→Last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing: closing failed attempt |
|||
Line 651: | Line 651: | ||
== Last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing == |
== Last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing == |
||
{{hat|failed attempt [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
Just yeses or nos, please. What would you think of replacing "[[fad diet]]" with "[[popular diet]]"? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
Just yeses or nos, please. What would you think of replacing "[[fad diet]]" with "[[popular diet]]"? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
:No. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
:No. [[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 712: | Line 712: | ||
:Looking forward to hearing from you all. above we have "yes" QG and me, and "no" from <u>Martin,</u> SageRad and Guy. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (corrected in my last dif, redacting here [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) |
:Looking forward to hearing from you all. above we have "yes" QG and me, and "no" from <u>Martin,</u> SageRad and Guy. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (corrected in my last dif, redacting here [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) |
||
:: hmm ok it looks like we will have no consensus to solve this, this way. Am giving up this effort. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
:: hmm ok it looks like we will have no consensus to solve this, this way. Am giving up this effort. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Too many sources at the end of the sentence == |
== Too many sources at the end of the sentence == |
Revision as of 02:24, 10 February 2016
Paleolithic diet is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
Fad diet label?
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I was curious to see the label "fad diet" in the lede and question its applicability and definition. I found the most recent discussion about the term in the talk page archives here. It seems a bit too much to define the idea of Paleo diet as a fad. The link to the article fad diet says "A fad diet is a diet for which promises of weight loss are made that are not backed by good science, and which is characterized by unusual food choices." Most references i've ever seen to paleo diet are not mainly in regard to weight loss but rather sense of well being. Anyway, i wished to bring this up again so it's an active discussion on the talk page. As i read the archived discussion, i didn't read a consensus about the term "fad diet" being the definitional noun in the first sentence of this article. I found many people advocating otherwise, in fact. SageRad (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
So what i'm gathering is that the use of "fad diet" is source to Hall here. I think that's a POV source and not enough for an NPOV article to call the diet a "fad diet" in the opening sentence. SageRad (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Some points on the term "fad diet" being the definitional noun in the first sentence of this article for the paleo diet concept:
"Fad diet" 1On the cultural place of Skeptic magazine as a source and skepticism of this subcultural sort in general (questioned in comments above regarding the reliability or POV nature of the Hall piece in Skeptic), there are indeed many sources that speak of this phenomenon as a subcultural happening. I just found a lot of these writings by googling about it. Daniel Drasin writes on it, this paper speaks about CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer and "the Skeptics" as a group with a particular POV and agenda and other various sociological observations. And here is a list of various writings about what they call pseudoskepticism. I had come to these same conclusions and even began to use the term "pseudoskepticism" on my own in the last months while observing this social movement or social phenomenon in various media campaigns designed to discredit certain people or concepts, generally in line with an industrial modernity point of view, and to the detriment and insult of people and ideas to which they are hostile. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we're not done here as long as there is a serious issue that violates NPOV in the article. I suggest you don't dismiss my concerns in the way you're doing or attempt to characterize them as POV pushing. I'm working against the POV i see pushed already into the article and doing so with good and reasonable dialogue. You can choose to participate in good dialogue or not, but if you do not them you don't get to determine what's in the article. SageRad (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Your case is weak and has failed. To recap: you said you were "sure" there was RS saying this diet was not a fad diet. No such source has been produced. Your fallback argument is that some sources don't explicitly say it's a fad diet. This is unconvincing, as not all sources consider this categorization. But we do have multiple, strong sources which do consider it, and they say it's a fad diet. So we do too, for neutrality. It is now probably time for this particular WP:STICK to be dropped. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
"Fad diet" 2So, to return to the actual discussion on content, as i have written above, the words "fad diet" are seen by readers and have an effect in how some people learn about this subject. As i've outlined above, the term contains many implications, in the word "fad" and the phrase "fad diet" and in the definition linked at fad diet if a reader follows the link. While there are some sources that call this approach to eating a "fad diet" there are also many sources that call Obama a "horrible president" and yet the article on Obama would surely not begin with "Obama is a horrible president of the United States of America." While "fad diet" may be a "term of the art" (i would like to investigate this further myself) and different from the word "horrible" in some ways, it also carries this negative judgement in the first sentence of this article which i do not think is justified by an honest and wide survey of the reliable sources on this topic. The lede should define the subject in an NPOV way and leave various points of view, including criticism, to be developed further and clearly demarcated as criticism by some, which is what it is. We want to reflect reality here, as best we can by reflecting reliable sources on this topic. I see this not being done properly here. That's my issue. These points have not been really addressed here. Maybe there's something i'm missing and i'm open to hearing valid points presented in a collegiate way. There's a lot to discuss here if we can actually focus on the content with good faith and good dialogue. So far not so good. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
A lede section should convey a neutral point of view. It should not color the reader's first introduction to the article's subject in a way that rules out any legitimate point of view, and in this case there are indeed legitimate points of view that do not categorize the Paleolithic diet as a "fad diet" but rather portray it as a legitimate approach to nutrition that has some apparent benefits. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) We could actually call it a "dietary pattern" as do Katz and Mellor in their 2014 review article. This is a gem of phrasing, because it includes the technical term "diet" but it avoids the lay interpretation of "diet" as being a "lose weight fast!" thing. It also helps to include both the historic meaning of the term "Paleolithic diet" as the actual ancient dietary patterns of our ancestors, as well as being a very accurate description of what this noun actually is. That some people call it a "fad diet" can be included in the lede, as well as that some consider it effective and valid. SageRad (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"Fad diet" 3Note that an IP user (who was not me) removed the word "fad" and it was reverted. I continue to not agree that that use of "fad diet" as the primary noun for this definition is "reliably sourced" as that means according to WP:NPOV that the great bulk of reliable sources on this topic use this label and definition for the diet, which they do not. But alas, it persists against complete consensus. SageRad (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Latest revert
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To try and defuse the current argument, I have changed the start of the lead to be strictly facual and not to use emotive terms like 'fad diet'. Doe anyone prefer this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, "fad diet" is a derogatory term. Perhaps that is what Martin means by "emotional". I agree with that, as it's a loaded term that derides the concept of the article in the very first sentence, in its very definition. The concept of the "Paleolithic diet" has been marketed and has been promoted by some people, but it is larger than that subset. It's a cultural thing, a concept that had an earlier beginning, and has developed through time and has many different subsections with similar but differing approaches to eating. We need to define the concept according to a least common denominator, and then explain the realm of the concept in its different aspects. Just because one person has sold books that look like a fad diet using the term does not mean the whole concept is a "fad diet". SageRad (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC) ... and, we've got the immediate revert here with the edit reason "Its a fad diet by any impartial reliable source on it" -- which is verifiably not true. How is this good editing? How is this cooperative editing? We have in the article itself a review-level paper by David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller who have written that the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis, and that what scientific evidence exist on it is generally supportive. This is in Annual Review of Public Health, a journal in a relevant field. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
