Great floors (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 377: | Line 377: | ||
::::::::::that is not accurate. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
::::::::::that is not accurate. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Can you elaborate, Jytdog? |
:::::::::::Can you elaborate, Jytdog? |
||
* [[User:Great floors]], about your comments that you stuck [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Greger&type=revision&diff=760969031&oldid=760103363 above], we do not peer review sources. See [[WP:MEDASSESS]] which says "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Reddit recruiting== |
==Reddit recruiting== |
Revision as of 03:03, 20 January 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Request for comments on SBM source
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS? Sammy1339 (talk 00:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Survey
- Yes. Self-published expert sources such as the Science-Based Medicine are covered by WP:RS which states
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources).
There have been two substantive objections to applying BLPSPS. One is that the blog is not self-published due to its editorial policy. However, this policy applies to outside submissions from the general public, not to the blog authors' posts, which are not subject to editorial oversight. The other is that Hall's criticism concerns claims made by Greger but not Greger himself. I believe this is transparently false. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The text has changed considerably. My "transparently false" refers to the longstanding text in this revision. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes This source does not seem to satisfy our sourcing requirements for BLP. Hall is a member of the editorial staff of Science-Based Medicine, and I don't see evidence that there was rigorous independent peer review of the post in question. If it had been covered by a high-quality source then it might be a notable commentary, but I don't see evidence of that, either. — soupvector (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No First, Science-Based Medicine is not a "blog" as intended in WP:BLPSPS - it is nothing like say this , and says nothing like that, and the RfC question is skewed in describing it that way. Second, the content supported by the source is not about Greger, per se. It does not say "he is a quack" but rather discusses his arguments.
- As noted in the section just above this, Greger's views on diet are not discussed in mainstream scientific sources - mainstream nutrition doesn't appear to have much time for some one who sells books with exaggerated titles like "How Not to Die". (And it is interesting that every one of the comments he has made on pubmed abstracts was removed by site moderators....)
- Science Based Medicine is one of the few sources we can turn to, to get out-of-bubble, independent, scientific discussion of people who make pseudoscientific claims, like Greger does at times. In the short-lived BLPN thread that I had opened just prior to this being launched and withdrew afterwards, some of the feedback we were getting was that the article needs more discussion of the claims that Greger actually makes, and that was reasonable and helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No WP:BLPSPS is about comments on the person. I think the topic is this edit which shows attributed opinions of Harriet A. Hall on the content of a video made the person—the text concerns what is know about the subject's work. Per WP:PARITY if someone makes health claims that are not part of evidence-based knowledge, it is satisfactory to show suitable opinion on the claims. Greger has not performed extensive research to test his ideas, and it would not be reasonable to require an opposing opinion to be based on peer-reviewed research. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia has a policy for biographical subject matter (WP:BLP) and a policy that covers fringe views (WP:PSCI within WP:NPOV). The latter says we should include an "explanation of how scientists have reacted" to the fringe view. This we do in the Greger article, and so are in line with the relevant policy. Obviously we wouldn't use the same source for biographical details about Greger. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. As far as I can see SBM is being used to comment on the statements, not biographical details about the person. (A simple test, if you removed Greger's pseudoscientific claims from the article, there would be no reason to have SBM here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- no per reasons given by the last four editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No agree with others that is not a violation of WP:BLPSPS; her opinion is attributed and she appears to be qualified to express that opinion. But is this particular opinion that she expressed in relation to Greger notable or the majority viewpoint, in that, have other reliable sources covered it as a significat viewpoint. Is it a widespread belief/opinion shared by others that - Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products - if it is, I would expect to see confirmation in other reliable sources that it is a prevalent point of view. If it isn't, then we need to be careful that we don't give her opinion undue weight.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- When Sammy started this RfC, the article was in a much worse state (and has been for a very long time). It had this in the lead: "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits.". There was no attribution and it clearly had undue weight for the reasons you mentioned, and it's exactly the view I have expressed here for a while. As of right now, as the result of Jytdog's recent edits, it's not in the lead and it's attributed to Hall, so it's better. --Rose (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- No I added my thoughts above when this all started a few days ago. VVikingTalkEdits 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly not. We have been round this loop a dozen times, this is now well into WP:IDHT territory. Hall is a noted authority on bogus medical claims, Science Based Medicine is a respected site with an editorial board, and the claims of quacks like Greger are not published in the peer-reviewed literature so we can't be expected to demand all rebuttals are drawn from the peer-reviewed scientific press. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a clear BLP violation. See WP:Localconsensus, and pinging Bishonen, as Sammy seems to have been topic-banned because of this. WP:BLPSPS does not allow any self-published sources other than by the subject, and even then with great caution if there's anything contentious (and not at all if it involves third parties).
Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.
- Science-Based Medicine is a group blog. Its authors are self-published. There is no editorial oversight, no staff, no one who can say no to the bloggers. If they want to publish at 3 am in their pyjamas live to the web, they can do so, just like us. If the source is being used to balance something contentious, the solution is to remove the contentious thing, not to add sources that violate the policy. This RfC should probably be taking place on the BLP noticeboard. SarahSV (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: (Slim Virgin put a note on BLP, which is how I came here - that's just FYI, the note is perfectly fine) Having looked at the website [1], the Science Based Medicine article and the Harriet A. Hall article, I am having a hard time being convinced of the factual basis for almost everything Slim Virgin wrote, which is really unusual, so I leave this comment, if Slim wants to bring more information (eg. links) to actually convince. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well quite. The main thing as has been pointed out is that Hall is being used for parity for Gregor's claims about diet. Not for biographical information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only in death, no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for. It's an important line in the sand, because it protects BLP subjects from people writing whatever they want on their blog and adding it to Wikipedia.
- Alanscottwalker, if you mean how do I know they're self-published, you can see it on their website. There's no professional editorial staff, just the bloggers. They call themselves "staff", but it's the same list of doctors or retired doctors, and the author of the blog post in question, Harriet Hall, is one of them.
- If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicine, the editors here would never allow it, and that it's an SPS would be a strong part of their argument. It's important to examine the type of source independently of whether anyone agrees with its contents, because if this is allowed, other sources of its type will be allowed too. If there are poorly sourced health claims in the article, they should be removed rather than adding an SPS to "balance" them. SarahSV (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is not true and you lack understanding of the BLP policy if you think it is. I suggest you read the BLP again and take note of 'about a living person' under BLPSPS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for.
