Talk:Michael Greger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vegan

Not sure why the references to him being vegan were deleted by User:Denny60643, he is a vegan as far as I am aware.[1] Nirvana2013 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don Matesz mention

Her critisism has been put under scrutiny as well by [6]Don Matesz, for example he pointed out she considers Garry Taubes a good writer.
And who the heck is Don Matesz? Why should the reader consider his opinion relevant? And what is the purpose of the citing Gary Taubes, a journalist with a major in physics? Perhaps has he criticised Michael Greger's dietary advice? If so, on what grounds? Where are the references? 80.174.254.173 (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Matesz is non-notable and has no obvious qualifications. And the reference to Taubes is baffling - is liking hisRadsberg Flieger writing evidence of something? I will remove the additions. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• You guys are both appealing to authority. Did you even bother to read what Don Matesz had to write? And why would Gary Taubes be an expert in nutrition because he has a major in Physics? The critisism is based on arguments taken out of context or with things that have meanwhile been backed up with more evidence. Search nutritionfacts.org for dementia and there is a whole lot of evidence of the link between the two. Much more than the single point Miss Hall is mentioning. Miss Hall would have to revise her critisism as well to make it up to date.
• The reference cited to Matesz's blog doesn't even support the comment that Hall 'considers Garry Taubes a good writer'... it simply says that Hall said Taubes includes 'far more references' (than Greger, I assume). Or did Hall say somewhere that Taubes writes well, as far as grammar/style? If you read the Taubes wiki here, it's shown Hall actually criticizes Taubes' work (note 18 there).72.42.166.93 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• I can't find any critique on Gary Taubes' site at all. And he is pretty controversial. I bet you won't mind if I add some.
• The critique of Miss Hall is outdated and therefore no longer useful. She also claims a vegan diet is just as scientifically sound as a Paleo diet, this is a patent falsehood. Find a decent critic which does make sense and doesn't try to confuse matters with opinions that are hard to verify for the average reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboetes (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hboetes per the talk page guidelines, this is not a forum for general discussion or editors' opinions on the topic. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

removed it. the article presents Greger's views and those of his critics. The goal here is not endless tit for tat but to keep things simple. additionally as others pointed out the sentence made no sense. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

excessive See also

Long lists of "see also" links with perhaps only tangential connections to the subject don't add to the article. Normally, this section is for links to other articles very closely related to a given article. If we want to provide links to other nutritionists or vegans, or to particular terms, there should be text in the article discussing his connection to them, or there should be some sort of portal or navigation bar for these groups. I'm planning to prune them down severely soon; if someone with more subject-area knowledge wants to add text in the article connecting these links to Greger (or create nav bars or something), that would be great. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur, the see also section should have relevant links not a catch all. Categories provide lists of vegans etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced or primary sources

The article reads like a PR piece. The facts need to come from secondary sources not primary sources or original research. I have placed a main tag and a number of tags on facts, some with rationale. I have also removed titles per MOS and trimmed the puffery and repetition. Solid secondary sources are in real need to support more than a stub mentioning the subject's notable book. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

His age

When was Doctor Greger born? I think it's important. Does he look his age, for instance?

Incidentally I am trying to become vegan. Both for health and ethical reasons. So I support Greger, I am not trying to catch him out.Fletcherbrian (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable sources that give his birthdate. If you find one, please add it. Brianyoumans (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

YT channel link

There should be no spammy link to Greger's Youtube stuff. See WP:ELNO / WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the link as spam, but as an informative resource on the main Dr. Greger activity, which is educative and non-commercial. Please, do not remove the link before pointing out, with reasoning and explanation, which item of the WP:ELNO the link falls under. "Nah, Spam" is not reasoning. Samcarecho (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO No 2, for a start. You are at 3RR and further edit warring will likely get you blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you have a MD degree to be able to judge the Youtube channel content as "misleading, inaccurate material or unverifiable research". I will take this matter to the utter most consequences, as your behavior is irresponsible and clearly biased. Samcarecho (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sam, you are clearly a big fan of Greger. Please do read WP:ADVOCACY (a useful essay) and Wikipedia's policy against using Wikipedia for promotion. This is an article about Greger. It is not a vehicle for "getting out the word" on Greger. That is what his website(s) are for. That is what his youtube channel is for. See also WP:COATRACK. I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, the link to the Youtube channel is not a promotion of any kind. It's a fact, a link to something that is a huge part of Dr. Greger's life. This is an article about Dr. Greger, and it's imperative that it exposes all his facets, with true facts. That's the ultimate goal of Wikipedia, expose facts and help the users to reach information. Samcarecho (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and Praise

I don't have a problem with including praise of Greger as well as criticism. Perhaps we could change the "Criticism" section to something like "opinions of Greger's work" and include both in that section? Praise would of course need references, just like the criticism. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

When reverting Alexbrn's edit, I brought back the criticism section by mistake. On Wikipedia, we are advised to not have separate sections dedicated to criticism. --Rose (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of providing balanced opinions, I included praise to balance out the criticism. Cschepker (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

SBM source

The sciencebasedmedicine.org source is not an RS. On a close reading of it, I found it was a heavily biased opinion piece, which without any irony brought up discredited research (the Davis argument) and anecdotal evidence (a guy I know is B12 deficient) at the same time as it was accusing Greger of having low standards.

The source may have been a considered an RS because of the following explanation of its editorial guidelines:

We have no firm style guidelines. Being a blog, there’s a lot of flexibility, and room for personality and humour. The main requirement is intellectual rigour: make a well-reasoned, science-based point about health care, and it has a good chance of being published.

You’ll get extra points for good scholarship and referencing, but it’s not necessarily required, depending what you’re writing about.

Most relevant posts that don’t make the cut are rejected for generally poor quality of writing and/or thinking.

However, we cannot regard this as an RS just because several people get together and establish rules for blog posts. The article cited made it very clear that a high standard of rigor was not applied in this case - at best, it's a primary opinion piece not suitable for a BLP.