So where is the RS for 'fad diet'?One source is given to justify the usage of 'fad diet' in the lead and that source does not use the term 'fad diet'. The cited sources is a light hearted article by the BDA called, "Top 5 Worst Celebrity Diets to Avoid in 2015"; not exactly a peer reviewed paper. It does inded have the word 'fad' in it, in its witty opening, 'Jurassic fad!', hardly a scientific classification or a serious piece of terminology. The same article says of the 'Clay cleanse diet', 'Clay away from this diet!', and of the 'urine diet','Literally, don't take the proverbial!'. This is more a case of witty repartee than scientific discourse. It would seem that the term 'fad diet' is just an unsourced figment of WP editors' imagination. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I was somewhat puzzled by the link to fad diet. To me it seemed reasonable, until I got there, and discovered that wiki's defn of a fad diet was a diet that makes promises of weight loss without backing by solid science. So I fixed that, a bit [2]. AFAICT weight loss isn't a major claim for the paleo diet. In fact, reading this article I was hard pushed to discover what the claims were for the advantages. There's a brief "Proponents claim that its followers enjoy longer, healthier, and more active lives" but that seems to be about it. Since that's in the lede, I'd expect it to be backed up by a section - perhaps "claimed health effects". We can't be short of sources for what these people claim, can we? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
There are good sources to not use "fad diet" as the main noun for the lede sentence. There is IDHT going on here to the max degree. See long, long discussion above and see many other discussions at this talk page, and see serious sources that refer to the diet not as a fad diet but an actual approach to eating with merit, including secondary articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. An editor cannot repeat oneself endlessly, and there is filibustering and obstructionism happening here. It's not resulting in a good article. SageRad (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Katz/Meller -- boom -- there you go, a source. We're at the point where this is a circus. Well past that point. It's shameful. SageRad (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The nature of the questionYou do not need only a single source that says that the paleo diet is a fad diet to define it as such. You need to show that the general mainstream definition of the paleo diet is that it's a "fad diet" in the sense that is meant here. There are some sources, many even, that do write of the diet as if it's a fad, but there are more sources that write of it as a diet with merit and a basis in reality. Therefore, the general definition of this diet as a "fad diet" would be unencyclopedic. The nature of NPOV is to represent the field of valid viewpoints that hold weight on the subject. If there are multiple valid viewpoints, then the definition of the subject of an article falls back to the lowest common denominator, and then the differing viewpoints are explained. To favor one viewpoint over another valid viewpoint is bias, and is editorializing in the article -- exactly what NPOV is against. SageRad (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The way things work is that if you want to make a change and it is rejected, you talk about it and if you fail to gain consensus, you pursue DR. Please read WP:DR. No one is going to hold your hand here. I am not making any demands, I am telling you how things work. And I am not responding to this further, either. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to repost this since it seems to have been ignored. A fad diet isn't necessarily about weight loss. It's a diet that becomes popular over a short period of time that makes promises it can't deliver on - which is usually rapid weight loss. The paleo diet has been around for a while, but it's certainly spiked in popularity in the last few years. Its main touted promise, to essentially cure Diseases of affluence, is patently false. There are reliable sources that support these statements in the article. Plus, its supposed scientific basis is highly questionable; I wouldn't go so far as to say disproven, but it's far from widely accepted. This is to say nothing of the actual benefits this diet presents. It's not a bad diet at all, really, there's just nothing special about it, and certainly nothing to warrant its surge in popularity. I think that can be attributed to larger societal shifts (among well off people, at least) towards a more farm-to-table mentality - or in this case, hunt and gather-to-table. But as I said, it has many widely touted specific health benefits for which there is little to no evidence. Therefore I would call it a fad diet, just not one that promises you'll drop 75 pounds in 2 weeks. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Here we go again
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We have again editing to call the subject a "fad diet" in the first sentence of the lede despite there not being consensus for this, and this being contentious. So... are we going to be able to discuss this reasonably and with integrity, or are we going to have another long round of edit warring and POV pushing back and forth? That is the question. SageRad (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Understand it's not a MEDRS claim. But the issue is the failure to apply WP:NPOV in terms of representing the sources proportionately and honestly in accord with the full universe of sources on a subject. There are sources that consider it a fad diet, but there are many good reliable sources that consider the diet not a fad diet, and therefore it is not right for the article to define it as such. You don't write an article that represents only one valid view of a topic when there are multiple valid views of very similar weight. That's as obvious as daylight in regard to NPOV. The article needs to define it as the bulk of reliable sources define it, and it's simply not the case that all or most reliable sources define it as such. You can cherry-pick sources to make it look like that, but it's not the actual case. So, we have here a failure to understand and apply NPOV correctly, and a resulting edit war at this point, as a revert has been reverted while dialogue is in progress. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Consider how you'd like it if you're editing on climate change, and someone writes "I hate to break it to you, but climate change is a hoax." Seriously, we are not the experts here. The sources are the experts. We take the sources and use them, survey them, and get the sense of what the sources say. You can cherry-pick and pretend that all sources say this is a fad diet, but that is contradicted by the many sources that say it's a valid diet with merit. You can't write an article that is a clear POV attack piece with good conscience and expect all other editors to ignore it. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It does not belong in the first sentence because there is no explanation. It can be explained later in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) The lede discussed fad one rather than twice. There is no reason to mention it twice. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to explain my reasoning. There are many sources that describe the Paleolithic diet. Most of them describe it for what it is, an approach to eating that emphasizes foods that would have been found in pre-agricultural human diets. Some of them describe it as a fad diet. Some of them say that it's not a fad diet. These are not fringe positions, but mainstream points of view about eating practices based on the Paleo diet premise. There are scientific papers that support some beneficial effects claimed by the diet being real. Therefore, to define it as a "fad diet" is to privilege one point of view over others in the lede sentence. That would not be neutral as per WP:NPOV. If we define it with the minimum common qualities, and then describe these points of view, then we can write a neutral article. SageRad (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Fad diet, yes
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We had a visitor from Turkey during the little flurry over the lead, who added this EL. This is what fad diets are all about - hokey websites spewing pseudoscience. The internet is full of this garbage. Our article is not going to become another Fan Site. It just isn't. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing unencyclopaedic about the term fad diet. Look, we even have an encyclopaedia article on the concept. Wikipedia's mission is to inform. We inform people about the beliefs of paleo diet proponents, we also inform them that it's a fad diet based on obvious fallacious reasoning. No problem. Oh, and your sources that claim it's not a fad diet? You undermine yourself rather with these.