I believe BLP indicates otherwise.If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicine
It would fail WP:FRINGE and ARBPS spectacularly.- The issue is whether or not the material in the article is specifically about the person (which I don't believe anyone would dispute falls under BLP primarily), or about the claims made by the person (which many editors say falls under FRINGE primarily.) --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only in death, I helped to write the BLP policy, and I understand it very well. WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person ..." That includes about a living person's claims or anything else about a living person, whether in a BLP or elsewhere. This is a long-standing principle of a core content policy. It overrides any local consensus. The blogger is making health claims herself that don't sound right. You don't fix bad text by using non-RS. SarahSV (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- "That includes about a living person's claims" We go by what the policy actually says, not what you wish it would say. You are also wildly out of touch with how fringe/psudoscience and other junk science claims are countered. By your reasoning every time someone makes unsubstantiated claims or misrepresents science, it would be impossible to provide parity because peer reviewed reliable sources refuting junk science are often not available due to people having better things to do than waste time on obviously bogus claims. You may want to take a look at more biographies with dubious claims (eg Vani Hari and Stephanie Seneff) as experts like those at SBM are routinely required. However I should not need to explain this to you, because you have been aware of the use of SBM as a reliable source in biographies since at least the beginning of the year, as well as the general consensus that yes, it is appropriate when used correctly to counter fringe claims. Likewise Sammy who has attempted to remove SBM from a number of articles for equally as long, on a number of noticeboards including - fringe, BLPN, and RSN and has been rebuffed. So at this point the argument is getting tired. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The blogger is making health claims herself that don't sound right." (dif) ..... undercuts the claim to objectively interpret policy here. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only in death, I helped to write the BLP policy, and I understand it very well. WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person ..." That includes about a living person's claims or anything else about a living person, whether in a BLP or elsewhere. This is a long-standing principle of a core content policy. It overrides any local consensus. The blogger is making health claims herself that don't sound right. You don't fix bad text by using non-RS. SarahSV (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicine, the editors here would never allow it, and that it's an SPS would be a strong part of their argument. It's important to examine the type of source independently of whether anyone agrees with its contents, because if this is allowed, other sources of its type will be allowed too. If there are poorly sourced health claims in the article, they should be removed rather than adding an SPS to "balance" them. SarahSV (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- $0.02 I'm glad to see that some context has been added, yet it still seems out of place to me. For the source itself, while I personally agree with much of what Hall says, the simple fact that it's written in persuasive style rather than expository makes me very uncomfortable. Then the lack of oversight is just as troubling, because this isn't the type of thing you see in peer-reviews. I know nothing about Hall and have no intention of digging deeper, but the style is something I'd expect from perhaps Wendy Williams rather than a professional evaluation of a video.
- The next thing that bothers me is the question that, while it may be necessary to understand someone's belief in order to understand them, is it really necessary to refute those belief in a biography? (in an analogy, should an article on say ... the Pope include the opinions of notable people who think Catholicism is a bunch of hooey (even if they have the science to back it up) or that Hinduism is much better? Does an article on Alistair Crowley need to have criticism of his belief, letting the reader know that Satanism in bad in Christianity.) If the idea is to protect the reader from the subject's beliefs, then a biography seems like the wrong place to do that. This information would better be served in an article about the video.Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd agree if the claims were the subject of the article, or possibly if the information was placed in a section about the video. For the former, Hall's article would probably pass muster, but for the latter I just don't think it makes the cut. Barring that, at best it seems like an attempt to right great wrongs. At worst, it's more likely to cause a Streisand effect. Zaereth (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes This source does not satisfy our sourcing requirements for BLP.
It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here.SageRad (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here.
You sure about that? If so, do clarify because it sounds like it could be a ArbCom violation going on here. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)- Especially since SageRad is in dispute with the managing editor of Science Based Medicine and has inappropriately edited his article. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Struck the text in question ("It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here"). However, the circumstantial evidence about this is pretty clear to me and the source is what the source is. Request Guy to strike his accusation about me being "in dispute" with or having anything to do with SBM except that i've been observing its content and its place in the world of sources. That is personal attack / poisoning the well and untrue and is not focusing on the content but rather on commenter. I dislike that source for solid reasons, because of the content of the source itself. It's an ideologically loaded source with an agenda. SageRad (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong. The managing editor of SBM is David Gorski ([2]). You have a right to express an opinion on this source, but in the interests of openness you should declare that you have a dog in the fight. It would actually make your position stronger, believe it or not. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not have a "dog in the fight" in any sense of any personal conflict. The source is, in my estimation, clearly an agenda-laden bloggy site, in the same way that Infowars.com would not be an acceptable source for most content. SageRad (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- So it was not you who made this edit where you admit you were banned by the managing editor of SBM David Gorski? I suppose technically you are right, you cannot be 'in dispute' with someone who found you so objectionable they had to ban you from their website. If by 'has an agenda' you mean 'has an agenda that is focused on debunking duff science' you would also be technically correct. Then there is this of course. Frankly you should not be touching anything related to SBM with a ten foot pole given your lack of credibility in the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- SageRad, you are your own worst enemy. As OID points out right above, yes, you absolutely do have a stake here. Just be open about it and let others weigh your comments on that basis. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not have a "dog in the fight" in any sense of any personal conflict. The source is, in my estimation, clearly an agenda-laden bloggy site, in the same way that Infowars.com would not be an acceptable source for most content. SageRad (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong. The managing editor of SBM is David Gorski ([2]). You have a right to express an opinion on this source, but in the interests of openness you should declare that you have a dog in the fight. It would actually make your position stronger, believe it or not. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Struck the text in question ("It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here"). However, the circumstantial evidence about this is pretty clear to me and the source is what the source is. Request Guy to strike his accusation about me being "in dispute" with or having anything to do with SBM except that i've been observing its content and its place in the world of sources. That is personal attack / poisoning the well and untrue and is not focusing on the content but rather on commenter. I dislike that source for solid reasons, because of the content of the source itself. It's an ideologically loaded source with an agenda. SageRad (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Especially since SageRad is in dispute with the managing editor of Science Based Medicine and has inappropriately edited his article. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- $0.02 Science Based Medicine is a blog but is it reliable? None of the above comments have made it clear to me whether the source is reliable or not reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- No I don't think the question of "Is it a blog or reliable or whatever?" is really relevant here. The point is, the piece is clearly by Hall, it is under her byline. The quotes used are her opinions of some of Greger's work - whatever else the blog may be, it is a source for what Hall thinks about Greger's work. Since Hall is herself notable, I think her opinion of Greger's work is worth including - that's why I put it in the article. Note that I did not put in quotes about some of Greger's other work which is, IMHO, much sketchier - his alarmist books about bird flu and mad cow disease, for instance - because I couldn't find any good quotes about them, by people with some standing. Hall has that standing, this is indisputably her opinion of his work, and I don't see why it should not be included. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that the wrong approach? Instead of deciding what should be in the article and looking for sources, we should look for sources and decide what should be in the article. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes and no. A problem with fringe/pseudoscience BLP's is that quite often their promoters want their fringe/PS ideas/views included in detail and the rules on primary sourcing allow this. As a result this means you have to look for sources to cover WP:PARITY. When in an ideal world we would start from the position of 'Lets look at what reliable sources say about this (fringe/PS) stuff - oh wait, nothing because its rubbish, then we shouldnt cover it'. Which has so far failed to be enshrined as a policy. With *notable* fringe/PS areas, there are plenty of easily accessible sources to counter, with non-notable ideas not so great. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are good policy reasons not to use primary sources to summarize someone's views, but to source it to secondary sources explaining them. There is no reason for the article to contain information not available in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing stopping readers from following external links if they want to read what Greger has to say. TFD (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey if I could get consensus to leave out every half-baked idea that wasnt covered by secondary sources it would be a start. The next problem is that often these people get coverage in secondary sources for their crackpot ideas, but there is little/no rebuttal (in the same sources) because serious scientists are too busy doing serious science to take the time to address them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are good policy reasons not to use primary sources to summarize someone's views, but to source it to secondary sources explaining them. There is no reason for the article to contain information not available in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing stopping readers from following external links if they want to read what Greger has to say. TFD (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes and no. A problem with fringe/pseudoscience BLP's is that quite often their promoters want their fringe/PS ideas/views included in detail and the rules on primary sourcing allow this. As a result this means you have to look for sources to cover WP:PARITY. When in an ideal world we would start from the position of 'Lets look at what reliable sources say about this (fringe/PS) stuff - oh wait, nothing because its rubbish, then we shouldnt cover it'. Which has so far failed to be enshrined as a policy. With *notable* fringe/PS areas, there are plenty of easily accessible sources to counter, with non-notable ideas not so great. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that the wrong approach? Instead of deciding what should be in the article and looking for sources, we should look for sources and decide what should be in the article. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- No The article is published by Skeptic, not the author. The magazine chose this writer because of their confidence in her competence. However, that does not necessarily mean the source is reliable, useful to the article or has been used properly. TFD (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
*No Summoned by bot. At first blush this appeared to be a self-published blog, and I hastily said so (comment reverted). However, a bit of further examination indicates that this published commentary falls within the exception stated in the policy. Note that I am just addressing the BLP issue, not any other that may be relevant (such as weight, WP:V, etc.) Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Changing to Yes. Sorry to be such a flip-flopper, but I am basing my changed opinion on this article cited below. Since it calls into serious question the bona fides of the website in question, I think that we need to err on the side of discretion, as this is a BLP, and exclude the article in question. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
it calls into serious question the bona fides of the website in question
Could you explain, as I seem to be missing how WaPo article you link address their reliability? --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)- On the contrary, that article concerns the legal action with Edward Tobinick, which rather tends to confirm the worth of SBM! Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes This does not seem to me to be a matter to settle by consensus, but by rule. Even if Hall is a competent and wholesome voice in such matters, it is not true that, as someone said, "if a notable or reliable person makes a comment on a blog then that comment is reliable to use". Casual statements, or even seriously stated evaluations based on slips of memory or casual wording or misconceptions in matters in which there is room for disagreement can happen both to popular authors and top-ranking authorities, especially in informal media such as public interviews or blogs. And all the points made by our NO voters, about everyone else's bad faith in hinting at Greger's quack status or otherwise are beside the point. This is about the permissibility of the citation, not about anyone's evaluation of the subject, or indeed the subject's good or bad faith or value. If the point in the text stands or falls by that one citation, then either find a different citation or ditch the point -- it would thereby be unencyclopaedic by definition. Hall may be a good source, but certainly is not an authority categorical enough to settle a point in violation of our principles, or good sense for that matter. JonRichfield (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- That still doesn't make the citation encyclopaedic. And the illustrative examples I instanced in passing were just that: examples. JonRichfield (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. SBM article is fine to cite in this context. WP:BLP is about biographical information. SBM piece is not about Greger's personhood or information about his person, it's about his claims. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- No - called by bot - looking at the paragraph citing Hall, it is a milktoast and quite reasonable criticism that does nothing to defame Greger. Hall is an expert in her own right. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes per Sammy1339, SlimVirgin, and JonRichfield. Sources failing BLPSPS should not be used for information about living persons; this is a clear line for a good reason, and should not be disregarded based on Wikipedia editors' evaluation of who is or isn't a quack. We have a responsibility to ensure that such information meets reliability standards, including at a minimum third-party editorial review, which this blog does not demonstrably meet. FourViolas (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Greger is a public figure with regard to diets - he gives significant effort to communicating his thoughts about diet and health to the public. What he advocates is often exaggerated and our article needs to discuss that and SBM is a great source for that. The intention of BLPSPS is to prevent someone citing (for example) a blog that says he beats his wife to support content about that in WP. This is nothing like that. This has to do with the ideas he is contributing to the public sphere about health. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- No I pretty much agree with SemanticMantis above. A claim that "he's a fraud" or "he's a kook" would be a problem in a BLP with this level of sourcing. Criticisms of his work, if done with a reasonable degree of respect and without taking over the article, are certainly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. This is not about the person, it is about the validity of a view he has published. So BLP considerations should not apply. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- No - it is an article posted to a website by a contributor (not the Editor) of the website. It is definitely not self-published. The argument seems to be that the publishing of articles at this website is not reviewed by the editors or staff; that the claims of it having staff and editors are basically fraudulent. If that is the claim that is being made this should be more of a WP:RS issue. I feel the way the way this RfC is presented could leave one with the impression that someone is shopping for the best WP policy with which to challenge the material. If the source says it has staff and editorial review, then until someone provides reason to disbelieve, it can't just be labeled as self-published in the interest of removing the content under WP:BLPSPS.
- Yes - Per BLPSPS Third Sentence "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." emphasis on the writers being professionals. The editors, and contributors of this site are not professional writers. As a follow up, this is an article about the person, material that isn't discussing the person is a coatrack, and fails BLP on BLPSTYLE. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- No The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies. Greger's video in fact links to nutritionfacts.org, where each claim is backed up by a large number of peer-reviewed, independent sources. Some claims have over 20 references, yet Hall presents them as being based on one or two weak leads. The total references behind his summary video numbers in the thousands if you combine each claim's content, and they are all made clearly available in nutritionfacts.org's "Sources Cited" tab. Hall's misrepresentation of nutritional science is manipulative and unethical at best, and certainly inappropriate to appear in Greger's living biography.
Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).
[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.
[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.
[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.
[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.
[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.
[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17
[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.
[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.
[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.
[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.
[11]Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.
[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.
[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757--Dariusburst (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- The claim that arteries are "crippled" by "one bad meal" is bullshit, plain and simple. The word crippled has no objective meaning, for a start. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please keep your responses here civil. "Crippled" in the context that Greger employed it obviously means "impairs endothelial function". He was addressing a broad audience, and quibbling over semantics here is really pointless. See my references above if you need to be convinced that a clinician can feed subjects a meal rich in animal fats and then measure an impaired endothelial response. As Zhao et. al discuss, one bad meal can induce angina and a heart attack in patients with coronary artery disease. So, "crippled" isn't the worst way to describe the effect.--Dariusburst (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Crippled" might be considered "manipulative and unethical" too, and I think that is one of Hall's points. Given the extent of time that the research above has been available, I'm wondering where the surveys and reviews might be. Wasn't that one of Hall's points, that the degree of certainty is poorly founded? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hall mischaracterizes Greger (and plant-based nutrition more broadly) as relying upon one or two weak sources. However, in this case, Greger included multitudes of peer-reviewed sources for each. Hall is mischaracterizing Greger; his sources are clearly visible alongside each video in the "Sources Cited" tab. I posted sources above (and have added more, as requested) specific to the question of how a single meal can inhibit (AKA cripple) endothelial (AKA artery) function in human subjects. If you seek reviews linking cholesterol-rich diets to atherosclerosis, there are many. Animal products, I will remind you, are the only source of dietary cholesterol.--Dariusburst (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Crippled" might be considered "manipulative and unethical" too, and I think that is one of Hall's points. Given the extent of time that the research above has been available, I'm wondering where the surveys and reviews might be. Wasn't that one of Hall's points, that the degree of certainty is poorly founded? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.
