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)
- i"m OK with this. Since we had the distraction of the alternatives today, i will wait a bit before launching the RfC to see if there is any more commentary. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am too. But perhaps QG's alternative proposal would work for folks and we don't have to pull the trigger on the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- New question for RfC. Should we change 'fad diet' to 'popular diet' in the first sentence of the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is just a pointless diversion. What information does 'popular' give to our readers?
- There is no need to get agreement on the question so I am going to start an RfC with the two questions shown below, there is some levele of consensus for these. If we need another question and another RfC after this one then whoever thinks it is necessary can call one.
- 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) 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I'm perfectly okay with those two questions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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) 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
draft question 2
Should the Paleolithic diet be defined as a "fad diet" in Wikivoice, or should the article say that some sources call it a "fad diet"?
That is the question i would like to see asked.
If Wikipedia defines it as a "fad diet" then that's Wikipedia taking a position on this, among several positions. The question should provide these two options. We're not just trying to leave out the term "fad diet" so it shouldn't imply that as the opposite to defining the diet as a "fad diet". SageRad (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
Current text: The paleo diet is promoted as a way of improving health.[2]
change to:
The paleo diet like other fad diets is promoted as a way of improving health.[2] Rather than state it in the first sentence without any specific context for the reader it can be moved to later in the lede with context. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Quackguru, to be clear, you are proposing to take "fad diet" out of the first paragraph, and refer to it like that, at the start of the 2nd paragraph? Like this? Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am OK with this alternative proposal, which would like this if implemented. Are others OK with this? Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would folks please reply to this? Perhaps this would be acceptable and we can avoid taking up the community's time with an RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it is stil unencyclopedic rhetoric in Wikivoice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Martin Hogbin, which version do you think is less unencyclopedic? The current version or this proposal? QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing to chose between them in my opinion. 'Fad diet' is an almost meaningless term and should not be used in an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let me try to rephrase the question. If there is a RfC and editors read the sources and they agree it should be stated in the lede then what do you prefer? If you had to pick between the two versions would you choose it being stated in the first sentence or later on in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Martin Hogbin: Why don't you go propose the deletion of the Fad diet page, since you're so opposed to the term? After all, if it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an article about it. If you can accomplish that, I'll vote with you to excise the term completely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing to chose between them in my opinion. 'Fad diet' is an almost meaningless term and should not be used in an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would folks please reply to this? Perhaps this would be acceptable and we can avoid taking up the community's time with an RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note to everybody. It appears that SageRad has left Wikipedia so things may calm down considerably at this article. We have a proposal from Quackguru above, which would remove his objections to the use of "fad diet". Martin has said he doesn't accept it. Alexbrn, Guy, MjolnirPants do you find it acceptable enough? Anybody else? Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that the article state outright that it is a fad diet, but I can live with it being identified as such in passing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Great, am waiting for others to weigh in before doing anything about this or the RfC. no deadline and whatnot....but am again pinging Alexbrn and Guy to see if we have enough local consensus to go with this...and anybody else of course. As I noted SageRad's departure, i'll note his undeparture...Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still here. My issue is that it should be called "fad diet" with attribution to sources, as it's not all or even most reliable sources calling it that. That's a point of view that is held by some of the sources, so it should not be used to define the Paleolithic diet as a fad diet in Wikivoice. It belongs in the article, clearly, though with attribution, to follow the policy of WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Great, am waiting for others to weigh in before doing anything about this or the RfC. no deadline and whatnot....but am again pinging Alexbrn and Guy to see if we have enough local consensus to go with this...and anybody else of course. As I noted SageRad's departure, i'll note his undeparture...Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that the article state outright that it is a fad diet, but I can live with it being identified as such in passing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:16, 14 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)
