a single edit, although, in this case, there would be nothing amiss or suspicious. Velella Velella Talk 14:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Velella, thank you very much for your helpful comments, which I have discussed with Jack Winkler whom I mentioned earlier.
We are happy to collaborate in revising the draft in my Sandbox. Jack is more knowledgeable than I am about the reception of PWD, and he'll be happy to cite sources that describe its reception at the time and also the subsequent history of changes, at the level both of lay opinion and amongst experts, in views about the consumption of sucrose. Depending on how the writing goes, we may want to add quite large blocks of text rather than a few sentences at a time, and I'm grateful for your assurance that if we do that there will be nothing amiss. Jack and I have agreed that I shall be responsible for responding to any questions that arise. Michael Yudkin (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- In other thing I forgot to mention is that you both probably need to declare a conflict of interest (COI). As a family member you certainly have a conflict of interest and any academic colleague would also probably be deemed to have a conflict of interest too. All that this probably means is that you need to make a declaration of that interest on your user page and be modest in your individual additions to the article. If challenged, you may need to post material onto the talk page for discussion there before it is added to the article. At present the article has fewer than 30 watchers so posting a COI declaration and then adding material will probably be fine. Regards Velella Velella Talk 17:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Velella. I shall certainly declare a conflict of interest before adding to the article, and I'll ask Jack Winkler to consider whether he needs to do the same. Kind regards Michael Yudkin (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I wish to declare a conflict of interest regarding the article on John Yudkin (JY). I am JY's son, and I was responsible for much of the article headed with his name, basing the article largely on the published material cited therein. I am now working, together with a collaborator, on an article on JY's book "Pure, White and Deadly"; we hope to finish it in the next couple of months. My collaborator never worked with JY and had only one, casual, meeting with him. Michael Yudkin (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Velella, I have just posted in my Sandbox a new version of the draft article on Pure, White and Deadly, which is intended to respond to the very helpful comments you made earlier. In particular, it discusses the reactions to the publication of PWD and the way in which these reactions have changed over the years, particularly in respect of changes in public and official perception of the risks associated with the consumption of sugar. My co-author Jack Winkler and I should be very grateful if you could take a look at the changed article and give us your views. Kind regards Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Michael Yudkin Many thanks for that. I have read it through and will try and respond as soon as I am able. I am currently in New Zealand, a long way from any academic references and any material from QEC and most importantly, a long way from my copy of the book. However, I will do my best but it may take a little while. It was good to see your declaration of interest. Ideally that should be copy and pasted onto your user page and it may be prudent to also copy and paste Jack Winkler's note there too for full transparency. Best wishes. Velella Velella Talk 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- My first impression is that this looks like a very impressive review and article. It might be improved at the very start by a sentence such as
Wikipedia, just like the popular press still needs a headline issue to grab attention and set out its stall. As long as any headline issue is fleshed out later in the article and references there, this is quite acceptable. It is important to convince other editors that this article is notable.Pure, White and Deadly is a book published in 1972 that detailed the adverse effects of sugar in the diet. The book suffered a barrage of criticism at the time but has in recent years been accepted as the first scientifically based publication to anticipate the obesity boom and the adverse health consequences, especially in relation to heart disease. It was written for a lay readership by John Yudkin, who had recently retired from the Chair of Nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College........
- My first impression is that this looks like a very impressive review and article. It might be improved at the very start by a sentence such as
- One minor issue that I did note was that some words are wikilinked in several places, words such as sucrose, carbohydrate, glucose etc. The convention is that words should only be linked at their first occurrence but may be linked again later in the article if there is a real possibility that a reader might dip in part way through. Thus re-linking after a new main heading is probably OK.
- In your shoes, I might start updating the existing article by copying across your version, section by section over a period of days, ensuring that it always makes sense as you do. Alternatively, you could simply copy and paste the whole lot in one go, but you might prompt a back-lash from some editors who will see a massive change in the article size. Another alternative, and probably the best alternative, would be to post a message on the talk page of the existing article with a link to your draft in your sandbox and ask for views on your proposed new version. My guess is that you will get no responses which then gives you carte blanche to copy your version into the existing article. You had some very useful input into the John Yudkin article from SlimVirgin who might also be of assistance here.Best of luck. Velella Velella Talk 07:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Velella, Thank you for your most helpful comments on our article. Jack Winkler and I are very pleased that you like it. I shall be more than happy to follow your advice in making modifications. Specifically, I'll start with a couple of sentences of introduction, as you suggested, and I'll delete the redundant wikilinks. I shall also use the third of your alternatives (what you call the best alternative) to gather any editorial comments before copying our new version into the existing article. Meanwhile I'll copy and paste my declaration of interest, together with Jack Winkler's note, on to my user page. I'm very grateful, not for the first time, for your support and advice. Best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Velella, I've had no comments on the draft, and so, as you suggested, I've copied the new version into the existing article. Maybe you could delete the template messages about notability and citations now? Thanks again. Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)