I don't think it's fair to try to present Greger's work as pseudoscience because he talks about primary research. His website never claimed that his views represent mainstream scientific consensus - quite the opposite - and having heterodox opinions is not the same as selling snake oil. Moreover, he's not selling anything at all, and he claims that all the profits from his books and speaking go to charity. A balanced view of Greger (in my opinion) was given in a different blog post previously cited in this article for the purpose of discrediting him.[2] It's brief so I'll just copy it here.

A while ago I came across videos by Dr. Michael Greger. I was impressed by his ability to produce these 3-4 minute features every day. The science was sound and the production values high. I started to watch every day and it soon became clear that there was an agenda here. Every video either spoke about the benefits of some plant component in the diet or the harm caused by some chemical in animal products. It turns out that Dr. Greger has swallowed the vegan philosophy hook, line and sinker; not that there’s anything wrong with that. He promotes veganism with religious fervour and has forged a career speaking on health issues, including guesting on the Dr. Oz Show. Surely that is the ultimate recognition of scientific expertise! He also was an expert witness in on Oprah’s behalf when she was sued by meat ranchers for defaming hamburger. Dr. Greger claims to donate all profits from books and speaking engagements to charity, certainly a noble commitment.

You will never see Dr. Greger refer to a study that shows anything positive about meat, but you will see plenty of studies that point out the pitfalls of consuming animal products. While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine. Here is his latest; you can also sign up for a free subscription to his daily videos.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-choline-and-cancer/

Joe Schwarcz

However, as this too is a primry source, it's also not suitable for a BLP. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's a RS - are you saying it misreports Hall's view? Per WP:PSCI this stuff needs to be explicit and per WP:PARITY SBM is an excellent source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that SBM is not an RS at all and should not be used in Wikipedia, and certainly not in a BLP. Have you inserted this stuff into other articles? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your invocation of WP:PSCI in this case is also extremely dubious. Per Schwarcz's views above, which you also inserted previously (violating WP:BLPSPS) Greger's views do not appear to be "pseudoscience". "Pseudoscience" is not the same as having opinions, or even an agenda, and we ought to be careful to make the distinction. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I notice you reverted again without discussion, despite that this is a BLP issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't WP:CRYBLP: this is about Greger's views, not Greger himself. You're wrong about SBM not being RS as used. It is obviously RS for Hall's view. WP:PSCI is not specific to "pseudoscience" (please read it). Greger has a number of dubious out-of-the-mainstream views (some very egregiously so). We are required to be neutral and this means the mainstream view has to be prominent here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The source cited is plainly not an RS due to the dubiousness of its arguments. It criticizes one particular video of Greger's, which was not mentioned here, and makes dubious arguments against veganism broadly. Nothing in this article mentioned a fringe view that needed to be responded to per WP:PSCI, and you contention that Greger's views are egregiously out of the mainstream is not supported anywhere and, even if it were, you couldn't justify adding a source to challenge those views unless they were actually mentioned in the article.

I'm extremely dubious of SBM's supposed editorial standards, but whatever you think of them generally, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. This piece, which cites a completely discredited argument by Davis, is not a reliable source, and definitely does not belong in a BLP. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We say "Hall said X", and source it to a piece by Hall. How can this not be RS for the statement "Hall says X"? We mention in the article that Greger has written a book How not to die! it doesn't get much fringeier than that. Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't use self-published blogs for BLP articles, and for the same reason, we don't use blogs with dubious editorial standards. If you want to insert op-ed criticism of Greger into the article, it has to be reputably published and not, like this is, a screed full of questionable criticisms, straw-man arguments, and anecdotes about things he had nothing to do with. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the book title, it is obviously meant as "how to reduce your risk of some major causes of death" and not "how to attain immortality." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On fringe matters WP:PARITY gives us considerable lassitude and SBM is more than a match than Greger's web site and the claims therein (this is a site that says tumeric can cure cancer - pure quackery). SBM is a well-respected source for commentary on fringe matters. We need to be neutral here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no fringe matters here, and the SBM source is garbage. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's currently being discussed at WP:FT/N, so you may wish to check in there to see what the wider consensus is. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I second Sammy1339's position that there are no fringe matters here. As such, WP:Parity is not applicable. If you disagree, please provide quotes from Greger showing that he supports fringe views. As Partiy does not apply here, we are left with the WP:Weight policy and MEDRS guideline. The Hall source fails on both counts. It is full of medical claims but does not come close to meeting MEDRS or SCIRS, and it focuses on a single video seemingly chosen at random. If the Hall source is included, it is certainly undue weight to mention Hall's criticism in the lede, as the source is a single blog entry covering one video by Greger.Dialectric (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that diet can "prevent, treat, and even reverse many of the top 15 killers" (like on his site the claim that tumeric can reverse cancer) - hence his book on how "not to die". It's fringe alright. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to his claim that tumeric can reverse cancer? I did several searches on the site and found the only mention of tumeric in a section heading on a dvd which did not mention cancer.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't looked into every opinion this man has, but he's allowed to have them. If they start showing up in the article, then its fair game to start introducing sources disputing them. Or if you had a reputably published source saying Greger is a quack, that would be acceptable to include. Neither is the case here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See here esp. for the "in effect reversing cancer" claim. We don't go into the cancer claims because we have no sources - but the iffy nutrition claims we do have sources for. You need to be aware (and our readers need to be aware) of the fringe nature of the views emanating from the "nutritionfacts" website, it would be grossly irresponsible to swerve this. Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One of Greger's videos on curcumin (the relative chemical in turmeric) is here. Note that he never makes any such claim as "turmeric can reverse cancer" and attributes his claims to studies. The whole point of his website is that he digs into medical research on diet - necessarily, this involves talking about claims that do not conform to MEDRS. Which I think is okay, given that he's a doctor and not a Wikipedia editor. He clearly has an agenda, and that's apparent to anyone who notes he's employed by the Humane Society, but he's not producing the kind of fringe quackery Alexbrn seems to think he is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