So I have to wonder: did you actually check any of the sources or evaluate their reliability at all? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
All these comments are gamy. I countered a linked list rhetoric device with a linked list rhetoric device just to show it can be done. Many sources that say it's a fad are also B-grade and POV-laden sources. There isn't a genuine and unbiased attempt at discerning the reality here. There's rhetoric and POV pushing. Like i said, you can't build a good house when there's a constant high wind blowing. There's not an atmosphere here in which a real dialogue can be had to determine the best way to write this article. There's a constant wind blowing. Have fun writing thousands of words. I'll be around when an actual conversation with integrity can be had. Until then, this article is WP:OWNed and locked into an extreme POV take on the article's subject. SageRad (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I've got an idea. Why don't we write an article about a subject, and emphasize only those sources that are negative toward the subject? Why don't we select the 10 or so sources that are overtly hostile to the subject, and emphasize those over the other 90 sources that are available? Does that sound like a good way to write an encyclopedia entry with the goal of a neutral point of view? If that doesn't sound right to you then maybe you'll understand the issue that i have with this article and its current state of lock-down. If you can't understand this, then i wonder what you're doing here. SageRad (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic
We are currently using nydailynews in the lede. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/3-diets-paleo-gluten-free-weight-watchers-article-1.2346244 Then we can also use the guardian in the lede. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/16/paleo-isnt-a-fad-diet-its-an-ideology QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
|
RfC?
We seem to be making little progress on the neutrality of 'fad diet'. I do not think it is an appropriate term for an encyclopedia, including WP, to used in its own voice about any diet. Maybe wider community input would help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
People are requiring there to be multiple sources that say "No, the Paleo diet is not a fad" in order for it to not be reported as a fad diet here? Well there are such sources but they tend to be from Paleo related websites, many of them. However, wouldn't it be true by expectation that plenty of sources speak about the Paleo diet as a valid thing and some speak about them as a fad diet, and a few refute the "some" that speak about it as a fad diet? Some sources that are within a Paleo umbrella say "No, it's not a fad" [3] [4] Other more mainstream sources simply describe it not as a "fad diet" but as a "diet" [5] [6] .... and that is the basis for saying that "fad diet" is not the correct primary noun for this diet. I see a slanted presentation of it being made by some editors here, preferencing sources that are negative to the diet in a systematic way. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Martin if you would like an RfC, I suggest you propose an RfC question for discussion. Please try to make it neutral to reduce the drama around the question itself. I recommend that you do not simply launch an RfC as one that is not acceptable to the "other side" will create a lot of drama and make it more difficult for the community to provide truly useful feedback for a closer to weigh. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since you seem to have attempted to shut down rational and civil discussion on the subject it would seem that an RfC is the only way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
draft question
The RfC question is very simple, 'Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- asked and answered. This boring repetition is tendentious. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, or perhaps "Should the Paleolithic diet be defined as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lede, or should it be defined as a 'diet' with a later sentence saying that some sources call it a 'fad diet'?" I think that this would make the choices more parallel, and show that not defining it as a 'fad diet' as the primary noun does not rule out noting that some sources call it a fad diet -- which they do, of course, and it's fine to note it, with attribution. SageRad (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Martin, does the question you posed solve the issue of the use of "fad diet" in this article? I do not want for this RFC to be resolved only to have you open a new argument about use of the term at all. Please be sure pose a question that addresses all of your concerns. If you do not, and after this RfC is over you begin to address some other aspect of the use of "fad diet" in this article, you will be wide open to getting topic banned or more. So please consider carefully. The goal here needs to be ending this endless wrangling. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about, 'Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think a better question might be "Are the sources in the article sufficient to justify the use of the term 'fad diet' in the opening sentence?" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is not a neutral question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think a two question RfC would be excellent.
- 1) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article? and
- 2) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead?
- We don't need to wikilink the name of the diet, as the RfC will be here on the Talk page. Is everybody OK with this? Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Should the word fad be mentioned in the first sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is there in question 2. Question 1 is there to lay this issue to rest, so we don't end up with another endless debate. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The first question is irrelevant for now.