A presumption that Greger is a quack underlies this whole conversation, and the extreme derision and dismissive attitude of most of the editors involved has rendered discussion impossible. This view of Greger is flatly contradicted by another skeptic blog, which explicitly says of his advocacy work "the science was sound."[3] Now, he is an activist, openly so, and is opinionated. This blog post notes this, and also his avoidance of reporting on studies which say nice things about animal-based food. ("While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine.") I think this is a fair criticism, and a reason to regard his work skeptically, but it's not the same as him being a crank TV doctor. In fact he is a highly cited researcher and is better credentialed in his subject area than Hall.
Hall is not wrong about the science, but it seems that her post misrepresents Greger by assuming that everything he says is part of an argument that veganism is the optimal diet. In fact, as far as I can tell, Greger never claims that the science supports the idea that veganism is healthier than low-meat diets, which it doesn't. One editor tried to change "veganism" to "a plant based diet" in this article, which was accurate to what Greger actually says, though not to the Hall source.
The Hall post is also polemical, framing Greger's work in the context of the zealotry of vegan activists he has nothing to do with. It cites a thoroughly debunked article by Steven Davis, half of whose citations are devoted to criticizing it and correcting its blatant factual errors. To me, this adds some irony.
None of this should really be necessary to mention, as BLPSPS is straightforward and unequivocal, and should end this dispute. But it explains why invoking BLPSPS here is not just a technicality. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above comments are not a policy-based discussion of the issue and have no bearing on the question; they also express a strange and continued misunderstanding of what Hall actually writes. They also describe this blog as a "skeptic blog" which is a misrepresentation. And mindlessly citing google citations is garbage; for all you know 90% of those "citations" are dismissive of him. The pile of misunderstandings and misrepresentations like this, is one of the things that has plagued this discussion. But more than anything, the complete misunderstanding of what Hall actually wrote - the by-now purely willful misunderstanding - has been the key problem. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. These discussions smack of the problems that led to WP:ARBPS and the related decisions, policies/guidelines, etc. Sammy1339 (talk · contribs) appears to have taken break from this [4] - a very wise choice of action. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is an awful catch-22. When I just bring up the policy issue, people accuse me of promoting Greger, despite the fact that I have repeatedly expressed skepticism of him. When I try to make my view of Greger clear, people accuse me of going off topic. It is very difficult to deal with the constant profanity and derision from multiple editors who think anyone who wants to enforce the BLP policy is a supporter of the person. I am very tired of it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel this way. When making accusations about others like this, please provide diffs or similar evidence. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's fairly clear by now that the consensus is that the BLP issue you claim are at stake, are not real. And from the discussions above it seems you will perform the most elaborate contortions to deflect the reality that some of the diet/health views at issue here are decidedly dodgy. In my view your WP:STICK would have been better dropped long ago. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Does anybody else now find it impossible to AGF in Sammys case. Roxy the dog™ bark 09:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Na, I have seen quite otherwise sane editors make some really silly BLP arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Does anybody else now find it impossible to AGF in Sammys case. Roxy the dog™ bark 09:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is an awful catch-22. When I just bring up the policy issue, people accuse me of promoting Greger, despite the fact that I have repeatedly expressed skepticism of him. When I try to make my view of Greger clear, people accuse me of going off topic. It is very difficult to deal with the constant profanity and derision from multiple editors who think anyone who wants to enforce the BLP policy is a supporter of the person. I am very tired of it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. These discussions smack of the problems that led to WP:ARBPS and the related decisions, policies/guidelines, etc. Sammy1339 (talk · contribs) appears to have taken break from this [4] - a very wise choice of action. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The argument is that Harriet A. Hall is notable or reliable. If any notable or reliable person makes a comment on a blog then that comment is reliable to use in Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- she is WP:NOTABLE - Harriet A. Hall; her notability (here in WP) rests on reputation as a debunker of bad science. Does that answer you? Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Any WP:NOTABLE person on a topic can make a comment anywhere online such as a blog and that comment is reliable. I think that is the argument for inclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- In which case you have entirely missed the point. Hall is a notable, published commentator on fraudulent medical claims. SBM is a source that is widely cited and has a reputation for fact-checking. The Skeptic magazine also. A notable person with a reputation in the field commenting in a venue with editorial oversight, is not at all the scenario that you portray. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)\
- Any WP:NOTABLE person on a topic can make a comment anywhere online such as a blog and that comment is reliable. I think that is the argument for inclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I left a note in my edit summary at Harriet A. Hall. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sciencebasedmedicine.org blog has a reputation for fact-checking? According to who? Many blogs have editorial oversight? That does not mean they are reliable. A notable person with a reputation in the field does not mean the website is reliable. One could argue that it appears editors on both sides of the debate are unable to formulate a well reasoned argument for inclusion or exclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Most folks above do not see this as a "blog" as intended in BLPSPS and most do not see it as a making claims about Greger per se; SBM does have a reputation for being a reliable source for PSCI/quackery. I noticed you haven't !voted yet QG; it would be a great if you did. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since editors are mainly asserting their view and not are not really formulating a sound argument I am most likely going to avoid voting. Stating "SBM does have a reputation for being a reliable source for PSCI/quackery." is not providing evidence the site is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Most folks above do not see this as a "blog" as intended in BLPSPS and most do not see it as a making claims about Greger per se; SBM does have a reputation for being a reliable source for PSCI/quackery. I noticed you haven't !voted yet QG; it would be a great if you did. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The sciencebasedmedicine.org blog has a reputation for fact-checking? According to who? Many blogs have editorial oversight? That does not mean they are reliable. A notable person with a reputation in the field does not mean the website is reliable. One could argue that it appears editors on both sides of the debate are unable to formulate a well reasoned argument for inclusion or exclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- While nothing should be included unless it comes from a reliable source (and certainly Skeptic is reliable at least for the opinions of its contributors), whether it should be included depends on weight. That requires determining the not only the degree of acceptance any opinion we add has, but showing that it is often mentioned when discussing the subject. If readers want to know whether a vegan diet has health benefits, they can read about it in the vegan diet article. It does not have to be added to every article about its proponents. Note that Hall was commenting on a video by Greger not his views overall, and we should not imply she was. And if we are going to add commentary on the video we should at least say a little about it before launching into a tirade. TFD (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I thought we are discussing this source from a blog. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is the material "about a living person"?
This point of the dispute keeps being overlooked. Is it about the person, or only about the claims? I hope by raising it to this level of visibility we can get editors to respond. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- The criticism at issue is of health claims made in one of Greger's videos. Whether this is "about" Greger the person is the nub of the OP's complaint here. In my view notions and statements made apparently as part of scientific (or even non-scientific) discourse do not inherit the full protection accorded to any "living person" that may have made them, and WP:BLP does not say it does. WP:NPOV on the other hand is quite clear that dodgy scientific statements must be presented as such. If WP:BLP was amended to specify that its scope was everything related to a person (how it would describe that I don't know) then we'd need to revisit the question. However, any such amendment would bring WP:BLP into opposition with WP:NPOV so I don't think we'd do that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, this distinction makes the RfC a non-issue in my opinion. Maybe people are mixed up because our WP article in question is about Greger as a person, and includes bits about his claims. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Disputes arising from absence of secondary sources
The sections below provide evidence (ad nauseum) that there is controversy arising from the fact that no reliable secondary sources have commented on Hall's criticism of Greger. There is disagreement over whether to label Hall a "(retired) physician" and/or "skeptic", whether to cite articles unrelated to Greger which give background on her qualifications and reputation, which background information (if any) to include, and so on. These debates are, needless to say, very difficult to resolve without sources, and as a result they are straining AGF.