From the text I quoted "in effect reversing cancer" you appear to be unambiguously wrong. If he is making unreliable medical claims our readers have to be aware of this. This is the essence of WP:FRINGE as it bears on our responsibility to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context. The video makes completely clear what he means - he refers to "reversing" cancer in specific patients in specific studies, and never makes claims to the effect that these things are proven to be effective. Look at the video linked from your article - all the claims are highy qualified and refer to what studies actually showed. You have also already cited one physician, Schwarcz (above), who seems to think he's not a fraud. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to even discuss this as it's not in the article. Even if it were, your source wouldn't address this particular video made by Greger. So please stop using ad hominem or talking about the title of a book and focus on the current state of the article. --Rose (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

SBM source again

@Alexbrn: I would like to open an RfC concerning the use of sceincebasedmedicine.org here. There are two issues:

(1) The source is a blog representing the opinions of a reputable scientist, which may be permissible per WP:SPS, but not in a BLP. It badly fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This particular post also contains extremely dubious claims.

(2) Your assertion that the subject is "fringe" is not backed by reliable sources. No RS claims that Greger promotes fringe views; neither is any fringe view represented in this article.

How would you like the RfC to be worded? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:STICK applies since this has been well discussed, not least at WP:FT/N. Greger over-claims for the health benefits of diet, and such over-claims are covered by WP:FRINGE. Since that is a more essential question it would need to be settled first (i.e. "Are Greger's claims about the extent of health impacts from diet covered by WP:FRINGE?"). It would then follow by WP:PARITY that SBM is an excellent source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should clarify I respect what you're trying to do. I understand your position is that this guy s making bogus health claims that people need to be warned off of, and generally that's a noble cause. From what I've seen, though, he's simply making lots of references to results from individual studies - the implication may be that if you eat a certain way you might have this or that benefit, but I've never seen him make claims to the effect that anything will cure cancer. I'm also not impressed with the quality of Hall's analysis - I'll go over the details of what's wrong with it if you like. I'm sympathetic to the philosophy of invoking FRINGE to smash nonsense, even on BLP's - see my edit on Carver Mead where I attempted to do this, but see also the reason why it was rejected - WP:BLPSPS. For me this is an even clearer case because in my opinion FRINGE doesn't apply, since unlike in the Carver Mead article, no fringe view is actually present in the text. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My view of that discussion was that it was poisoned by too many issues being discussed and didn't generate a consensus. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Making statements about health based on individual studies is bad science, and leads to classic fringe views. The effect of your edits would be to whitewash the article, which would be be bad for the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Alexbrn: Just to clarify, what is your position on the Carver Mead article? I see several issues here, and I just want to get straight which one(s) this is about.

(1) You say Greger's claims are FRINGE; I say there's no evidence of that (though I'm not highly familiar with him.)

(2) You say Hall is a better source than Greger under PARITY; I say her use of Davis, in particular, is itself FRINGE.

(3) You say Greger himself has to be criticized for any FRINGE claims he may have made; I say only claims actually in the article need to be refuted under PARITY.

(4) You say (I think) that SBM is an RS; I say it fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP and is a self-published blog. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What's Carver Mead? Greger's claim that death is "largely" a food-borne illness associated with non-vegan diets is WP:FRINGE, as we say. This stuff from his website is matched in parity by SBM. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking about Carver Mead in order to get a sense of your position on using WP:FRINGE to override WP:BLPSPS. Also asking which of the other points of our disagreement I have characterized accurately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, he's a person we have an article on. I'm not familiar with him. The articles I'm aware of where BLP and FRINGE need balancing are ones like Deepak Chopra, Stanislaw Burzynski (now merged), Robert O. Young, Joseph Mercola etc. Anyway we're going round in circles now: Hall's piece is about Greger's view not Greger himself. If you want to argue that Greger's views are fringe-proof, then by all means launch that RfC - but I don't think it would be worthwhile use of the community's time myself. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's by no means what I want to argue. I have no connection to Greger and no interest in protecting him; actually my main concern is that the SBM source is, in my view, very poor. I'm just asking you to clarify what your position is so that we won't keep talking past each other. So in particular (although you are under no obligation to respond) I would find it helpful to know if the four points I wrote above are accurate, and whether you support this edit. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

SBM is a good source, possibly better than Quackwatch even (notice that Quackwatch is used in the latter two biographical articles I listed above - you think that's okay?). So, you agree that WP:FRINGE applies to Greger's more exotic claims? Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not very familiar with him, and I won't take a position either way on his credibility. Is there a reason you don't want to answer the above questions? I mean, you don't have to, but I would find it convenient since I think we are bantering too much.

When you say SBM is a "good source" do you mean it is an RS under WP:SCHOLARSHIP or under WP:NEWSORG? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what question haven't I answered? SBM (like Quackwatch in similar articles) is a good source per WP:PARITY as I keep repeating. Whenever Greger comes under critical scrutiny, eyebrows seem to be raised. We have Hall looking at his diet book, and some rather dismissive book reviews about his bird flu book. These are the best sources in the article (SBM & the two reviews). Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a look at Robert O. Young, Joseph Mercola, and Quackwatch. I have no sympathy for these fellows, but I have to say WP:BLPSPS does apply as the latter is self-published. Maybe an alternative solution would be writing a new piece of policy allowing for certain uses of self-published anti-crankery sources. Would you be receptive to starting such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

We have been round this loop hundreds of times. Quackery lovers hate Quackwatch, but it's cited and/or recommended as a source by reputable authorities, and that means we don't get to decide it's not reliable just because we don't like what it says. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think SBM is especially reliable. I find it to be fringey in itself and quite dogmatically ideological. SageRad (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see there's a problem. This is what WP:PARITY allows for and why these (well-watched) articles are as they are. There have been many discussions about the supposed tension between FRINGE and BLP in the past - see the archives of WP:FT/N and particular discussions about Rupert Sheldrake for a flavour. But where it's fringe views being discussed and not a biographical detail then where is the problem in countering a fringe position with a skeptic source? Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, really WP:PARITY doesn't allow this - it allows for lower-quality sources to be used to refute fringe views, but not fringe people. It's also not clear that it allows self-published sources. If so this should be bade clear in IRS. If this sort of use is supported by precedent, that's all the more reason to write a policy on it. To be clear, I think our policies probably should allow the use of Quackwatch in these two BLPs. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