- I want to focus only on the first sentence for the RfC. Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do not agree and if you actually read the arguments of the people arguing against "fad diet" they are saying that is inappropriate to use the term at all. While we have people's attention it would be most productive to have them consider both questions. It would be a disaster if we took up the community's time with the narrow question about the lead and got a resolution, only to have our work here grind to a halt again over the use of the term at all, and have to invoke a second RfC and have people read sources and think about the whole thing a second time. Both questions are the most efficient way to go, for everyone involved. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your first
sentencequestion is irrelevant to me. The problems are the inaccurate information in the lede regarding fad diet. They don't want the term mentioned in the lead because it was misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)- If 'they' includes me then you are wrong. I do not want 'fad diet' used in Wikipedia's voice because it is unspecific name-calling. If we have RS that say the diet is 'dangereous', 'a money making scheme', 'provides no benefit', 'can lead to nutritional deficiencies' I would be quite happy to have any of those but 'fad diet' tells the reader nothing useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The purpose of DR is resolve disputes among actual editors, and to do that, the arguments being made by actual editors matters. Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for making that change. I understand it is not relevant to you and as your change notes, you are not the only one who has a problem with the term. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The editors who do not want it mentioned in the lede have not seen the new accurate text. Maybe they will like it. The previous text was ambiguous. Now it is clear and sourced. My concern was OR in the lead and fad mentioned twice in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I liked your edit. 'It has been called...' is fine; it clearly has. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The editors who do not want it mentioned in the lede have not seen the new accurate text. Maybe they will like it. The previous text was ambiguous. Now it is clear and sourced. My concern was OR in the lead and fad mentioned twice in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for making that change. I understand it is not relevant to you and as your change notes, you are not the only one who has a problem with the term. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The purpose of DR is resolve disputes among actual editors, and to do that, the arguments being made by actual editors matters. Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- If 'they' includes me then you are wrong. I do not want 'fad diet' used in Wikipedia's voice because it is unspecific name-calling. If we have RS that say the diet is 'dangereous', 'a money making scheme', 'provides no benefit', 'can lead to nutritional deficiencies' I would be quite happy to have any of those but 'fad diet' tells the reader nothing useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be absolutely clear, in response to Jytdog's comment above, i personally am not opposed to using the term "fad diet" in the article. I would like it to be in the article, attributed to those who call it such, in a reasonable way. Please acknowledge that i, for one, am not opposed to the term "fad diet" being in the article. I am opposed to it being classified as a "fad diet" in Wikivoice directly. That is a reckoning about which there are multiple points of view, and so it should be attributed and this is very simple to do. Please do not make it out as if i am opposed to the term "fad diet" being in the article. Were you speaking of another editor in this assertion? 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageRad (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your first
- I do not agree and if you actually read the arguments of the people arguing against "fad diet" they are saying that is inappropriate to use the term at all. While we have people's attention it would be most productive to have them consider both questions. It would be a disaster if we took up the community's time with the narrow question about the lead and got a resolution, only to have our work here grind to a halt again over the use of the term at all, and have to invoke a second RfC and have people read sources and think about the whole thing a second time. Both questions are the most efficient way to go, for everyone involved. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is clear that question 2 addresses QG/s concern; question 1 addresses MH's and SR's concern. QG doesn't want question 1 but we need it for SH/MH. It is not clear if MH would accept "fad diet" with attribution, but I am assuming that MH would. MH if that is not correct, please say so. MjolnirPants can you live with the two questions? Anybody else?
- As a follow up question, should we provide sources with the RFC question so folks don't have to go hunting? Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The endless bickering here, with the same parties (plural) saying the same things. is not going away, so I plan to launch the RFC with the questions I posed above later today. So last chance for comments... Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- SageRad has made it clear that he needs question 1 answered, as has Martin here. Quackguru has made it clear that he needs question 2 answered per this and this, as has SageRad. (SageRad raises both questions at once here and here)
- So we need both questions answered. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy to ask both questions, except that I would point out that a No to 1 and a Yes to to would be an inconsistent response, so better would be to ask:
- 1) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article? and
- 2) If 'Yes' to 1, should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk page archiving without discussion or agreement
I am against this archiving of recent discussions, especially with the unilateral value judgments in some of the edit summaries: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] These recent discussions are very important to new users who might arrive here to see what's been up, and to others who may like to refer to them more easily than in an archive. This archiving doesn't strike me as a good idea. I reverted one and i'd like to revert more, and have a discussion here about whether we need to change the number of days on the auto-archive or something, but the unilateral archiving strikes me as a poor idea. SageRad (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
And [13] [14] Hatting is a similar unilateral action that shuts down active discussions by one person's judgment and especially when they use the hat summary to say things like "endless repetition" and such. Can't you see it's not a friendly thing or a good judgment to do this, especially when there is contention and lack of consensus and ongoing discussion? Can you see how it might have at least the appearance of impropriety and an urge to hide discussions? SageRad (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- And, Jytdog is edit warring this away again -- unilaterally and without discussion archiving many recent discussions. I find this to be disruptive. Does anyone else? SageRad (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is a very, very contentious editing environment. It's not okay. There is too much unfriendly talk, name-calling, pointy editing, memory-holing, etc.... i don't feel that we're all really WP:HERE with the mission of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The hatted discussions are long and difficult to read, as they are exchanges between more than two editors with more than one thread of discussion. Hatting them is appropriate, as they make reading the talk page difficult for anyone who comes here for the RfC that's been proposed. If those people want to read the entire discussion, they can click on the hats to expand them. As for the titles, by all means, go back and change the titles to something neutral. I can understand how some of the titles don't come across as neutral. If you change them to something like "collapsed discussion" or "arguments" or something like that, I for one, won't revert you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- See this. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is my talk page -- this is an article talk page with active discussions being closed and recent ones being memory-holed. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with SageRad. This is all very unwikipedian and looks more like page ownership. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Martin please review the Talk page above. There are acres of text debating "fad diet". Nothing new has been said for a very long time. It is time for DR. Your idea about the RfC was excellent. By archiving, I was indeed preparing the page for review by people who come for the RfC. Please focus on drafting the RfC question on the content issue that has ground all other work on the article to a dead stop - namely "fad diet". Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with SageRad. This is all very unwikipedian and looks more like page ownership. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is my talk page -- this is an article talk page with active discussions being closed and recent ones being memory-holed. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- See this. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hatting them shuts down the conversation, doesn't it? It says "Do not modify it" -- so a conversation that is quite active is completely shut down unilaterally. How is this ok? You may think it's not a great conversation but you're not all people here. SageRad (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- They weren't productive discussions. If you think they were, then it's clear you think you were losing the debate. I'm sorry, but you weren't gaining any traction in those avenues. Shutting down those lines of conversation was doing you a favor. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that's simply not acceptable. People who disagree with the conversations in progress cannot simply delete or hat them because they declare that they are "unproductive" or declare that "nothing new has been said for a long time" etc... that is unilateral domination of the talk page of an article. There are obviously voices saying the opposite, and who have a serious issue with the recent archiving and hatting spree, and this is absolutely unacceptable. This article is WP:OWNed and nobody on Wikipedia appears to give a shit. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
...nobody on Wikipedia appears to give a shit.
Ruminate on that for a while. Think about why that may be. If you think hard enough, you might realize it's because you're wrong... WP:STICK.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Recent edits by QuackGuru
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@QuackGuru: While I find your arguments difficult to parse and sometimes frustrating (I get the impression that English is not your native tongue. I was honestly asking before, not rhetorically asking), your edits to the article tend to be constructive. I just want to be clear on that. I've been patrolling changes to the page, and the strong majority of your edits are good ones in my view. That's not to say you have made no bad edits, but I want to give credit where credit is due. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, here's some proper language. The issue is one of whether or not this phrase belongs in the article. There are two main arguments against it, and two main arguments for it. The main arguments against it are:
The main arguments for it are:
The dispute this far is summarized by the following points of fact, bearing in mind that an understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines are important to interpreting these facts.