To me, this is further evidence that the material should not be included. If WP:PARITY should seem to demand it to counter Greger's claims, then those should be removed as well. FourViolas (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that SBM is not a reliable source. Most alt med advocates do not like SBM; that is not WP's problem. Actually read PARITY - it was written exactly because of this. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is an objective fact that SBM is a primary source, and that there is dispute among many editors over how to frame Hall's criticism. It is uncontroversial that secondary sources are the best way to determine the appropriate context and weight for controversial information. FourViolas (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC is expired
Does anybody think we need a formal close here? Please review the !votes before you reply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Unarchived for WP:ANRFC. I think a formal close will be useful because as an editor noted at the beginning of the RfC: "Turns out this dispute goes back a few years". Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Its had no response for over a month... This is pointless bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Literally any involved member of the discussion could close it given the clear consensus there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on a minute, you seriously just reopened a stale RFC in order to request closure *which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself as you have not participated in the discussion above*? Why are you wasting people's time? Either close the RFC or stop playing silly buggers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a vote. We should not be reviewing or counting the votes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposed move towards closure
Given that this RFC is well over 4 months old at this point, I'll attempt to move it towards (non-admin) closure... or at least to move it into a state where it can be more easily closed by someone else.
- @Alanscottwalker, Alexbrn, BloodyRose, Brianyoumans, Coretheapple, Cunard, Dariusburst, Darouet, FourViolas, Hobit, Isaidnoway, Johnuniq, JonRichfield, Jytdog, JzG, Kyohyi, Maproom, Only in death, Ozzie10aaaa, QuackGuru, Ronz, SlimVirgin, SemanticMantis, Soupvector, The Four Deuces, Viewmont Viking, and Zaereth: Pinging participants. Two other participants, the RFC creator User:Sammy1339 andSageRad, are unable to participate further due to Arbitration Enforcement restrictions. Although there was canvassing, it does not appear to have had a significant effect on this RFC.
- Questions which have been raised/discussed by participants, and which need to be assessed in order to close the RFC are:
- Where there is not a separate article for someone's work within wikipedia, and that work is covered in that person's biographical article, can critical response - positive or negative - to that author's work be included in the article on that person (living or not), and should it be?
- Should third-party critical response - positive or negative - to someone's work be considered a third-party source about that person (living or not)?
- Does SBM have editorial control over authors' posts?
- Should Hall's post on SBM be considered self-published?
- Should Hall be considered an established expert with respect to Greger?
- Should Hall's post be considered a reliable source?
- Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate Wikipedia:BLPSPS?
- Questions outside the scope of this RFC include:
- If Hall's post can be used, should it be? (including questions of weight and phrasing)
- Should Greger's views be considered fringe?
I'll leave this for at least 36 hours for comment on this approach (flagged at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests_for closure), and to see if anyone else feels like closing this. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is not appropriate. The RFC has been held, and people have responded. You are essentially re-doing the RfC on some bizarre basis. Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- If this really must be closed, an experienced admin should do it. They should be quite capable of working it out without guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. That said, I do not agree that the questions use some bizarre basis. They are there to evaluate lines of arguments made in the RFC, rather than trying to cover everything in one step. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Samples |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I appreciate your effort to close. There is ~some~ tension between the PSCI policy and BLP policy and this gets exacerbated in the context of advocacy but in my view the question asked is clear enough and so is the outcome.I'll say no more as I already !voted Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I had actually forgotten my original contribution by now, and it took me some rereading to follow what the whole argument had been about. Originally my opinion was YES, and in spite of all the about it and abouting, no substantial reason has been provided why it should be anything but YES; as a matter of good WP practice and of formal WP criteria it still seems to me clear why it was YES, so I now am saying YES for the original reasons plus everything that has followed. What a waste of time and spittle. JonRichfield (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue here is very simple. "Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS? " Yes, it does; it is self-published. That has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with her or the subject. It has to do only with the source type. That part of the BLP policy is an extremely important line in the sand. We open it at our peril, so please think about that wider policy issue. SarahSV (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- We're in danger of re-running the RfC here, but it's not so very simple as all that. The line in the sand as I see it is NPOV, and a few people wanting to argue that a person's views inherit the full protection BLP accords to that person. Anyway, the closer will find the answers in the responses to the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The issue here is very simple. Surprisingly frank advocacy by vegan advocates and alt med POV pushers who regularly undermine mainstream medical editing in WP. Skewing of WP content by advocates is an ever present challenge, and PSCI is a key content policy. Harriet A. Hall is not just some loon writing on a blog and Science-Based Medicine is not some random blog; random blogs are what BLPSPS is about. This is not that. Not by a mile. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alex, there are other ways of achieving NPOV.
- The paragraph about Hall decribes her as "known for applying critical thinking to health claims", as if that makes a difference. WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."
- In other articles, an SPS may be used if the author is an expert in the field, but not in BLPs, and the distinction some have tried to draw between being about a person and being about what they say is a fake one. The argument would be the same no matter what this SPS was saying, including if it were very positive. (If it were positive, all the editors supporting Hall would agree that it should be removed.)
Further discussion
As the close is on hold, I'd like to respond to a point Jytdog made, because it's an important point to address.
He wrote: "random blogs are what BLPSPS is about". No. I helped to write WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and WP:BLPSPS, and I can say for certain that that's not correct.
The point of SPS was to allow expert self-publishers to be used as sources, but only if they're recognized as experts in the field in question—not in a field deemed related by editors who want to use the source—and if they are published experts in that field.
The point of BLPSPS was solely to make sure the BLP subject could be used (a) for details that usually come from the subject, e.g. date of birth and cv; and (b) for rebuttal, in case the article made allegations that needed to be addressed. No other form of self-publication is permitted in BLPs, by design, because we need a professional editorial process to screen comments about living persons before they are repeated by Wikipedia, for legal and other reasons.
BLPSPS is a well-established and thoroughly accepted part of a core content policy, and it ought not to be ignored for the sake of convenience in one article. If you feel too much is made in this article of Greger's claims, then reduce that material, rather than trying to counter it with a self-published source. SarahSV (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is used on more than one article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The scope of BLP is "information about living persons" - it does not extend to the pronouncements they make. NPOV gives us our policy on what to do with such pronouncements when they are dodgy. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've been working on BLP issues since before BLP existed, and I helped to write the policy. This isn't scope creep. No self-published sources are allowed on BLP pages, whether discussing what the person says, or wears, or his hair colour, or the colour of his car. No SPS on the page, unless written by the subject (and then with caution, and only if not discussing third parties, not violating UNDUE, etc). SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- You may well have helped write it, but your argument is adrift of what it actually says. "No self-published sources are allowed on BLP pages" <- not so: the scope of BLP is "Material about living persons [on] any Wikipedia page", and BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person". The scope is not "BLP pages" as obviously on a BLP page there will be ancillary non-biographical content which is not governed by BLP (as with Greger's views). A number of editors made this point in the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've been working on BLP issues since before BLP existed, and I helped to write the policy. This isn't scope creep. No self-published sources are allowed on BLP pages, whether discussing what the person says, or wears, or his hair colour, or the colour of his car. No SPS on the page, unless written by the subject (and then with caution, and only if not discussing third parties, not violating UNDUE, etc). SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly what a person says is about that person. You can't argue that a source isn't about a living person, because it's only about something that a living person says, writes about, makes his living by, stakes his reputation on. That would be a terrible argument.