To directly answer your question, my reading is that self-published skeptic sources can be used to refute fringe views per WP:PARITY and the third sentence of WP:SPS, but not in a BLP per the fifth sentence of WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. There might be an argument for changing policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And I think you are wrong, for the simple reason that the alternative is to allow the views of obvious cranks to stand uncorrected because WP:CRYBLP. Sheldrake is a good example. His ideas are not taken seriously at all by reality-based science (hence his repeated calls for science to ditch all that tiresome burden of proof and empirical verifiability business), so if we don't address his bullshit on his article we can't address it anywhere, and that is a total fail of WP:BLP. Since nobody takes him seriously, we're left with self-published sources by noted authorities in debunking bullshit. Proceed with caution, of course, but still, we have to balance the bullshit with reality. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: So to be clear, you're arguing WP:IAR? I can get behind that in many cases, including Sheldrake. But since it keeps coming up, isn't it a good reason to amend WP:V to allow this, and govern how and when it ought to be done? The alternative seems to be having these obnoxious arguments over and over. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So there is one opinion piece sourced to back up this claim in the introduction "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence." That's a generalisation stated in the introduction like it's the scientific consensus, based only on one blog post! The neutral thing to do would be to move all criticism in its own section and not add any generalizing statements in the introduction. This is Wikipedia at its finest seeing how one active person is brute forcing their agenda and ignoring any other input. --Sapeli (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Policy requires us to make plain the well-known claims made are out-of-the-mainstream. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with you on how it must have no place in the lead and I've been saying this for a while but I as far as I remember, based on the current guidelines of Wikipedia, sections dedicated to criticism should be avoided. My solution to this was to remove the part from the lead, as we already have another part in the article that mentions Hall's criticism. --Rose (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEDE tells us ledes should contain criticism and WP:PSCI, which is policy, tells us the nature of fringe views must be prominent. I'm sorry, but we're not going to ignore the WP:PAGs just because of the personal objections of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So far, nobody but yourself has supported the view that this article about a physician has anything to do with fringe theories or pseudoscience. His views weren't even present in the article until you added one such line to make a point. I can only remind you that even if you think the name of his book somehow makes him a fraud or that some article about turmeric you managed to find among his hundreds if not thousands of articles makes his views pseudoscientific, that's it's still nothing but your opinion and original research unless you have multiple reliable sources that suggest otherwise. --Rose (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That is patently untrue, as you can see by reading the section below. In any case this article is not governed by intensity of editors' POVs but by our WP:PAGs, and it shall properly reflect that Greger has promulgated some fringe views. Of course since Greger's latest book is out it is only to be expected that some elements (no names) are keen to minimize this aspect lest reviewers find it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research by Alexbrn once again

Back in April 2015 on Talk:Veganism and WP:NPOVN, Alexbrn argued for keeping the part that said "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people". The wording and how it didn't match what was in the sources cited is similar to "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence". Alexbrn's version didn't end up in the veganism article at the conclusion of the discussion. Now it's even worse, because on top of the claims made by Alexbrn not being supported by the source, the source itself is questionable and the weight of this opinion is not enough for it to be presented at the beginning of the article. --Rose (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEDE says we need to include such criticism. If you think it can be better summarized, propose a better summary - don't just delete it (the only independently-sourced text in the lede!) Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What WP:LEDE says is this: "includes mention of significant criticism or controversies". The opinion you're trying to include in the lead is not significant at all and there's nothing similar to your summary to be found in the source. But since you keep reverting, I'll have to post about this on a noticeboard. --Rose (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There we go again --Rose (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks a bit WP:FORUMSHOPppy when this is already at WP:FT/N. Adding a third venue for this does not help promote centralized discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've never focused too much on the source and that's the primary focus of all the discussions on those noticeboards. As I pointed out at WP:NPOVN, there are multiple issues with what you want to see in this article. --Rose (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The only disagreement here is over use of that source. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hall's piece is interesting, though polemic and a bloggy post. It might be notable enough for a mention in the body of the article, but i don't see how it is justified in the lede, in that way, especially when it's not even in the body. And even if it's in the body, it's not necessarily justified to be in the lede by WP:DUE. Perhaps there is more substantial criticism of Greger, or perhaps not. SageRad (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Hall's piece is an SPS in a BLP. See the section above. By the letter of policy, it's not allowed at all, so we should address that issue first. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is in the article (have you read it?) - and ledes are meant to summarize bodies. Since it's the only independently sourced commentary we have, it's rather due wouldn't you say. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how we can keep the part in the lead if it's violating several rules and it's not something that would change no matter how the other discussions would end. --Rose (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same way when I made this edit which has been partially reverted by Alexbrn since then. --Rose (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is why I don't think NPOVN is the right place for the discussion. You want a special privilege to violate BLPSPS in cases of what you consider "fringe" views - moreover, consensus actually seems to support your perspective, and I'm strongly inclined to agree with your use of Quackwatch in articles about alt-med cranks. However, it's against the letter of policy, so if you're going to argue this, you should argue to change the policy, and that's where I think this discussion should be. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It violates no policy, as has been explained above (and at WP:FT/N). Expert self-published sources are allowed generally; this is about Greger's view, not about Greger, and per WP:PARITY standards for sourcing are relaxed for fringe positions. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Directly from WP:V:"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Emphasis in original.) Are you really claiming this is not "about" Greger? --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No it's about his view. If you applied that broadly to things around Greger (the books he wrote, the web sites he runs, etc.) practically this whole article would be deleted - just look at the first paragraph! (And incidentally, SBM is not self-published as it has some editorial oversite.) Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the article doesn't even describe Greger's views or claims (yet?) but Alexbrn has been trying to find sources to refute what's not even there, on the basis of complete nonsense like the name of one of his books. Though as I keep saying, even if the source is perfect and completely acceptable, keeping the part I tried to remove from the lead is still giving it undue weight and summarizing the opinion provided by Hall the way Alexbrn did is original research. --Rose (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We do indeed say Greger 'claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness"' - that's his view isn't it? If you can propose a better summary of Hall's critique, let's hear it! Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I really don't know what to say to the disingenuity of this "it's not about him, it's about his views" idea. What about this from Robert O. Young, also sourced to a self-published skeptic blog: "Quackwatch describes Young's claims to be a distinguished researcher as "preposterous", notes that his credentials come mainly from unaccredited schools, and characterises his ideas as "fanciful"." I suppose it's not about him, its about his claims, his credentials, and his ideas? It's not as if there isn't a case for what you're doing, but you ought to own up to it. Argue to change the policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the latter part is (about his ideas). I'm not sure Quackwatch fits into the SPS mould either: WP:V says

Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos ...

whereas Quackwatch

... is overseen by Barrett, its owner, with input from advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals. In 2003, 150 scientific and technical advisors: 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" were listed by Quackwatch.

Seems to me these aren't the same type of source. Quackwatch has been affirmed as RS many times on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but Barrett wrote that, so it was Barrett overseeing himself. I'm not impugning his credibility, and I'd even like to allow this. It seems like he's doing good things. But it is self-published and therefore a policy violation. Hall in SBM is a similar situation, except I am impugning her credibility, at least on the issues she wrote about in this blog post. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure Barrett's piece is self-published in the WP:V sense any more than a mainstream editorial would be. Hall's piece is in no way self-published since SBM articles are subject to informal peer-review. In any case, if you want to change WP:V this Talk page won't work for that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The other 150 people involved in the course of a year were people he asked advice from. That's not the same as editorial oversight. He had all the ability to write whatever he wanted in his own blog. That's the difference between a blog and a reputably published opinion piece.

If you don't want to change WP:V, then you should remove all these claims cited to self-published sources in BLPs. I think changing policy to allow these to be used sometimes would be better - but don't try to wiggle out of the realities that statements about people's views are about those people, and that people who publish themselves are self-published. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, NPOV is a non-negotiable pillar of WP and WP:PSCI is part of NPOV. I haven't edited the Young Article, so don't know how any decisions have been arrived at there. Yes, there is a distinction between people's biographical details and the views they hold and, where those are fringe views, then per WP:PARITY reputable sites like QW and SBM are very good sources. Since you seem to agree that this indeed benefits the Project I assume we're done here at least. Alexbrn (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, "informal peer review" is not a thing, and what's described on the SBM site is an extremely lax policy for anybody who wants to submit articles to them. Hall is on the board and appears to write whatever she wants. It inarguably fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP and can only be justified under WP:SPS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see your problem: Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, and reality does not match your fervent beliefs. Unfortunately we're not going to fix that for you. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Out of interest, glancing back at the Young article it seems the consensus there too is that WP:PARITY applies and thus Quackwatch is a good source. Neutrality über alles it seems. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Are you even reading what I'm writing? How can you possibly interpret my position that way? Do you think SBM passes WP:SCHOLARSHIP? --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I misjudged your reason for opposing reality-based commentary from these sources, I just think you're wrong per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. We have WP:FRINGEBLP to address what to do with biographies of obvious cranks. If nobody takes a crank's claims seriously enough to rebut them other than skeptics, then that's what we're left with. We attribute, we note the skeptic's authority and reputation, and we leave it to the reader to decide. We do not insist, per WP:PARITY, that critical sources match a standard that the crank's own work does not meet (and let's be clear here: it is easy to sneak bullshit into a journal, homeopaths do it all the time, what's less easy is to get anyone to try replicating it). In the context of this article, the criticism and source are entirely legitimate. He overstates claims, and the source we use is an authority on overstated pseudomedical claims. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully support Alexbrn's attempt to remove vegan bias from the article and to state the generally accepted medical facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The crux of the matter here is that there are editors who claim this topic is "fringe" and that therefore they can violate the basic Wikipedia policies due to claiming WP:PARITY. There are also related aspersions as to motivation above. SageRad (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. The issue is that that Greger overstates claims. Which is pretty normal for anyone selling nutribollocks in its various forms. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

See my comment in the following section of this talk page. Your POV is not privileged over any other editor's. You do not have a red phone to The Truth. SageRad (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

BloodyRose, regarding this edit, I happen to agree with the contents, but maybe it would be better to go to dispute resolution instead of having a low-speed edit war. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tried bringing people's attention to this through two noticeboards, yet nothing has changed since then. Alexbrn keeps putting this false information back in the article so there's not much else I can do. We can't allow one user to violate rules like WP:UNDUE and have it his way for months. --Rose (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRN. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, of equal weight to the so-called "Science-Based Medicine" blog is this from the "Office for Science & Society: Separating Sense from Nonsense":

You will never see Dr. Greger refer to a study that shows anything positive about meat, but you will see plenty of studies that point out the pitfalls of consuming animal products. While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine.

You see, there is another assessment of Greger. There is an agenda there, but it's not unscientific. There is some cherry-picking but there is not distortion of facts generally. So, let's have some real dedication to neutrality and due weight here. I cannot stomache agenda pushing, whether it's vegan promotion agenda, or social skepticism pushing of pseudoskepticism. SageRad (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is, after all, a WP:BLP, and we should err -- if we err at all -- on the side of being generous. However, i think that my recent edits are entirely fair and accurate, and not biased either way (too critical or too kind). SageRad (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we have a BLPSPS issue with both SBM and this source. I think the latter is completely fair and accurate, but both sources are still self-published. I also think DRN is the only way to handle this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

So do i. SageRad (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

See Career and Advocacy section below please.Timpicerilo (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What does "MOS" stand for?