|
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)
The basic question
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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:
or
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)
"Many mainstream sources call it a fad diet." is original research. None of the sources state it is "mainstream sources". QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 13 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,
Hatting active and very recent dialog] at whim is not acceptable, Jytdog, nor is deleting another user's comment. Dialogue that is active and recent must be allowed to stand, for the record, and to be obvious for all to see. There is much in that dialogue. SageRad (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, this page is a swamp of text. In response to the suggestion we substitute "popular" for "fad", I say no. "Fad diet" carries more meaning (not necessarily negative meaning), and I believe "popular" may be misleading. I'm quite certain that the south beach diet, the mediterranean diet, the raw foods diet, jenny craig and the atkins diet are all much more popular than this one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It's easy. Attribute "fad diet" and it's done. Why the resistance to attribute the claim? SageRad (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to call this "last attempt" and close it after only two days and only ping your likeminded friends. Add my YES. --.jsWP: [democracy needed] 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
Fad diet with attribution
Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why don't we give it a shot and see if there's consensus with attribution? I've stated that I'm ok with it. Who is not ok with it? Maybe MH because he sees it as rhetoric? Maybe if it's attributed then that concern is alleviated because it's then not Wikivoice stating it. SageRad (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC) By the way why do you insist on hatting things at your whim and knowing there is opposition to it by others? And active conversations, no less. Would be a lot easier and congenial if you wouldn't hat whatever you feel like hatting. SageRad (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Comments on Marion Nestle content
"In 2015 while Marion Nestle noted that the Paleo diet can be healthy, and confirmed the benefits of avoiding processed food, salt, and sugar, she noted that because the Paleo diet is restrictive, and because "what we know for sure is that the fundamental tenets of nutrition are variety, balance and moderation," she found that the loss of pleasure and the chance of nutrient deficiencies overwhelmed the "dubious benefits" of the diet.[1] Nestle stated "Any restrictive diet helps to reduce calorie intake, so it isn’t surprising that there are studies linking paleo to weight loss, lower blood sugar and a reduced risk of cancers for which obesity is a risk factor. Eating less works every time".[1]"
References
- ^ a b Marion Nestle (March 25, 2015). "The Paleo diet, sigh". foodpolitics.com. Food Politics.
Previous text without unreliable opinion piece. Is the foodpolitics.com article reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose misrepresents her overall judgement of the diet as "unhealthy". I also view this as a distraction from the more fundamental issues we need to address and will not respond further here. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - reads as the opposite of her actual view. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support a reduced version of the above. Her, clearly stated, view was not 'unhealthy' it was that 'the loss of pleasure and the chance of nutrient deficiencies overwhelmed the "dubious benefits" '. How about:
- "In 2015 Marion Nestle said of the diet "Any restrictive diet helps to reduce calorie intake, so it isn’t surprising that there are studies linking paleo to weight loss, lower blood sugar and a reduced risk of cancers for which obesity is a risk factor. Eating less works every time," but added that the loss of pleasure and the chance of nutrient deficiencies overwhelmed its "dubious benefits".[1]
References
-Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There is another question. Is the foodpolitics.com site reliable? It seems like a blog. If the site is unreliable then we cannot use it and the discussion is moot. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I support Martin's version above, but the end of the quote needs either a comma or some ellipses (I can't view the source from work to know which). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support either QG's or Martin's versions. Note that the text of the WSJ source is also duplicated here with a brief meta-comment. SageRad (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's the same link as the op supplied. You know, where she says it isn't a healthy diet. Didn't you check, Sage? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course i've read it. I am the one who flagged the misuse of this source to begin with. An honest reading of the source does not let us say that she calls it an unhealthy diet inherently.
“Is a Paleo diet healthy?” It can be, but this is a point/counterpoint. Hence, I took the position “NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits.
This is quite plain. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course i've read it. I am the one who flagged the misuse of this source to begin with. An honest reading of the source does not let us say that she calls it an unhealthy diet inherently.