- Look, please open an RfC about this on WT:BLP, because this isn't the only page or the only source affected. Several of us can get together to decide the question so that there are no arguments about whether it was a well-formed RfC.
- If you allow Harriet Hall and her group, then you allow Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and their group. This back-and-forth between self-publishers is precisely what BLP is meant to avoid, but if the community wants it, let's do it via the front door. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS says (bold added): "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person".
- The article says: "Retired physician Harriet A. Hall [a self-published source] ... has written that ... Greger often overstates ..."
- That is an unambiguous policy violation. What Greger states, overstates, understates, believes, wears, studies, is about Greger, a living person. To argue otherwise is sophistry. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Leaving aside the question of whether SBM is really self-published, the scientific statements that Greger makes are not "about him" any more than a mathematician's theorems would be "about" them. Such statements enter in the disembodied world of scientific discourse. The article could however be worded better (I think it was in the past) to focus on the views themselves, rather than Greger's act of stating those views. Alexbrn (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is an unambiguous policy violation. What Greger states, overstates, understates, believes, wears, studies, is about Greger, a living person. To argue otherwise is sophistry. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Normally sources need to be a lot stronger of course (which is why this problem is controlled, not because of BLP I think). However in the specific case of fringe views, such as those espoused by Greger, WP:PARITY permits a wider variety of sourcing. It is a crucial mechanism for maintaining neutrality when fringe views are in play. Alexbrn (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY is a guideline. It doesn't override BLP. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course, but that isn't what is happening here. WP:PARITY applies to fringe views, such as some of those of Greger, and so is useful for permitting the use of sources to contextualize such views within a rational world-view. My point was to counter your argument that we are at risk of opening the floodgates to SPSs: the circumstances in which sourcing standards are lowered are circumscribed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY is a guideline. It doesn't override BLP. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Three replies. First -- SBM is not your standard blog and there is nothing like it for scientific commentary on a wide range FRINGEY stuff. This is nothing like, say "Scibabe", a skeptic-y blog, which in this post on David Wolfe starts out: "David Wolfe is an asshole". SBM isn't bloggy that way. And your vegan advocacy website is nothing like it - that blog is just plain old vegan advocacy. (stuff like this is just silly and I am kind of surprised that you would put your credibility on the line comparing SBM to a site that has content like that. ) Second, and to that point. You have a history of vegan advocacy here in WP and it just makes one go hm....you even took that to the point of making that posting at WT:BLP which raised eyebrows in the !votes. I am not sure you are even aware of what you are doing, citing your policy writing background in this particular instance. Third, all that said, SBM is used in other BLP articles I believe, and it would be useful to refine both WP:BLPSPS (most importantly, as it is policy) as well as WP:BLPFRINGE. So sure, let's do that. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, do not make any more ad hominem points. Focus on the arguments. This has to do with advocacy in favour of the BLP policy, which will be weakened if this is not challenged, because it will allow others to use similar self-published material in other BLPs. I have no interest whatsoever in Greger, and in fact don't agree with him, but it wouldn't matter if I did; the argument stands regardless. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- BLP is in no danger here, per the plurality of CLUEful !votes above. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- And I wanted to add, this whole RfC was just silly. It was driven by a vegan advocate who BLUDGEONed the hell out of this talk page, solely on this issue. if you look at the revision stats, you'll see that in just 7 months they racked up ~50MB of talk comments - 2nd after me, and I have been working on this page 3 times that long. And if you read any of their comments here, you will see that they consistently misread what this content actually says - namely that Greger exaggerates sometimes. Not "veganism is bullshit" or "Greger is a lunatic charlatan" (and User:Alexbrn generally Greger is not FRINGE - he just exaggerates sometimes and when he does, yes, this is a PSCI issue; but generally it is mainstream medicine that a plant-based diet is best and ~generally~ this is that Greger advocates for). So we cite Hall, to call out that he exaggerates sometimes in the course of his advocacy. It is no big deal. But vegan advocates just cannot deal with it on an even keel or deal with what the content actually says or what Hall actually writes. Sammy1339 misrepresented Hall in almost every comment they made. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, do not make any more ad hominem points. Focus on the arguments. This has to do with advocacy in favour of the BLP policy, which will be weakened if this is not challenged, because it will allow others to use similar self-published material in other BLPs. I have no interest whatsoever in Greger, and in fact don't agree with him, but it wouldn't matter if I did; the argument stands regardless. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- But this is more ad hominem, now against Sammy. I didn't get the impression that Sammy was a vegan advocate, though he did know a lot about it. I wonder whether that's too black-and-white a view. Again, it doesn't matter. He's right about the policy. (And he's a smart guy and good writer, so it's a shame that he felt chased off, if that's what happened.) SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Greger is not fringe, but his views which are out-of-sync with the scientific mainstream are. Hence WP:PARITY comes into play for those. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you understand it, why the wow? I'm arguing that we follow policy even when it produces a result we don't like, and that if it consistently produces bad results, we try to change it.
- If your "wow" is that Sammy may not have been a vegan advocate, you'd be surprised at the strength of feeling some editors have about veganism (that it's fringe, that people who are strong and healthy and say they're vegan must be lying, etc). Sammy may have become frustrated by the combination of encountering that (whether on this talk page or elsewhere) and the support for a non-RS. But don't read into that that you know his personal views or habits. That's often a mistake.
- Anyway, veganism, Greger, Hall and Sammy are not the issues here. SarahSV (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Veganism is not fringe, but like nearly all diets it seems to attract some fierce advocates who make fringe claims. The only tension I've observed seems to be from the paleo-diet folk since in the world at large there seems to be a silly vegan/paleo feud (that diet is essentially quite fringey however). By some of the argument here, we couldn't use SBM to criticise the paleo diet (which we do, and it's Hall again) because the Paleo diet is Cordain's view and so somehow "about" Cordain. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Understanding =/= agreeing. Context is pretty much the whole issue here, as the interpretation of what the Hall reference is, and how it is used here, is what the RfC was about. And its funny - the only vegan advocacy i have encountered in WP is people who are for it, and will not tolerate any criticism. Whatever. As i said above if you want to do an RfC at BLP to clarify the status of SBM, i would be happy to collaborate. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- and community interpretations of BLP can be surprising. There is no Great Authority on it. I am amazed that Murder of Seth Rich exists, and look at what happened at the Gamaliel arbcom case, where as you noted, BLP was weaponized into a tool for harassment. I am always interested to see community interpretations of the policy and as i noted the consensus above is pretty clear. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Anyway, veganism, Greger, Hall and Sammy are not the issues here. SarahSV (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
- Re: Seth Rich, as I recall it was BLP1E; I'm guessing that could be argued now and it would succeed, but I'm writing from memory. What you're arguing here is a clear violation; nothing borderline about it. I agree that the community is weakening in lots of ways as the number of committed content editors declines. All the more reason to stand up for the policies.