This leads to the following inescapable conclusions:
Absent the presentation of further reliable sources showing that the term is inaccurate, it should remain. The presentation of further reliable sources showing that the term is derogatory should be sufficient to change the wording such that the reliable sources which use the term are summarized as using it, as opposed to the current condition of the article, in which it is directly stated as a fact. tl;dr If you can prove the term is derogatory, I myself (I cannot speak for anyone else) will support re-wording such that use of the term is attributed to the sources which use it, not to WP. Otherwise, get over it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
For the second time change the labels if you don't like them. Just make them neutral, like "collapsed prior discussion" or something. All the discussion is still there for anyone to read. In fact, it's much easier to read now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Recent edits to lede
"the claim has not been rigorously tested and the focus on food choices alone, as many fad diets do, ignores the importance of exercise and the amount of food consumed, each of which are essential for health.[1][5]" Not sure about these changes. Both sources say different things. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct that the sources do not support that statement. Note that, given the chance, I am quite certain that the authors of either would wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but their actual writings do not support it. I've commented out that entire paragraph. I've not removed it because it could be usefully re-written in the future, and this makes that task easier. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the SYN violation. The text is still on the talk page. The other text that is sourced in the paragraph has been restored. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- You also editing out the phrase "fad diet" which ruined the syntax of the first sentence and is disruptive to the process of getting together an RfC. I'm trying to work with you, man, but you're making it difficult. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the SYN violation. The text is still on the talk page. The other text that is sourced in the paragraph has been restored. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I am going to quote the intro at some length here.
This modern cult of healthy eating is made up of innumerable sub-cults that are constantly vying for superiority. A competitive marketplace of healthy diets emerged in the nineteenth century and has been growing ever since. Like consumer products in commercial markets, each of these diets has a brand name and is advertised as being better than competing brands.The recruiting programs of the healthy-diet cults consist almost entirely of efforts to convince prospective followers that their diet is the One True Way to eat for maximum physical health. Advocates of each cult cite scientific evidence to support their claims of superiority. This tactic is necessary because in the modern world, science has displaced religious and cultural tradition as the recognized authority for all health-related truth claims. So vegetarians, for example, say that theirs is the healthiest way to eat because science has proven that animal foods cause heart disease and other health problems. Meanwhile, low-carb diet advocates say that theirs is the healthiest way to eat because carbohydrates are scientifically proven to cause obesity and diabetes. Not to be outdone, proponents of the Paleo Diet say that, according to evolutionary logic, all foods that entered the human diet after our days as hunter-gatherers—including grains, dairy, and legumes—are bad for us. And so forth.
Now, if science really had proven conclusively that there was only one clearly defined healthy way to eat, or that a particular diet was indisputably the healthiest, then the competitive marketplace of healthy-diet cults that we are surrounded by would not exist. But science has not identified the healthiest way to eat. In fact, it has come as close as possible (because you can't prove a negative) to confirming that there is no such thing as the healthiest diet. To the contrary, science has established quite definitively that humans are able to thrive equally well on a variety of diets. Adaptability is the hallmark of man as eater. For us, many diets are good while none is perfect. This consensus belief of the nutrition science mainstream is neatly summarized in the book What To Eat, authored by Marion Nestle, one of the most prominent nutrition scientists of her generation. Nestle wrote, "The range of healthful nutrient intake is broad and foods from the earth, tree, or animal can be combined in a seemingly infinite number of ways to create diets that meet health goals."
Having arrived at this conclusion, the nutrition-science mainstream offers guidelines for healthy eating that are more flexible than those of the healthy-diet cults. Originating in big epidemiological studies and validated in major scientific reviews, these guidelines are delivered to the public through a variety of resources, including registered dietitians, community nutrition education programs, a few popular books like Marion Nestle's, and the USDA's MyPlate system. They consist mainly of basic recommendations concerning how often to eat various types of foods. Many of the recommendations are familiar to you: eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, eat whole grains instead of refined grains, eat fish at least twice a week, avoid sugary drinks, and so forth. Although quite specific, these standards are loose enough so that twenty people with twenty different sets of food preferences (and budgets) could follow the guidelines.
— Matt Fitzgerald, Diet Cults: The Surprising Fallacy at the Core of Nutrition Fads and a Guide to Healthy Eating for the Rest of US
He makes it very clear that the Paleo diet claims a One True Way and a scientific basis for it, and that it doesn't have a basis for that. None of these fad diets/diet cults do.
To make it this even more clear and specific, Fitzgerald describes the Paleo as follows: "In his book, Cordain stated in no uncertain terms that his new diet was the One True Way for everyone to eat. 'With this diet, we are returning to the diet we were genetically programmed to follow,' he proclaimed. 'It is the closest approximation we can make, given the current scientific knowledge, to humanity's original, universal diet.'" OK, so Fitz has clearly put Paleo in the same bucket as all the other diet cults.
Fitz goes through the whole debunking of the idea behind the diet - I won't go into that, as I don't see much debate about that here.
The Fitz goes on to say: "The bottom line is that the Paleo diet is not really what it claims to be. Not does do it what it claims to do. Nutrition science has has proven that saying "yes" to bacon and "no" to cheese, potatoes, and toast is not the most reliable way to attain maximum health." And there follows several paragraphs explaining the science behind that.
About exercise and diet, Fitz writes:
Exercise is the great equalizer of diets. Any diet, good or bad, will affect the body of a person who exercises very differently than it affects the body of a person who does not exercise. Regular physical activity ensures that the nutrients a person consumes are put to the best possible use. Exercisers may indeed get more out of an average diet than non-exercisers get out of a good one.Yet exercise only intensifies a tendency that is manifest in the body even at rest—a tendency to fabricate the same final product out of whatever raw materials it is given. The body is able to "zero out" small to moderate differences in food choices and eating patterns—in other words, to derive the same level of health from diverse ways of eating. Inside each of us there are scores of omit-in mechanisms that work to maintain a preferred physiological homeostasis despite varying nutritional resources. If you eat more salt, the excess will be excreted in urine. If you reduce your carbohydrate intake, your body will create more carbs (and carb subsitutes) from the fats in your diet. Evolution has designed the human body to achieve its required output from a variety of different inputs, and this is one reason there is no "best" diet for everyone.
