Bon courage (talk | contribs) →Cataracts: r |
184.166.177.242 (talk) |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
FYI, I have raised a query about this article at [[WP:FT/N]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
FYI, I have raised a query about this article at [[WP:FT/N]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
It needed it. Among other things, this is the only diet-based wiki page that doesn't have a criticisms section, even though there are a lot of valid critiques, and a substantial chunk of it reads like propaganda. Considering the fact that anyone who wants to make these passages appear more neutral is chewed out for it in the talk page? Bias is rather apparent. [[Special:Contributions/184.166.177.242|184.166.177.242]] ([[User talk:184.166.177.242|talk]]) 04:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:05, 11 November 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veganism was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
Sources for ethical/dietary distinction |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Toolbox |
---|
Overly promotional material in the lead.
I removed the following from the lead because I consider it to be overly promotional of veganism.
A 2009 research review indicated that vegan diets tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron and phytochemicals and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12.[8] Well-planned vegan diets appear to offer protection against certain degenerative conditions, including heart disease,[9] and are regarded as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle by the American Dietetic Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Dietitians of Canada
Well-planned vegan diets appear to offer protection against certain degenerative conditions, including heart disease,[9] and are regarded as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle by the American Dietetic Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Dietitians of Canada.[10
Firstly, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. It is not a place to try to present new information. The article has a section, 'Health arguments' where the advantages and disadvantages of a vegan diet can be discussed. The lead should contain a summary of this section as a whole.
There is no consensus that a vegan diet is superior to all other diets yet the wording that I removed clearly gives this impression. It is blatant promotion of veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is the only part you removed from the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are quite right, I cut and pasted the wrong bit, thanks. I have corrected the removed section at the top. In second thoughts I think the whole paragraph should not be in the lead. What is your opinion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The information you removed has been discussed many times and has been in the article for many years. It is entirely uncontroversial and properly summarizes the "Health arguments" section, where it appears. It does not present any new information as you have falsely claimed. There is nothing "promotional" about it whatsoever. The material does not present veganism as "superior" to other diets nor does it give that impression in any way; that's your own misreading and misunderstanding of the passage. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The section I removes quoted only the conditions for which veganism is beneficial and quotes only those organisations which support (or at least accept) it. There is no general consensus that a vegan diet is superior to all others but that is the impression the whole paragraph gives.
- I will propose a more accurate and balanced summary of the 'Health arguments' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, I think you may be misreading the sources. The lead doesn't say "superior," but appropriate for all life stages. That is not contentious. The American Dietetic Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Dietitians of Canada agree, and the British National Health Service and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have included vegan substitutes in their MyPlate and EatWell recommendations. The USDA has allowed plant protein instead of animal protein in the federal school lunch program since 2012. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the the bit about protection from certain diseases. One of the sources cited here says that there is no improvement in lifespan so if certain conditions are improved others must be made worse. The article also misses out conclusions from one source that some other (vegetarian and pesco-vegetarian) diets were better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
OR in the 'Health arguments' section
I was going to try to write a more neutral summary of this section for the lead but when I looked at the section I found that it started with and unjustified claim based on OR.
The sections start by claiming, 'There was growing scientific consensus, as of the 2000s, that a plant-based diet reduces the risk of a number of degenerative diseases...'. This supported by a string of good quality references. However this is not sufficient to show a scientific consensus and to claim that is OR. However may sources there may be supporting this view, there is no indication of how many sources have taken an opposing or neutral view. To make this claim we would need a good independent reliable secondary source that had assessed all the literature on the subject and come to a conclusion about a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The reference to 'plant-based' is a little misleading too. That is not a well defined term as can be seen from the references. It is also not clear what diet the advantage is being compared to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Martin, the material you're removing is well-sourced, accurate and has been in the article for a long time, so please gain consensus before removing anything else, if the removal might be contentious. The sources are review articles, so they have reviewed the literature.
- As for "entirely plant-based diet," it means a vegan diet, i.e. no animal products. Some sources use "vegetarian" and "vegan" interchangeably, but you can tell from the articles that they mean vegan, because they refer to diets that are free of animal sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am following WP:BRD. The article says plant-based, there is no 'entirely'.