- If you saw the problem at Seth Rich (lots of people didn't), then you also see the problem here, and the implications. SarahSV (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I also ran the Seth Rich thing by AN and nobody saw a problem, which really surprised me. Like the Gamaliel decision did. But I know how to yield to consensus. Making the header more neutral header btw. It is really transparent that you are lobbying for the closer to make a supervote. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you saw the problem at Seth Rich (lots of people didn't), then you also see the problem here, and the implications. SarahSV (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- And it's clear that you're lobbying for them to ignore WP:BLPSPS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Did you email Cyberpower, by the way?
- Politics got in the way of Seth Rich, and I don't mean people supporting it for political reasons; I mean genuinely not seeing the issue because of the politics. SarahSV (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. Like I said I brought the Seth Rich thing up at AN (here - oh, you were part of that discussion and we were arguing the same side there) and a bunch of long-term admins shrugged. I don't know what you mean about emailing Cyberpower. What do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just to chime in that all this discussion isn't changing anything that I see. I still see disputes about scientific claims (fringe science in this case) as not falling under BLP as "material about a living person". It is the best source we could find on a fringe scientific claim - we should use it. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. Like I said I brought the Seth Rich thing up at AN (here - oh, you were part of that discussion and we were arguing the same side there) and a bunch of long-term admins shrugged. I don't know what you mean about emailing Cyberpower. What do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Politics got in the way of Seth Rich, and I don't mean people supporting it for political reasons; I mean genuinely not seeing the issue because of the politics. SarahSV (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Ongoing issues
Due to the ongoing issues I have fully protected the page for 10 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hall's Mischaracterization of Nutritional Science
The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies. Greger's video in fact links to nutritionfacts.org, where each claim is backed up by a large number of peer-reviewed, independent sources. Some claims have over 20 references, yet Hall presents them as being based on one or two weak leads. The total references behind his summary video numbers in the thousands if you combine each claim's content, and they are all made clearly available in nutritionfacts.org's "Sources Cited" tab. Hall's misrepresentation of nutritional science is manipulative and unethical at best, and certainly inappropriate to appear in Greger's living biography.
Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).
"Crippled" in the context that Greger employed it obviously means "impairs endothelial function". He was addressing a broad audience, and quibbling over semantics here is really pointless. See my references above if you need to be convinced that a clinician can feed subjects a meal rich in animal fats and then measure an impaired endothelial response. As Zhao et. al discuss, one bad meal can induce angina and a heart attack in patients with coronary artery disease. So, "crippled" isn't the worst way to describe the effect
Hall mischaracterizes Greger, and plant-based nutrition more broadly, as relying upon one or two weak sources. However, in this case, Greger included multitudes of peer-reviewed sources for each. Greger's sources are clearly visible alongside each video in the "Sources Cited" tab. The sources I've posted are specific to the question of how a single meal can inhibit (AKA cripple) endothelial (AKA artery) function in human subjects. If you seek reviews linking cholesterol-rich diets to atherosclerosis, there are many. Animal products are the only source of dietary cholesterol, thus, Greger advises against their consumption. This suggestion stands in agreement with the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2016)14, and the American Dietetic Association (2009)15.
[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.
[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.
[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.
[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.
[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.
[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17
[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.
[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.
[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.
[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.
[11] Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.
[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.
[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757.
[14] Melina V, Craig W, Levin S (2016) Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Dec;116(12):1970-1980. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/
[15] American Dietetic Association (2009) Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. July 2009 Volume 109 Number 7. 0002-8223/09/10907-0019$36.00/0doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.027. http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf --Dariusburst (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- He does not link to "nutritionfacts.org" when he is giving a talk in front of people - Hall watches the video and responds to what Greger says in it. it is simple. More generally, you are missing the point. Greger exaggerates sometimes. It is not the end of the world and lots of advocates do it. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Archiving a current discussion creates problems. I'm just going to copy my response here:
- "Crippled" might be considered "manipulative and unethical" too, and I think that is one of Hall's points. Given the extent of time that the research above has been available, I'm wondering where the surveys and reviews might be. Wasn't that one of Hall's points, that the degree of certainty is poorly founded? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, here's the part of the video (6m36s). He has a big screen showing the study's title and authors on it and then he flicks up a graph showing that artery function drops for 4 or 5 hours, and he says the "crippled state starts to calm down 5 or 6 hours later". That's the only use of the word "cripple" in the video (click "View Transcript" and search for "crippl"), and he clearly shows he means it as a temporary drop in ability.
- (And Hall's article says there was "no control group", which is wrong, the control group is there on the screen in the video.)
- And at a glance, the studies that cite this study seem to consider it to be solid, and the experiment has been repeated with the same results. And again. (I did find a study finding no change in arterial function, but they cite 5 studies that confirm the study Greger cites and they discuss how they might not have controlled for enough factors - and anyway, it's clear Hall didn't do even basic searches. With the above mistakes, it's not even clear she watched the video she's critiquing.)
