Talk:Max Lugavere/Archive 1

pronunciation

https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianNorgard/status/239073487896072192 --Espoo (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Lugavere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507003413/http://www.pangeaday.org/filmDetail.php?id=63 to http://www.pangeaday.org/filmDetail.php?id=63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerns

Non-productive suggestions to improve article. No reliable references suggested. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Wikipedians,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent alterations made to this page (I am Max, the subject). As a health and science journalist, I have dedicated my career to promoting evidence-based approaches to diet and health motivated by my mothers battle with dementia. However, it has come to my attention that the current state of my Wikipedia page does not accurately reflect this commitment.

It is evident that certain edits have been made with a clear bias against me. While I respect diverse perspectives on nutrition, it is crucial that any content presented on my Wikipedia page remains neutral and accurately represents my work and viewpoints. I am not a proponent of carnivore diets, or even "high meat" diets. If you look into any of my published work, I do regularly promote the consumption of animal source foods, including red meat, but always alongside other healthful foods such as dark leafy greens, fruits and vegetables, nuts, olive oil, etc. My book Genius Foods, which was co-written with a medical doctor, clearly shows this on the cover. I also rarely discuss supplements as a primary focus (always food first), do not sell any supplements of my own, and always clearly disclose when I have a brand relationship (such as when I promote a product on my podcast). Further, I have never "blamed" vegan diets for causing dementia, though I have expressed concern that they deprive the brain of important nutrients, which I feel strongly about in part because my mother, who had dementia, was a vegetarian for most of her life.

The deliberate insertion of defamatory statements and the omission of significant contributions to the field undermine the integrity of the page and mislead readers. My focus on evidence-based nutrition encompasses a wide range of dietary approaches, including the benefits of consuming animal source foods, which have been supported by scientific research. As a journalist who is always transparent about his background (i.e. I never misrepresent myself), I also host many viewpoints on my podcast—vegan, carnivore, credentialed nutrition experts, and general wellness enthusiasts—and push back when appropriate. Though some personalities may be disagreeable to some, I believe that having these conversations is within the scope of my work as a journalist. I don't always get it right, I'm not perfect, but I try my best to be a valuable contributor to the public health conversation.

I can share my most recent talks on The Today Show (this is from 1 month ago) which clearly showcases a balanced approach, and one which is evidence-based. https://www.today.com/video/feel-better-from-the-inside-out-with-this-food-reset-203011141957

I can share a profile and interview in The Times which clearly showcases my views are not fringe, and deeply personally motivated: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dementia-killed-my-mum-this-is-what-i-wish-id-known-about-brain-food-7cwll26kk (this is behind a paywall but I'm happy to email the PDF to anybody)

I can also share my academic review, published by Springer. All research articles, and most other article types, published in Springer journals undergo peer review. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_14

My newly-released documentary, which documents why I do everything it is that I do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UpVS8ZF10I

Nutrition is a polarizing field. Nonetheless, I've dedicated my life to helping others, and have achieved respect amongst both mainstream media and the community at large. Hopefully it is clear that I'm not in fact known for "fringe claims and opposition to veganism," but for doing my part to help to mitigate suffering in the world.

I urge the Wikipedia community to uphold the principles of neutrality and accuracy in content creation. I welcome constructive dialogue and collaboration to ensure that my Wikipedia page reflects a balanced portrayal of my work and positive contributions to the broader public awareness of the power of nutrition to impact health. Vinestreet97 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a common error by assuming that Wikipedia's neutrality policy means that we should have a 'balanced' article. But that is specifically not what is done on this site, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the reliable, independent sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. Note they your own talks, documentaries, and interviews with you are not considered to be independent. The 'Neutral' in WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia reflects the tone of the best available sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming here rather than editing the article yourself, per our WP:COI policy. Ok, I'm not watching this article, but came here from WP:BLPN to take a look. First, to clarify any bias of my own, I have been a devote carnivore all of my life. I was raised on a hunter-gatherer diet for the most part, not for any nutritional reasons, but because this isn't farming country I live in.

First, a bit of advice, and this is purely meant to be constructive criticism. If you want people in the scientific community to take you more seriously, you may want to avoid the cum hoc fallacy and other logically flawed arguments. Just sayin'...

With that out of the way, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for. You provided us with a bunch of primary sources for the most part, but no specific details about what you see as wrong, biased, needs to be added or changed? One problem about having a Wikipedia article is it will reflect both the bad opinions people have as well as the good ones, and balance doesn't mean an equal portion of each but we apportion them the same as reliable sources do. (See: WP:An article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.)

We are not news investigators, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like any other encyclopedia or book you'd find in the reference section of the library. We cannot use primary sources in order to give our own interpretations of them. Secondary sources do that. We need to get all our interpretations from secondary sources. Where primary sources can be useful is for reviews, critiques, and otherwise the opinions of people qualified to speak on the matter. It is unlikely that the negative reviews will end up getting deleted, but it may be possible to find positive reviews to add to them. Those are the kinds of things you should look for and bring here.