The most hackneyed, if not the oldest, dietary cliche is the saying. "You are what you eat." So familiar is this axiom that we seldom consider its true meaning. What it suggests is that our health is rigidly determined by the specific foods and nutrients we put in our bodies. It says that if two people put the same foods in their body, they will have the same level of health. And if two people put different foods in their body, they are likely to experience different health outcomes. We are entirely, only, and exactly what we eat.
The healthy-diet cults unanimously subscribe to this principle. You could read a hundred diet-cult books, attend a hundred diet-cult lectures, and watch a hundred diet-cult videos without ever seeing or hearing anything that contradicted the essential meaning of "You are what you eat." This is only to be expected. After all, the diet cults are in business to convince us that we can attain maximum health only if we eat what they tell us to eat.
But in fact we are not what we eat. We are what our bodies do with what we eat. If the body's basic metabolism zeroes out small to moderate differences in diet, exercise neutralizes moderate to large differences. It is like a great sculptor who can fashion the same beautiful form out of various materials, including some of indifferent quality. Exercise is not a license to eat any which way, but we can't attain maximum health without it, and with it we can attain maximum health through an infinite variety of healthy diets —no cult required.
— Matt Fitzgerald, Diet Cults: The Surprising Fallacy at the Core of Nutrition Fads and a Guide to Healthy Eating for the Rest of US
Please tell me, how does the source I provided not support the text that: " ignores the importance of exercise and the amount of food consumed, each of which are essential for health."? Granted i probably should have added the Nestle source to make it more clear yet... Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- and by the way, QG's language, that Paleo "recommended it be subject to scientific rigor" doesn't make any sense, and is what prompted my edits. QG you are fully capable of writing good English. Please do not re-add this. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Paleo diet does not claim to ignore the importance of exercise. They don't tell people to not exercise. The part "the claim has not been rigorously tested" should from a book should not be used to argue against a MEDRS complaint review that says "A 2015 review suggested that the paleolithic diet could be a useful alternative to the unhealthy Western diet.[3]" It has been shown to be better than a Western diet according to the review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: I didn't find that first passages in the book. I tried to search for "paleolithic" but got no results, so I went forward with the assumption that synthesis was used to suppose that his writings about exercise would apply to this subject. However, as you have shown, the intro makes it clear that the author of that book was including the paleolithic diet along with others when he wrote this. You are correct, and I will restore the sentence (minus to citation to the 'fad diets to avoid' page, as that actually doesn't support the statement). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Who is Matt Fitzgerald? --.jsWP: [democracy needed] 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The author of a useful book in the field who is a sports nutritionist. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I see that. He used the term "Paleo diet" instead. That's where I went wrong, by assuming he would have spelled out the name, and not checking to be sure. Like I said, I've restored the content I commented out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not remove the SYN tag without fixing the SYN violation. It is not "While..." That is a SYN. The book is being misused to undermine the 2015 review which shows there has been extensive testing. The "Paleo diet" is not based on no exercise. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your claim that "while" represents synthesis doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, your claim that a diet (which is about food, not about exercise) is about exercise as well as food is obviously, definitionally, categorically wrong. Diets do not proscribe exercise. There are many weight loss programs which do, but you will notice that they are called "weight loss programs," not "diets". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The "While" part is being used to undermine the review and the paleo diet does not tell people to not exercise. They do not ignore the importance of exercise. The review shows lots of tests and studies. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- QG these two edits are a marvel of nuance. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The "While" part is being used to undermine the review and the paleo diet does not tell people to not exercise. They do not ignore the importance of exercise. The review shows lots of tests and studies. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your claim that "while" represents synthesis doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, your claim that a diet (which is about food, not about exercise) is about exercise as well as food is obviously, definitionally, categorically wrong. Diets do not proscribe exercise. There are many weight loss programs which do, but you will notice that they are called "weight loss programs," not "diets". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not remove the SYN tag without fixing the SYN violation. It is not "While..." That is a SYN. The book is being misused to undermine the 2015 review which shows there has been extensive testing. The "Paleo diet" is not based on no exercise. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I see that. He used the term "Paleo diet" instead. That's where I went wrong, by assuming he would have spelled out the name, and not checking to be sure. Like I said, I've restored the content I commented out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The author of a useful book in the field who is a sports nutritionist. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
NPOV "fad" diet
The statement "Paleolithic diet is a fad diet" is not NPOV and needs to be replaced by something like "scientist X, Y and Z[1] categorize it as a fad diet"... or likewise. --.jsWP: [democracy needed] 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is disputed. WP:CCC. I adjusted the wording. The non-neutral text was restored along with a SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's try a compromise before the RfC
There could be too many questions in the RfC. There is no reason to mention fad diet in the lede twice. I think a compromise might work such as "is not like other fad diets."<ref name=Wilson2015/> added to the end of the first sentence or another sentence in the lede. Adding context is better than merely stating it is a fad diet. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- that does not appear to be possible; see below. I'm waiting a bit longer to give folks the opportunity to comment on the draft questions.... Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
MEDRS violations and/or lower quality sources
The British Dietetic Association judged the paleo diet a "Jurassic fad" and listed it as one of the five worst celebrity-endorsed diets of 2015:
A diet with fewer processed foods, less sugar and salt is actually a good idea, but unless for medical reason, there is absolutely no need to cut any food group out of your diet. In fact, by cutting out dairy completely from the diet, without very careful substitution, you could be in danger of compromising your bone health because of a lack of calcium. An unbalanced, time consuming, socially isolating diet, which this could easily be, is a sure-fire way to develop nutrient deficiencies, which can compromise health and your relationship with food.[2]
David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that while there is comparatively little evidence for the diet, and "[m]any of the plant foods and nearly all of the animal foods consumed during the remote Stone Age are now extinct", the evidence that exists "suggest[s] benefits of the Paleo diet over the prevailing Western diet in measures of both body composition and metabolic health".[21]
I think we can delete theses two statements since we have higher quality sources covering health effects. See Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The BDA source is absolutely MEDRS. You need to read WP:MEDSCI, which states "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs." (emphasis added)
- The Katz source is, itself a review of previously published literature on the subject. By every single measure, it is MEDRS compliant. It is the very best kind of source, according to MEDRS. You are completely wrong about both of these sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that British Dietetic Association is a major professional medical or scientific society?