- With such quality issues, I think discussing Hall's article is giving it undue weight. I think it should be removed because the quality is low, but I don't want to remove the only critical part of the article, so I'll leave it. Great floors (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Crippled" might be considered "manipulative and unethical" too, and I think that is one of Hall's points. Given the extent of time that the research above has been available, I'm wondering where the surveys and reviews might be. Wasn't that one of Hall's points, that the degree of certainty is poorly founded? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Archiving a current discussion creates problems. I'm just going to copy my response here:
- It's not clear if any of my concerns have been addressed. If there is a review or survey in the additional sources that specifically supports the topic, please identify it. Quotes would help as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I provided a list of references as per your previous request (1-13 above). Please note that the term postprandial means following a meal. Several of the articles include reviews of the relevant literature although none are specifically written as review articles. What specific points in those articles do you find unconvincing? Why do you insist that a survey would be a proper way to approach the question?--Dariusburst (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point. The issue here is not whether a plant-based diet is more healthy than a Western Diet - it is healthier. The issue is Greger's exaggerations as he tries to sell that idea to people. That is what Hall points out. Hall notes that a plant-based diet is healthier. She is not "anti-vegan". Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree. At best this is all original research in an attempt to discredit a reliable source and remove a point of view that is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Quite, these exaggerations need to be placed in a proper scientific context for neutrality. Quite why there's this push to make this article entirely criticism-free I don't know. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- So the consensus reason for including Harriet Hall's article here isn't the belief that Dr. Greger said anything incorrect in one of his old speeches, but that some people are uncomfortable with a word he used to describe the clear negative effect that certain foods were found to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:93A:365C:3198:513A (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Quite, these exaggerations need to be placed in a proper scientific context for neutrality. Quite why there's this push to make this article entirely criticism-free I don't know. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree. At best this is all original research in an attempt to discredit a reliable source and remove a point of view that is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point. The issue here is not whether a plant-based diet is more healthy than a Western Diet - it is healthier. The issue is Greger's exaggerations as he tries to sell that idea to people. That is what Hall points out. Hall notes that a plant-based diet is healthier. She is not "anti-vegan". Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I provided a list of references as per your previous request (1-13 above). Please note that the term postprandial means following a meal. Several of the articles include reviews of the relevant literature although none are specifically written as review articles. What specific points in those articles do you find unconvincing? Why do you insist that a survey would be a proper way to approach the question?--Dariusburst (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's not clear if any of my concerns have been addressed. If there is a review or survey in the additional sources that specifically supports the topic, please identify it. Quotes would help as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Great floors, about your comments that you stuck above, we do not peer review sources. See WP:MEDASSESS which says "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Reddit recruiting
See here. I've added a recruiting tag to the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The recruitment policy bans recruitment of new users and meatpuppets, not requests for experienced WP Administrators to arbitrate articles--Dariusburst (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have good news for you: I am an experienced Wikipedia admin (had the mop for over a decade now). I am happy to arbitrate here, starting by pointing out to you our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Doc James is also a long-time admin. So, we're all good. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Given the number of edits JzG has made to this article, he is best described as an WP:INVOLVED admin. If you are interested in getting uninvolved editors to look over the issue, you should look over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also be interested in the WP:RFC process which can bring in outside voices when discussion breaks down.Dialectric (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yawn. source of yet more offwiki blatheri Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am also 'involved' in this article given my edit history, but have decided to focus my limited wiki-time elsewhere. I stand by my succinct summary Jytdog linked, and can't see how it could be read as blather. In any case it is tangential to this discussion.Dialectric (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The last response you got there pretty much ended the discussion, didn't it. This section is about offwiki yammering about this article. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'll get wrong, but somebody made a wonderful characterisation of one of my favourite editors in JD's links. Roxy the dog. bark 16:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The last response you got there pretty much ended the discussion, didn't it. This section is about offwiki yammering about this article. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am also 'involved' in this article given my edit history, but have decided to focus my limited wiki-time elsewhere. I stand by my succinct summary Jytdog linked, and can't see how it could be read as blather. In any case it is tangential to this discussion.Dialectric (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yawn. source of yet more offwiki blatheri Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- The number is a bit over a dozen, and the article has been here for over six years. Most of my edits have been reverts of undiscussed POV edits, including by QuackGuru, who is absolutely not a fan of Greger and is diametrically opposed to others I have reverted. Also I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects at OTRS, so I know how WP:BLP works. But actually my comment was largely satirical since the involvement of more admins is not going to make this article any more pleasing to fans of Greger. Guy (Help!) 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Given the number of edits JzG has made to this article, he is best described as an WP:INVOLVED admin. If you are interested in getting uninvolved editors to look over the issue, you should look over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also be interested in the WP:RFC process which can bring in outside voices when discussion breaks down.Dialectric (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have good news for you: I am an experienced Wikipedia admin (had the mop for over a decade now). I am happy to arbitrate here, starting by pointing out to you our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Doc James is also a long-time admin. So, we're all good. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
An offering: a direct translation of current content, English to Spanish
Kia ora, and gidday!
A Spanish friend - a teacher of Spanish at a university - kindly translated the current English text of this page into Spanish for us. I'm a new user, so cannot upload it yet. If you're an established user, please feel free so to do. You have permission from both of us. Tena koe, and Gracias!
- * * * *
Michael Greger
Nacimiento 1972 (age 44–45) Educación Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Tufts University School of Medicine Website www.drgreger.org Medical career Profesión Medicina general Especialización Dieta y nutrición
Michael Herschel Greger es un científico americano, autor y ponente en temas de salud general, y en particular en dietas vegetarianas y los perjuicios del consumo de alimentos de origen animal. Es vegetariano y creador de NutritionFacts.org.
Contenidos
1 Carrera
2 Publicaciones
3 Referencias
4 Enlaces
Carrera
Greger se graduó en Cornell University School of Agriculture, donde escribió sobre los peligros de la encefalopatía espongiforme bovina (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)en una página publicada en 1994.[1][2][3] En el mismo año trabajó en la enfermedad de las vacas locas en un Farm Sanctuary, cerca de Cornell, y se hizo vegetariano después de una visita de trabajo a un criadero en el Farm Sanctuary.[1] En 1998 testificó en calidad de experto en encefalopatía espongiforme bovina en el proceso judicial por difamación que enfrentó a los productores de carne y Oprah Winfrey por las declaraciones de esta última sobre el riesgo de los productos cárnicos en 1996.[1][4]
Asistió la programa de doctorado en Tufts University School of Medicine, aunque finalmente, solo completó su licenciatura médica.[5] Se graduó en 1999 como médico general, especializado en nutrición.[1] En 2001 se hizo miembro de Organic Consumers Association para trabajar en la enfermedad de las vacas locas al mismo tiempo que los primeros casos empezaron a aparecer en EEUU y Canadá [1][6][7][8] en lo que él llamó "La plaga del siglo XXI."[9][10][11]
En 2004 creó su página web y publicó un libro crítico de la popular Dieta Atkins y otras dietas bajas en carbohidratos.[1]
En 2004, El Colegio americano de medicina y estilo de vida tenía su sede en Loma Linda,[12] y Greger era miembro fundador[1], uno de los primeros en formar parte de la asociación.[13]
En 2005 formó parte de la división para el bienestar de animales en granja, en Humane Society , como director de la salud y bienestar de los animales en granjas.[1] En 2008 testificó ante el Congreso[14] a raíz de la publicación de un video grabado secretamente en Westland Meat Packing Company por Humane Society mostrando animales moribundos entrando en la cadena de alimentación, lo cual obligó a la USDA a retirar 143 millones de libras de ternera, parte de ellas destinadas al programa nacional de alimentación escolar.[15]
En 2011, fundó la página NutritionFacts.org[16] financiada por la fundación Jesse & Julie Rasch.[17]
En sus clases, videos y escritos sobre nutrición intenta persuadir a los consumidores de cambiar sus hábitos alimenticios de una dieta occidental a una dieta vegetariana—idealmente una dieta vegan—y argumenta que este tipo de dieta no sólo puede prevenir sino incluso revertir muchas enfermedades crónicas.[18][19]:10 Critica la actitud de otros doctores por no difundir entre sus pacientes dietas vegetarianas y evitar alimentos de origen animal.[19]:1–12 y es contrario a la actitud del gobierno americano por restar importancia a los consejos médicos sobre llevar una vida sana a través de la dieta y nutrición, con el objetivo de favorecer los intereses económicos de los productores —especialmente productores de comida rápida y productos animales.[20]
Harriet A. Hall, científica retirada, conocida por la aplicación de razonamiento crítico en las cuestiones de salud, [21][22][23] escribió que, aunque es sabido que es más sano comer una dieta de origen vegetal que una dieta animal, con frecuencia Greger sobrepondera los beneficios de la primera y los perjuicios de la segunda, (por ejemplo, en una ponencia argumento que una sola comida rica en alimentos animales puede perjudicar las arterias), y que en ocasiones no comenta sobre evidencias que contradicen sus declaraciones.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpw1234 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Blog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue".[5] Where does WP:BLP allow blogs in BLPs? I am curious. QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)