But then you need to be very specific about what it is you feel should be added or changed. We're not mind readers, ya know. Spell it out for us, don't just expect us to see what you do. ie: "Such and such sentence needs to be changed to this" or, "This information should be added there." Tell us exactly what you think should be done so people will better understand your line of thinking, and keep in mind that you most certainly have your own biases -we all do. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about evidence-based is an odd one, considering that Max tells us to go to his YouTube podcast. On Max's YouTube podcast his regular guest speakers are carnivore diet and low-carbohydrate diet influencers - Steven Gundry, Dave Asprey, William Davis, Mark Hyman, Jason Fung, Mark Sisson (of paleo diet fame), David Perlmutter [1]. A few days ago Shawn Baker the most well known carnivore diet influencer appeared on Max's podcast, "The Case for Carnivore" [2]. I listened to about 45 minutes of the interview. Nowhere did max make a single criticism of the carnivore diet, he agreed with Baker on everything. It should be noted that functional medicine that Max is also involved with [3], has been strongly criticized as a pseudoscience (check our Wikipedia article on functional medicine). Max says he has been interviewed by reliable sources but this doesn't appear to be the case. He is a regular guest on Steven Gundry's podcast [4] and carnivore diet Paul Saladino's podcast [5], [6], Mark Hyman's podcast [7] and David Perlmutter's podcast [8]? There seems to be a pattern here with this guys strong involvement with the alternative medicine and carnivore diet community. As for WP:RS he hasn't listed any. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, can it get any worse! Max above tells us to look at his new documentary trailer [9], both Nina Teicholz and Mark Hyman are in the trailer as key speakers. This is about as fringe as it gets. As for the today.com video [10] not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have reliable source(s) for the claim in the article that Max Lugavere is "known for: Fringe dietary claims". Without that, I do not see how we are meeting the essential requirement for NPOV on a BLP. 69.249.103.131 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a well known advocate of pseudoscience [11]. Max Lugavere is heavily involved with functional medicine (a well known alternative medicine), he is the opposite of evidence-based medicine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source you linked here (mcgill.ca) make the claim that Lugavere's dietary claims specifically are "fringe"? I don't see this language in their article, nor is there any mention of his "opposition" to vegan/vegetarian diet. Kalem014 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'm also following up in response to your WP:BLPN post/s. I'll keep my response limited to BLP policy. It doesn't look like the sources you have offered comport with requirements of our Reliable Sources policy. At this time, that failure appears confirmed by consensus, which is how we decide things. Now as to the content you find problematic, could you please (as Zaereth requested) quote the text you oppose, propose specific changes, and provide relevant supporting citations from reliable third-party sources? Also, do try to refrain from using terms like "defamatory" as we get your point, and we have our limits for that kind of talk here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've closed the BLPN discussion because this is the correct forum for the content discussion. It should be in one place at a time. Please resort back to BLPN in case a consensus does not emerge. At this time, it appears no resorting back to BLPN will be needed. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking over this in more detail. Basically Max has an upcoming low-carbohydrate documentary on diet and dementia called "Bread Head" to be released on 19 April 2024 [12]. He has never taken interest in his Wikipedia article until now. The documentary features Mark Hyman and Steven Gundry. The real issue for Max appears to be this source on his Wikipedia article [13] which a blocked IP tried to remove many times [14]. The source is reliable, there is no valid reason to remove it. Max talks about "defamatory statements" but doesn't list what these are. There is no defamation.

Of note, there may be a possible canvassing issue because he has advertised his Wikipedia page on Twitter [15] Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Max's claim above "My book Genius Foods, which was co-written with a medical doctor, clearly shows this on the cover". The medical doctor he is talking about is Paul Grewal who describes himself as a "paleo-friendly functional medicine physician" [16]. It is incorrect to try and pass off a paleo diet book as a "balanced approach" to nutrition. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments about user behavior, such as canvassing, maybe COI editing as an IP, etc. belong on noticeboards like WP:ANI and WP:COIN and maybe eventually WP:SPI but not talk pages. I'll gladly review a ping if you go there. But I don't think we are there yet. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus for NPOV template

Finished conversation, NPOV template was removed per consensus Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no consensus for this [17]. Max is currently on his Facebook and Twitter promoting conspiracy theories that his Wikipedia article has been seized by vegan activists and is telling his keto and paleo diet fanbase to come and edit here. There is an obvious issue here of Wikipedia:Canvassing and WP:MEATPUPPET. The NPOV template is not being added in good faith. There is no valid consensus to add it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not required for Template:POV to be placed. However, consensus is required for removal of the template. The neutrality issues are highlighted here, and in the above "Neutrality concerns" topic, which is sufficient to apply the banner for now.