- I did not notice pubmed lisitng the Katz source as a review. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=24641555 QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that it's not? It's a professional medical organization with over 8000 members and an 80 year history. It's also the only such organization in the UK. Do you have something to show that an organization needs 8001 members to be considered "major"? Regarding the Katz source: have you tried reading it? It reads like a review. Of course, there's also the fact that it was published in the Annual Review of Public Health which only publishes...
- ...
- Wait for it...
- ...
- Review articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- For statements on diet, it would be harder to think of a better source than the BDA. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest the main problem with the Katz review is not to do with its reliability, it is that isolated statements are being cherry picked to imply it gives a favorable review of the fad diet. When actually it highlights glaring deficiencies in the methodology of the studies it is commenting on (Jytdog explained part of the problem in an earlier discussion on here, there are others eslewhere) Unless time (and article space) are spent to explain its findings in full, it should not be included because it is being used inappropriately to support a POV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- And the main problem with QuackGuru is that he forms a view of something and at that point his view is the only one he will accept as being in any way correct or defensible, hence we have endless sections stating that articles are in fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy followed by thousands of words of people telling him that no, the text is fine, and then it gets taken to the WP:FORUMSHOP where he starts all over again as if nothing has been said previously. Once QG has declared that something is so, I have never seen him change his mind in response to reasoned argument. I'd be happy to have anyone point me to examples where this has happened, feel free to drop diffs on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please keep to the content and keep it civil as much as possible. I also read the Katz/Meller review and find it a wonderful paper. It has much nuance and is down on proscribed diets in general, but it has a favorable review of the Paleo diet in general (both premise and data on effects such as exist). I like Katz. He's a no-nonsense and well-known nutrition commenter. In the end, his advice is to eat healthy and not worry about diets with simplistic rules, but that paper is fairly favorable on the Paleo diet and does affirm that there is some scientific basis for the premise as well as some evidence of beneficial effects of the diet. That's in there. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Have you checked QuackGuru's block log, list of editing restrictions, and recent editing history? It's not long since he narrowly escaped a siteban. The only reason he has survived as long as he has is that his obsessive editing at least generally supports the scientific consensus view - if he was a quackery shill instead of a quackery debunker he would have been given the bum's rush long ago. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- No i haven't, because i listen to a person's words and don't pre-judge them. I assume good faith for each separate interaction. I have respected many things said by QuackGuru, and i would ask to refrain from painting people in a way that might poison the well. SageRad (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Right, so you don't think the repeated assertion that articles fundamentally violate policy, contradicted by numerous other editors, might indicate that assertions of fundamentally violating policy might be opinion stated as fact and an example of tendentious editing, as identified previously with this editor and resulting in numerous blocks and restrictions? It's a view, I guess, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. For the record, I agree with QG on most of his edits. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- No i haven't, because i listen to a person's words and don't pre-judge them. I assume good faith for each separate interaction. I have respected many things said by QuackGuru, and i would ask to refrain from painting people in a way that might poison the well. SageRad (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Have you checked QuackGuru's block log, list of editing restrictions, and recent editing history? It's not long since he narrowly escaped a siteban. The only reason he has survived as long as he has is that his obsessive editing at least generally supports the scientific consensus view - if he was a quackery shill instead of a quackery debunker he would have been given the bum's rush long ago. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please keep to the content and keep it civil as much as possible. I also read the Katz/Meller review and find it a wonderful paper. It has much nuance and is down on proscribed diets in general, but it has a favorable review of the Paleo diet in general (both premise and data on effects such as exist). I like Katz. He's a no-nonsense and well-known nutrition commenter. In the end, his advice is to eat healthy and not worry about diets with simplistic rules, but that paper is fairly favorable on the Paleo diet and does affirm that there is some scientific basis for the premise as well as some evidence of beneficial effects of the diet. That's in there. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- And the main problem with QuackGuru is that he forms a view of something and at that point his view is the only one he will accept as being in any way correct or defensible, hence we have endless sections stating that articles are in fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy followed by thousands of words of people telling him that no, the text is fine, and then it gets taken to the WP:FORUMSHOP where he starts all over again as if nothing has been said previously. Once QG has declared that something is so, I have never seen him change his mind in response to reasoned argument. I'd be happy to have anyone point me to examples where this has happened, feel free to drop diffs on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest the main problem with the Katz review is not to do with its reliability, it is that isolated statements are being cherry picked to imply it gives a favorable review of the fad diet. When actually it highlights glaring deficiencies in the methodology of the studies it is commenting on (Jytdog explained part of the problem in an earlier discussion on here, there are others eslewhere) Unless time (and article space) are spent to explain its findings in full, it should not be included because it is being used inappropriately to support a POV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- For statements on diet, it would be harder to think of a better source than the BDA. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
To address the specific question of scientific evidence. I will repeat a point I made earlier: there is some early, tentative evidence that some component elements of the paleo diet may be beneficial in certain circumstances. However, the overall premise is fallacious, the evidence tentative, much of it was already known to dieticians, and most early findings turn out to be wrong anyway. The paleo diet is a canonical example of a fad diet, as usually defined, and many sources describe it as such. Any intersection between the paleo diet and legitimate dietary research is basically coincidence, exactly as for every other fad diet. The proponents of the diet do not base their claims on science and will continue to promote them unamended even when science shows parts of them to be entirely wrong (e.g. the fact that you cannot currently obtain any foods that are still in their paleolithic form, and the absence of any single homogeneous paleolithic diet due to enormous regional variations in available foods). You might just as well argue that humankind is not evolved to live in Europe and we should all go back to Africa, that would be no more or less arbitrary. So: this article separates (correctly) the arbitrary and ideological fad diet, from the scientific discussion of any elements of it that might be valid. And in the process, by the way, science disproves one of the most common anti-science critiques, in that a claim originating form bullshit is still tested to tease out any core of legitimacy. Science is pretty humble that way. It's only cranks and zealots who reject something just based on its source. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Science generally is more humble as well as more nuanced than cranks and zealots. But the Paleo diet is not wholly represented by your caricature of it. A simplistic and exaggerated version of an idea which is then knocked down is called a strawman argument. We've been going in circles on this, but it's not a canonical fad diet except in certain incarnations that claim miracles, and it is based on some sound scientific reasoning and there is some evidence that supports it being beneficial in some ways. You can't just keep asserting untrue things into reality. It's too easy to make strawman arguments but let's not. SageRad (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Have you ever seen the proponents' websites and books? Humble is the very last thing they are. Like every fad diet, the books that promote it promote a quasi-religious view: change this one thing and your entire life will be different. And of course the evidence does not come close to supporting it. The fact that several of them are also antivaxers and promoters of other conspiracist claptrap doesn't help. Really there need to be two articles: one on the human nutrition elements and one on the fad diet bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on the comments both sources are reliable. This thread can be archived soon. My concern now in the block quote from British Dietetic Association. User:Jytdog, your doing a good job of simplifying the text. Can you simply the text and remove the block quote? QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for allowing the reliability of those sources QG. I went ahead and condensed/paraphrased that block quote. Let me know what you think (others too). Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The basic question
I think the basic question is whether we call the diet a "fad diet" in Wikivoice or in an attributed way. As simple as that.