- It is not at all clear that all the sources refer veganism. So refer only to reduced meat, increased vegetable intake.
- Were those sources cherry picked by someone who wants promote veganism or were they a selection of representative sources on the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, is the vegan diet a plant-based diet? Yes or no, please. Note, I did not ask anything about the vegan lifestyle or vegan ethics. I asked specifically about a vegan diet. Is it plant-based? Finally, please point to the promotional nature of this material. You are misreading it to mean something other than it means. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the vegan diet is plant-based but you might call a vegetarian diet plant-based or even an omnivorous diet with reduced meat. Because this article is on veganism, the implication is that they were referring to a vegan diet only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, have you even bothered to look at the sources? They are about veganism. Unless otherwise noted, in this context, a plant-based diet does not include animals. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have indeed looked at the sources and it is not at all clear that they are referring to a vegan diet. I will find some examples. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, have you even bothered to look at the sources? They are about veganism. Unless otherwise noted, in this context, a plant-based diet does not include animals. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the vegan diet is plant-based but you might call a vegetarian diet plant-based or even an omnivorous diet with reduced meat. Because this article is on veganism, the implication is that they were referring to a vegan diet only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, is the vegan diet a plant-based diet? Yes or no, please. Note, I did not ask anything about the vegan lifestyle or vegan ethics. I asked specifically about a vegan diet. Is it plant-based? Finally, please point to the promotional nature of this material. You are misreading it to mean something other than it means. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Cataracts
TonyClarke has added information that a vegan diet helps prevent cataracts, sourced to "Ronald Ross Watson, Victor R. Preedy, Sherma Zibadi Alcohol, nutrition and health consequences.310 Springer Science & Business Media, 24 Aug 2012 p310". This is not a properly-formatted reference so it's hard to tell what is being cited; no authors are given. And is this a MEDRS? Please could we get a full reference and provide (either here, or in the refernce using the "quote" parameter) the text in the source which support the claim being made? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn - I have since you made the above post amended the citation to include a link, apologies I didn't know how to do that without first reverting. Hope its clear now. TonyClarke (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Aha thanks, I've found it and primped the reference (this is an article in a reference book - the authors are different to the book editors). I'm not sure how WP:DUE this is, as it is just a single study and its results are merely reported here rather than evaluated. Ideally we should get something stronger. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not wedded to keeping the cataract point (I would prefer not to have single studies in this article). But if it's going to remain, it would be better to include the study in the footnote so that people can look it up, so I've added it as a "see also" alongside the secondary source. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The original study was a statistical study using two separate sources, 'proportional hazards regression to study cataract risk in relation to baseline dietary and lifestyle characteristics of 27,670 self-reported nondiabetic participants aged ≥40 y at recruitment in the Oxford (United Kingdom) arm of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) by using data from the Hospital Episode Statistics in England and Scottish Morbidity Records.' So it looks like a secondary source to me, the writers were analysing other research. Clearly it has been accepted as valid by several sources, so I think it should remain.
- I think there is a developing issue with this entry. I am a committed vegan, but have to say that it is becoming like a tirade in favour of veganism. Even some of the photographs are blatantly sensational, e.g.. the plate of lard, which could be seen as attempting an emotional argument for veganism. I think we need more balance in the article, as I think we are winning all the arguments. We don't want, as editors, to alienate people who are commenting with good will. Perhaps separate it out into a factual historical article about veganism, and another giving the arguments for and against veganism? What do people think?? TonyClarke (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- We could get an opinion on the cataract question from WT:MED. As to your wider points, that's a different question which could be discussed in the section below or at WP:FT/N where I have questioned this article's neutrality. As a fresh reader it does seem to me there is some over-selling/advocacy going on here, especially for health topics, which I don't find mirrored in the wider literature. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Fringe & neutrality concerns
FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It needed it. Among other things, this is the only diet-based wiki page that doesn't have a criticisms section, even though there are a lot of valid critiques, and a substantial chunk of it reads like propaganda. Considering the fact that anyone who wants to make these passages appear more neutral is chewed out for it in the talk page? Bias is rather apparent. 184.166.177.242 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)