What does "MOS" in the edit reason stand for? SageRad (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS. --Rose (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. SageRad (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Current status is not acceptable for a BLP based on the sources used

I recently added a source that comments on Greger, but as pointed out by Sammy1339, it's not really acceptable as a source for critique of a BLP as it's a self-published (not peer-reviewed, not editorial board) publication. Essentially it's a loose self-published blog sort of site run by a few people. The other source, so-called "Science-Based Medicine" is similar, and actually worse. That is a real POV-pushing bloggy site run by a few people and has a real agenda that is along the lines of the social skeptic, which is a sort of attention-seeking ideology that seeks to discredit others in ways that are not always alright or sound, logically factually and otherwise. So, SBM is not a good source either for critique in a BLP. So overall this article has become a poorly source attack piece, and that's against the policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry for my part and thank Sammy1339 for pointing that out. I was trying to add some integrity with a more balanced reception of Greger, but still i was not in line with special sourcing requirements for a BLP. SageRad (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect titles for critics

In this diff Alexbrn has added "and skeptic" for Harriet Hall's introduction. "Skeptic" is not a formal or real title like physician... it's not a generally supportable title, is it? If someone called themselves "Master of the Universe Joe Smith", Wikipedia is not obliged to follow that unless they really are supportably the master of the universe. Anyway, the title "skeptic" is challenged by other sources [3] as a social ideology. What i find when i Google Harriet Hall is her self-description "a retired family physician and former Air Force flight surgeon". Thank you for adding the title of Dr Schwarcz and correcting the spelling of his name, however. That is quite good and useful. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

We might want to clue the reader to to where she's coming from; since Hall a is contributing editor to Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer this label is apt. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the note on the edit, but please note it's not a consensus version. It's under discussion here. I don't think it's an apt title because the movement that i've been calling Skeptic™ movement (although some don't like that term) is not the same thing as the plain word "skeptic" in the English language. It's a different thing, a member of a social movement with an ideology. I am a skeptic but i am not a Skeptic™. I would describe myself as a skeptic but i would not use it as a title per se. SageRad (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have odd some personal issues with skepticism and have been spamming them over several Talk pages. Please don't import them into article space too. Hall is a noted skeptic, which is why she's in our category "American skeptics" after all. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That is both wrong and uncivil. Skeptic is not a title. Please focus on the content and do not speculate on my motivations. I am WP:HERE and understanding the nature of the Skeptic™ movement is part of being WP:HERE for the sake of good articles. SageRad (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact you keep using your own personal invented terminology tends to suggest you're on some kind of crusade. Of course "skeptic": is not a formal title. Are you going to go through Wikipedia ripping out all such descriptions (like "public speaker", "scientist", etc?). Oy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate and off-topic. "Skeptic" is not a title or occupation. SageRad (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither are "British" or "transgender" - they're descriptive terms, the like of which we use all the time, because writing. You're inventing rules again. Alexbrn (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, this is different. You would not write "Physician and British Harriet Hall said..." nor would you write "Physician and transgender Harriet Hall said..." but you have written "Physician and skeptic Harriet Hall said..." indicating that this is a profession or activity. You might write "Transgender activist ______ said..." or "British physician _____ said..." but would you accept "Truth-knower _____ said..."? I doubt you would. Would you accept "World saver _____ said..."? Probably not. But you expect others to accept "Skeptic ____ said...."? It's not a profession or activity, but an ideological label dressed up as a superior trait with a lowercase letter. If you want to say "Physician and frequent Skeptic contributor Harriet Hall said..." i'd be right there with you, fine. But you're saying "skeptic" with a lowercase "s" as if that's a title or an activity that distinguishes her. It's not and it doesn't. It's an ideological tag in disguise. SageRad (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

We use descriptive words (and of course fettle them for grammar). Basically, you're wrong here and trying to bring your personal views about skeptics into the article. She is more than just a "Skeptic" (N.B. I wrongly said in my ES that these were scare quotes - apologies for that error) contributor, so that won't work either. Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction on the edit summary which was 'Rv to better wording; we don't use scare quotes like this for POV-skewing.' -- because of course i hadn't used scare quotes -- those were the marks to make the title of Skeptic magazine italicized. And it wasn't POV-skewing, for the record. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to see what others think. You've changed it back to your preferred version. I'm not going to edit war on this. I just want to keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic and "skeptic" used in this way is not. I'm a skeptic, too, but if i were referenced in an article it would not say "and skeptic _____ said..." Let's get it straight, Harriet Hall does not have a line on the truth simply because she's a self-described skeptic. She's a retired physician. SageRad (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Career and Advocacy

Removed part because Wikipedia is no place for one mans opinion we do require significant WP:RS to back up claims—that's how WP:NPOV works. The source "McGill's Blog" WP:FRINGE is a problem.Timpicerilo (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Most recent edit we can not use blogs as a source for Michael Greger's career and advocacy Wikipedia requires significantly more than that.WP:MEDRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpicerilo (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Had to remove highlighted portion again (Why in the heck is it highlighted to stand out in the article anyway? That is a severe violation of WP:ADVOCACY) one mans opinion in a blog talking about Greger's career is not WP:NPOV.Timpicerilo (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See threads above. You are now edit warring your non-neutral text. Alexbrn (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Threads above show we all agree that what is said in WP should be verifiable by a reliable source and WP:NOR. In the case of science subjects, learned or peer reviewed journals are considered one of the best quality sources. You can't highlight someone's opinion to stand out in the article as fact about someone's career when it was from a blog.Timpicerilo (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Fringe views, such as Greger's, must be qualified by a mainstream source. See WP:PARITY. What is more you ripped content of the body which was in the lede (which should be a summary of the body), leaving a broken reference. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Plant based diets and meat being unhealthy is no longer a fringe view it is now supported by mainstream science and research: [4] [5] [6]Timpicerilo (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Greger goes beyond such mainstream views into advocacy, as the source makes clear. That is the point. Alexbrn (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Timpicerilo and now you're adding original research about health claims, sourced to newspapers (which are not WP:MEDRS). Looking like WP:ADVOCACY. Have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