Does the article begin with:
The Paleolithic diet is a fad diet that emphasizes foods eaten by pre-agricultural humans...
or
The Paleolithic diet is an approach to eating that emphasizes foods eaten by pre-agricultural humans... Many mainstream sources call it a fad diet.
I'm not ok with the first because it violates WP:NPOV and is inaccurate to the full range of sources, but i'm fine with the second because it's accurate.
As simple as that: Is the main definitional noun for this article "fad diet" or not? SageRad (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, even faith healing and Bill Cosby get more respect in their first sentence than this diet which has some reasonable support in reliable sources, as well as some strong critics. Why don't we begin the article by saying, "The Paleolithic diet is a load of hooey believed in by unicorn riders who are afraid of dihydrogen monoxide and mumble about foods eaten by Neanderthals..."? SageRad (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I thinkt he following is more accurate:
The paleolithic diet (also called the paleo diet, caveman diet or stone-age diet) is a fad diet[1][2][3]: 9 based mainly on foods which advocates think were available to paleolithic humans.
- The reason is obvious: there is no such thing as a "paleolithic diet", no evidence that diets eaten by paleolithic humans were uniquely appropriate in the course of human evolution, and no evidence that a paleolithic diet is even possible now since pretty much nothing we eat is in the same form as in paleolithic times, due to agriculture. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well i guess since Guy knows the answers, we're done here and can go home. All those sources, no need to read them. What i actually mean to say is that there is a typical range of Paloelithic diets that can be somewhat surmised by evidence, and what we have called the "Paleolithic diet" here is a modern approach to eating based on many ideas about how diet has changed from pre-agricultural times to now. Those are two separate entities -- the range of diets of earlier humans as best we can glean from limited evidence, and the modern phenom of the Paleo diet. Many aspects of what Guy mentioned are indeed written about by modern people in the umbrella of the Paleo diet concept -- differences in food composition, differences in various diets of different peoples in earlier times and at present in hunter/gatherer societies, etc.... there is a lot of nuance within the discourse. It's not the "Flintstones diet" that's being caricatured throughout the current version of the article.
- But in the end, i think the basic question is: Should Wikipedia define the Paleolithic diet as "a fad diet" or should it say that many commenters call it a fad diet? I advocate for neutral point of view meaning the second option. We should say that many have called it a fad diet. That's true, verifiably. But we should not define it as such in Wikivoice as that is a reckoning and many sources also disagree with that reckoning, so there are multiple points of view on it. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
But in the end, i think the basic question is: Should Wikipedia define the Paleolithic diet as "a fad diet" or should it say that many commenters call it a fad diet?
As I've pointed out before, there are two aspects to this:- Many reliable sources refer to it as a "fad diet".
- It unarguably fits the generally accepted (and much of the more nuanced, individual) definitions of "fad diet".
- So there's really no room for debate. The only legitimate concern brought up is the issue of the term not carrying an NPOV, but while that may be a legitimate question, so far no-one's provided any answer other than "It's a neutral enough term," or "It's not neutral because I say it's not." Of the two, only the first one carries any weight whatsoever. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- There really is room for debate, and there is debate. There is NOT a monolith of most sources calling it a fad diet and therefore it's wrong and not neutral for Wikipedia to define it as such in Wikivoice. Period.
- But in the end, i think the basic question is: Should Wikipedia define the Paleolithic diet as "a fad diet" or should it say that many commenters call it a fad diet? I advocate for neutral point of view meaning the second option. We should say that many have called it a fad diet. That's true, verifiably. But we should not define it as such in Wikivoice as that is a reckoning and many sources also disagree with that reckoning, so there are multiple points of view on it. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The RfC if we must do one should ask simply whether the article calls it a fad diet in Wikivoice or attributes the term. Simple and done.
- If those here would agree to simply attribute the term then we could be done with no RfC. But people are pushing for Wikivoice to take sides among several valid points of view here and that's created this issue.
References
Last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing
failed attempt Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Just yeses or nos, please. What would you think of replacing "fad diet" with "popular diet"? Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
How about "Many critics call it a fad diet"? In other words, a simple attribution so it's not in Wikivoice? SageRad (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The part "critics" is not supported by the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Refocusing: Substituting "popular" for "fad" and keeping everything the sameI also am interested to hear what Alexbrn, Ronz, MjolnirPants, |
Too many sources at the end of the sentence
A Paleo lifestyle and ideology have developed around the diet.[3]:Chapter 4[5][14][15]
Can it be reduced to two or at a maximum three? QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind. You can pick the ones you think are the best sources for it, as far as I am concerned.Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary?
The part "as did the 2014 review.[15]" seems unnecessary. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
paper on restriction of dietary niche following neolithic revolution
There is a section header i would never thought i would find myself writing.
So in this dif, QG introduced the following into the "Foods" section:
- The Neolithic Revolution greatly narrowed the diversity of foods available, with a switch to agriculture which led to a downturn in human nutrition.[1]
References
In my view that is OFFTOPIC in that section, which is about the foods in the Paleo diet. This is content making claims about what happened something like 12,500 years ago. If it belongs anywhere in this article (I am not sure it does) it would belong somewhere in the Rationale and counter-arguments section. for what it's worth, it also contradicts the content that is already there - an article co-authored by Cordain talks about how things were added to the diet in Neolithic Revolution.....
Anyway, in my view the content doesn't belong there, and I am not sure how a paper making fine arguments about expansion or shrinkage of the "food nice" in the Neolithic Revolution is on topic in this article.... we can discuss, of course. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)