- That's the same link as the op supplied. You know, where she says it isn't a healthy diet. Didn't you check, Sage? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as usual cherry picking sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's cherry picking- in Sageworld, NO seems to mean yes. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to read the article and see what it means if you can read without bias. SageRad (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- You should take your own advice. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Stop your contentious and hostile personal attacks. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- "You should take your own advice." is not a personal attack. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The previous comment was. SageRad (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- As was your response. My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you weren't being hypocritical. Or we could chalk both comments up to legitimate concern over the ideological bias of other editors and the way it affects their interpretation of source material. In that case, there was no personal attacks, and we should all focus on the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- You actually consider "in Sageworld, NO seems to mean yes" to not be a personal attack? And then you write "My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you weren't being hypocritical." which is another one... dressed as apology. Fucking personal attacks left and right without care. bullshit. SageRad (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- As was your response. My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you weren't being hypocritical. Or we could chalk both comments up to legitimate concern over the ideological bias of other editors and the way it affects their interpretation of source material. In that case, there was no personal attacks, and we should all focus on the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The previous comment was. SageRad (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- "You should take your own advice." is not a personal attack. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Stop your contentious and hostile personal attacks. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- You should take your own advice. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to read the article and see what it means if you can read without bias. SageRad (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's cherry picking- in Sageworld, NO seems to mean yes. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death:Do you mind if I ask why you oppose it? One could argue that any quote is cherry picked as a matter of general principles, but to me, this one (the one Martin proposed as an alternative to the one at the beginning of this section) reads as undermining the notion that the paleo diet is any different than other fad diets while mentioning its possible dangers. I don't see this as an endorsement of the diet, which was why I supported it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I originally asked if the source is unreliable. The source appears to be a blog post. Why are people arguing over including a MEDRS violation? QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Aside from the need to represent it accurately, I guess there is that point as well. SageRad (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Source regarding the scientific basis of the paleo diet
This is a distinguished Yale Professor pointing out the fundamental fallacy in the theory behind the paleo diet. He does, in fact mention the paleo diet by name at about the 45 second mark. This is a part of the Open Yale Courses, meaning it's a formal part of the lecture series of his class. In fact, it seems to be the actual lecture series for an online version of the course (Evolution & Medicine). Also, I'm a little surprised he doesn't have a WP article. He seems notable enough according to his university bio page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This article also might be of interest (archived version). It is by Melvin Konner, who is already mentioned in the article as being key to the early development of the Paleo diet, discussing, among other things, how discoveries since he originally published have disproved the idea that there have been few genetic changes in humans over the past 10,000 years. Torven (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think the article needs to have some more criticisms on the idea. There are sources to support it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article needs to have the article's subject represented more accurately. SageRad (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's pretty much exactly what I just said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not really. You said that the article could benefit by more criticism inclusion, whereas i said that the existing sources need to be represented accurately, and the article needs to describe the article's subject accurately. If your idea of accuracy is to pack in as much criticism as possible while not caring if the article is slanted already in how it represents the sources that are middling to positive on the subject, then i suggest checking the bias in your strong desire to portray the subject in a certain way. SageRad (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, you said
The article needs to have the article's subject represented more accurately.
I'm not sure if you can't remember what you typed (when it's on your screen about 1/4" above you claiming you said something else) or if you think I can't remember it. There is more criticism of the hypothesis behind this diet than the article currently shows. Therefore, to accurately portray the subject, the amount of criticism needs to be slightly increased. One or two more sentences about it is all I'm talking about. Also, I'm glad to see you took down the TTFN note. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, you said
- Not really. You said that the article could benefit by more criticism inclusion, whereas i said that the existing sources need to be represented accurately, and the article needs to describe the article's subject accurately. If your idea of accuracy is to pack in as much criticism as possible while not caring if the article is slanted already in how it represents the sources that are middling to positive on the subject, then i suggest checking the bias in your strong desire to portray the subject in a certain way. SageRad (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's pretty much exactly what I just said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article needs to have the article's subject represented more accurately. SageRad (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Content sourced to UC Davis
The content below was added today:
- The paleo diet is not effective for sustained weight loss.[1]
References
- ^ Marketing, UC Davis Health System, Department of Public Affairs and. "Is the paleo diet safe?". www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
QG questioned whether this is a MEDRS source. I removed it from the article and am copying it here for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that this is a reliable medical source at all. Regardless of the veracity of the claims the interviewee makes, there's no actual evidence presented - his position as the in-house "registered dietitian" is supposed to float his word. To be clear, "registered dietitian" is a legitimate position in the US (meaning degree-holding, internship-passing). However, this article isn't meant to be any kind of scientific press release at all, eg. an article that's presenting a new methodology or review paper. It's a quick-and-easy guide for the layman about whether or not the UC Davis Health System recommends that its patrons pursue the paleo diet. That, to me, is clearly not a MEDRS. Whether or not it's a generic RS is debatable, but for claims like "paleo diet doesn't help with weight loss", I need to see a source with actual data to support that. Amateria1121 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)