WP is no place for pushing meat and dairy industry agendas WP:ADVOCACY Like someone has stated above (recent edit section) I too can not stomach agenda pushing, whether it's vegan promotion agenda, or social skepticism pushing of pseudoskepticism.Timpicerilo (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems some editors still insist on only covering the anti-vegan pro-meat side cherry picking from the source which by the way is a professional skeptic from a blog! We must cover both sides or we are in direct violation of WP:UNDUE.Timpicerilo (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the criticism that was included in this section. Harriet Hall's criticism has nothing to do with the section "career and advocacy". Not only that, her criticism of Dr. Greger's presentation was weak and involved an ad hominem attack. She assumes (and wants us to believe) that he is a "true believer", rather than someone who was converted to this way of eating because of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. She doesn't provide us with any reason why we should make this assumption, she merely asserts it. Ciopenhauer (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent and I agree but it seems some editors insist on warring and it was since put back.Timpicerilo (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We are required to produce neutral articles and not liking something is not a reason for removal. Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And I agree on WP:NPOV if there is some jealousy issue or personal vendetta against Greger you shouldn't be working on this article.Timpicerilo (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If that's what your argument has come to, I think we are done. Hall/SBM is an authoritative source for iffy science, so we use it. Alexbrn (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Harriet A. Hall

