Talk:British Nutrition Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bias[edit]

Untitled[edit]

This reads like a promotional piece for this organisation.

There is no mention of the sugar/bottled water/chocolate manufacturers that fund them.

Also, should maybe mention that legally anyone can call themselves a nutritionist in the UK so the term has no real meaning.

Spin[edit]

Bias would be putting it incredibly mildly. Until now, this entire article has been a piece of advertising for the BNF. Sadly, all that had been 'improved' up till now was the quality of the spin language (most impressive it was, too!). I have overhauled the entire article, re-organising it to match a more standard Wikipedia format, removing large chunks of text that were nothing but spin, and carefully editing the language to approach a more objective tone.

I also added the 'Criticism' section, which was entirely absent previously, and which certainly seems noteworthy.

Let's hope the BNF don't get too upset at losing the free advertising they've had from Wikipedia over the past few years! Will be watching this one...

Richardsg213 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

The BNF clearly went to a bit of effort to add a long piece on all of the wonderful things they do. However, I took issue with the following:

1) Repetitive. It kept hammering home the same lines over and over, which made it sound suspiciously like advertising.

2) Biased tone. It was written as though it is completely plain and obvious to all right-thinking persons that the BNF are lovely and benevolent and everything they do is perfectly wonderful and they are impugnable champions of pure science and reason. In short, it read like an advertising piece. It was not written in an appropriate fashion for an encyclopedia article.

3) References. There were none. Not a one. And it had even done away with the references that were in places in the previous version.

Richardsg213 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Nutrition Foundation. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article revision[edit]

The current version of the BNF article has broken links, incomplete references and is not particularly informative. Rather than make separate comments or individual edits, it is perhaps simpler to do a full redraft, as follows:

This revision has been prepared without the knowledge of BNF, although I intend to advise them of it. To allow a little time for comments, I plan to replace the existing article text on 15 September. Douglian30 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]