Also, challenged/contentious unsourced "known for" fringe, etc. must be removed from infobox Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Kalem014 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a new user with only around 50 edits on this website and you have hardly edited any articles. It's a bit silly if you are trying to lecture experienced users who have been here for years. I am well aware about the guidelines. You are saying no consensus is required for a NPOV template, actually there should be. Just because Max Lugavere and his meat-puppets want an NPOV template inserted, this is not a valid consensus. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV templates are not badges of shame to be maintained on an article - there would need to be some sort of actionable discussion topic ongoing to keep the template up. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologist Guy I have over 50 edits. Please assume good faith Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Valid neutrality concerns were raised, which is my only interest (rather than any personal/ideological interest in the subject of the article itself whatsoever), sincerely.

MrOllie Thank you. I think removal of the template is fair assuming no further action is needed on the unsourced "known for" content, which I have removed. This was by far the most glaring contentious item in this BLP to my eye. Kalem014 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in this article, we need new editors to help out and improve articles related to WP:Fringe but dumping an NPOV template on an article when there are not any valid NPOV concerns is not the correct way to do it. That's not the way Wikipedia works. If there were 2, 3 or 4 users here complaining about this article saying it violates NPOV there would be a valid case but the drive by IP edits and new accounts are clearly suspicious. That is not a valid consensus. This seems to be more of a case of WP:MEATPUPPET than genuine concerns about NPOV. I have seen this this happen many times on fringe diet related articles. Max is telling his fans to come over here and edit his article but none of these IPs have suggested any WP:RS. If you know of any new reliable sources we can use to improve the article let us know. I am always interested in expanding articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. My concern was entirely policy-based and the necessary correction was made, which improves the integrity of the article overall. No Meatpuppetry here and again, we are in agreement on the removal of the POV template at this time. No further concerns on my end. Kalem014 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 'unsourced' - infoboxes summarize the body of the article, you can find sourcing there. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If infobox is the summary of the article, then the article clearly is not neutral and does not reflect reality. Where is the language from a reliable source that subject is known for fringe claims? Not even the 6 year old McGill source referenced contains that language. From that source, regarding his claims on an interview: “I can’t argue against any of [his claims]. In this one-hour interview, he ends up sounding balanced and well informed.” No other claims are deemed fringe, the article just acknowledges business ambitions. Please clarify. 69.75.163.74 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed every referenced source in the article. None state or even imply his "dietary claims" are "fringe". A further cursory search for reliable sources on the web turned up no associations in these terms either (other than the WP article itself). Unless a reliable source is provided to support that specific statement, it appears to be a WP:SYNTH, unsourced contentious claim on a BLP that must be revised or removed. Particularly given the infobox item is highlighting what he is most "known for".

There does however seem to be at least some basis for what could be construed as opposition to the vegan diet. It seems somewhat UNDUE to me given this does not appear to represent the primary focus of his work (the emphasis seems to be more broadly on keto/low-carb advocacy [18]), but given this broader context seems fair. Kalem014 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[19], It's quite obvious from reading that source that Max is promoting fringe views on his podcast. "He brings a holistic health coach on episode 2, whose father had terminal kidney cancer and, she claims, cured himself by abandoning Western medicine and fine-tuning his nutrition instead. In episode 9, the guest is a “functional dentist” who says crooked teeth happen because we’re not eating healthy. His website promotes recipes for homemade mouthwash and for healing cavities naturally. And the episode gets a sponsorship from a Toronto-based supplement company. Lugavere really likes their “gut health powder". Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is your WP:SYNTH. It may seem obvious to you, but with respect, you are not a reliable source. If we can find a source for the assertion specifically that Lugavere's "dietary claims" are "fringe" than we can let it stand. It simply must be sourced to allow on a BLP. Kalem014 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:Synth to say that source says he is promoting fringe ideas about nutrition. The article admits some of his views are not backed by science, even the very link includes the word "quackery". You are being difficult just for the sake of it. I see you have been warned in the past about fringe issues [20]. There are millions of articles to edit on Wikipedia you are not doing yourself any favours by going down this route. Edit warring usually leads to a block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To say Lugavere is known for "Fringe dietary claims", first and foremost, is a bold and very specific statement that must be supported. What is the source? I am not being "difficult for the sake of it" Wikipedia:Be civil. We don't need "millions of articles", just one, from a reliable source stating he is making "fringe dietary claims". Again, my only interest here is in preserving the integrity of the overall article and WP. My comments and edits have been 100% Wikipedia:CONPOL based.

Regarding your note on blocking, I am only compelled by the policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately... The burden of evidence rests with the editor(s) who add or restore the contentious material." Note, that the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Kalem014 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV template contains the sentence Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. It does not make sense to add the template without previously starting a discussion on the Talk page that can be linked in the template. Templating without such a discussion lets other users guess what exactly is POV about the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hob Gadling, the template removal was not disputed beyond the initial removal. The discussion seems to be focused on removal of contentious unsourced WP:SYNTH from the infobox. Specifically regarding Lugavere being primarily known for "Fringe dietary claims". Kalem014 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need pings, I have a watchlist. And I did not talk about template removal disputes, I explained why the template did not make sense in the first place. The removal of the template was correct but did not give the correct reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.