I have been researching Harriet Hall and feel we should remove her opinion. She makes a living criticizing and she has around as much medical knowledge as I do with little to no education in nutrition. Her bashing Greger in a blog whom by the way has a huge background in nutrition qualifies her opinion about as noteworthy as a schoolyard bully. In this article she calls vegans true believers like it is based on a belief system, like it was some kind of myth or a religion. Apparently she doesn't know the World Health Organization and the Cleveland Clinic to name a few have recommend the vegan diet from their overwhelming scientific evidence that meat and dairy is unhealthy. Can anything she has said be referenced to the truth?Timpicerilo (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Science-Based medicine (not really a "blog" since it has some editorial oversight) is a good source per WP:PARITY, and neutrality requires that Greger's more non-mainstream views are properly contextualized by something sound. This is not about "vegan diets" but about the more outlandish of Greger's views. Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is not about "vegan diets" then why are you using her as a citation for the claim that it is "his promotion of veganism that has been criticized"? There's also a massive problem here: both sources link to criticisms which do not demonstrate that he actually promotes a vegan diet. Which makes sense since he does not actually advocate a vegan diet. Instead, the paradigm that he promotes is referred to as a whole-foods plant-based diet. Note that these two are not interchangeable, as they would be if he promoted a plant-exclusive diet. But he doesn't use those words. So, why is this used as legitimate and fair criticism? Harriet Hall says that it's generally accepted that plant-based diets are healthier than high-animal foods diets, yet we should somehow believe that the evidence isn't strong enough at the same time? Which claims exactly are demonstrably exaggerated by Dr. Greger and related to veganism rather than plant-based diets? If we cannot find those claims then it warrants the deletion (or modification) of this entry. Ciopenhauer (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Because "his promotion" is specifically what is being criticized. Greger's beliefs go beyond what is accepted about vegan diets in general. That is the point. Your personal views about this are not relevant. The SBM article gives the details (also note Greger makes claims about cancer cures from tumeric which are - to put it mildly - not supported by evidence). BTW are the Ciopenhauer and Timpicerilo accounts operated by the same user? Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Are you accusing me of being the same person as Clopenhauer? If so what kind of idiotic statement is that? Harriet Hall says Greger is cherry picking, well what is he cherry picking? She gives no examples, no explanation? Is she confusing his sarcasm with cherry picking? Is she telling the truth? What exactly is she talking about? What evidence for the plant based diet is not as impressive or definitive? Any specifics at all or is everything open ended? Who are these true believers and what the heck do they think? What exactly is outlandish about Greger's views? (Source please?) He's stupid? OK why? We need reasons not blog bashings the entire mess needs deleted! Yes it is a blog, they call it a blog, it's listed as a blog, it is a blog!Timpicerilo (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the piece? It is full of examples, such as the claim that "75% of cancers can be prevented" by diet, which is not supported by the source cited in support of that claim. Not everything called a "blog" is the same quality of source for Wikipedia's purposes of course, and SBM is a strong RS for commentary on marginal biomedical claims, which the more heavyweight academic literature would not bother with. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Of coarse I have read SBM and have seen the blog is wrong in many ways with many false examples. Where does it show 75% of cancer can't be prevented by diet? Or their claims that B12 is just a vegan problem when cattle have to be given B12 supplements or where as vegans on spring water need nothing while meat eaters also can have low B12 levels? When it comes to Greger and Hall she has no right to pass judgement on his expertise when she has none in that particular field. Explain her research that shows his failures she has claimed.Timpicerilo (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You personal assessment does not matter. The point (to repeat) is that Greger's claims are not supported by the evidence used, and this is obviously so: like the 75% claim (The actual evidence in this area is quite well set out in our Veganism article, BTW). Greger's business is generating web traffic and selling books with exaggerated titles like "How not to die". Wikipedia must not buy into that but must give the mainstream scientific view. This is even being done in a lightweight way by giving it merely as Hall's view. Your proposal would turn the article into a criticism-free zone, and in fact make it rather promotional what with its uncritical mention of his award-winning best-selling books, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your personal assessment on Greger's web traffic or how he titles his book is something that does not matter. If Greger's published claims are incorrect that could be noteworthy but we need a reliable source that shows where and why. You can't just throw in a weasel worded, open ended, hunch from skeptic Halls' blog talk.Timpicerilo (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Haven't been involved for a while, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Hall's contributions to SBM are subject to editorial oversight. This is a blog and its inclusion violates WP:BLPSPS. WP:PARITY provides no exception to this rule. This is a simple issue that can and should be resolved at WP:DRN. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been through that. But views are not subject to BLP and WP:PSCI policy requires that non-mainstream views are prominently called-out as such. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am my own person and not a sock account. I have simply never participated in Wikipedia talks but felt obliged to comment here and try to improve this entry. I don't appreciate you putting my integrity into question. If it is a criticism-free zone it is because there are no valid criticisms to be added yet. If you want to have criticism on this page, simply make sure that it's not riddled with logical fallacies and clearly easy to debunk arguments, which the blogger Don Matesz went through the trouble of doing if you spent a few minutes reading it instead of simply assuming that a "nobody" couldn't possibly have shown a notable skeptic's mistakes. It seems like you're on a crusade to disparage Michael Greger's work--perhaps because cancer is a sensitive subject to you--but you simply don't have the ammunition to do so. Again, this is not about "vegan diets". This is a demonstrably false statement. It's about the benefits of a whole foods, plant-based diet. Many of the studies that Dr. Greger refers to in his work which were shown to be promising were not done on strict vegans, but on plant-based, or sometimes called semi-vegetarian diets. For example, the best data to date that put Crohn's patients into remission was a semi-vegetarian diet that includes fish, meat, milk and eggs. Dr. Greger includes this in one of his annual talks and doesn't try to mislead anyone into thinking that the miracle cure for Crohn's is a vegan diet, which would be an example of the type of exaggerated claim you are unfairly criticizing him for. Ciopenhauer (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not on editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Lots of your views there. We need sources. I was asked for example from Hall's piece, and I gave the "75% of cancers" example. The nutritionfacts.org site is obviously not a reliable source for health claims. Your objection boils down to "I don't like it". Sorry, but that's of no weight here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn your agenda became apparent way back when you argued for keeping the part that said "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" yet the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified processed meat as a carcinogen. Sorry but you carry no weight with sensible people on here.Timpicerilo (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no good evidence. There are many diets which aren't vegan which avoid processed meat. Anyway, since you've gone personal I suggest we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one going around falsely accusing editors of being sock puppets and we can only hope that your done. You insist on painting Greger as a con man cherry picking from Halls blogging that has flawed logic on numerous times and Hall speaking out of both sides of her mouth. BTW why is it that you left out the good things SBM said about Gregers' vegan diet and that the doc recommends visiting his site nutrition.org?Timpicerilo (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hall says "I prefer to get my information from the medical literature rather than from videos. But I was eventually browbeaten into watching ..." That is hardly a "recommendation". We say, per Hall (and as is uncontroversial) that it was "already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits". The issue is (for the nth time) that beyond this Greger makes a number of specific claims about health outcomes from from diet which are not supported by the evidence and are out-of-sync with accepted knowledge in the medical mainstream. We are required to be plain about that. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That was the McGill blog link, doc Joe Schwartz is the one that recommends Greger when he says "Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine. Here is his latest; you can also sign up for a free subscription to his daily videos." Then links his Nutrition.Org site.Timpicerilo (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Hall's blog that's used in this article posts links in it that say vegans kill more animals in their gardens than meat eaters kill? Really? She Blabbers about how healthy Eskimos get by eating fat when science has proven Eskimos have high concentrations of Omega 3 from all the fish oil and that is what protects them. It works like flax seed and algae in a proper vegan diet. Then she goes off about B12 when apparently she thinks it's a magic ingredient in meat but it comes from the dirt and cows are supplemented with it. Proper vegan diets are never low in B12!   This is our reliable source for trashing Greger? As for your crap about vegan diets not being medical mainstream it is you that needs to get in sync with your evidence: For example the  Mayo Clinic says A well-planned vegan diet "is a healthy way to meet your nutritional needs" and good reasons to follow it are "varied but include health benefits, such as reducing your risk of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers." BTW the Mayo Clinic is at the top of the list in well respected research. Timpicerilo (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The McGill blog has been removed (I don't think it a great source myself). You seem not to like the Hall source, but your personal inexpert opinion does not matter; as our Veganism article explains: "Vegans are unable in most cases to obtain B12 from their diet". Be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages and your comments on Hall are quite likely in violation of this policy. You are going on about "vegan diets" again, but to repeat the issue at hand is Greger's specific claims about certain specific health outcomes from diet which go beyond (or are distinct from) the question of "vegan diet" in general. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hall's blog is no different than Gregers and I've just touched the surface on her errors there are many. Vegans are able to get B12 from a proper vegan diet with either spring water or supplements like the meat eaters get through supplemented animals.Timpicerilo (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, then the principal of WP:PARITY applies. You appear to be loudly ignorant about veganism from your vitamin B12 comments. Perhaps read our Veganism article? In any case, articles are not shaped by editors' inexpert views and the doubts about Greger's claims are specific and not really about veganism in general Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly cherry picked incorrect info in the veganism article about B12 and it was poorly researched this doesn't cut it when vegan experts in nutrition disagree. This is something that needs addressed.Timpicerilo (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim to know better than the sources again. WP:NOR. Wikipedia has to reflect the mainstream accepted view as published. Come back when you get your views reliably published and we can consider using the source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is no such thing as vitamin B12 deficiency. It does exist, but it's not caused by veganism. Vegans don't even need to start taking special supplements or eating nutritional yeast. The biggest untruth feeding this myth is that people have been told the only source of vitamin B12 is through animal-based foods (meat, dairy products, etc.). However, lack of vitamin B12 needn't be a concern, even if a person only eats plant foods. According to Dr. Vivian V. Vetrano, vitamin B12 actually comes from coenzymes, which are already present in bacteria found on the human body. In fact, vitamin B12 deficiency is often, according to Dr. Vetrano, a symptom of a larger problem; that is, it's not caused from a poor diet but rather from deficiency diseases that usually can't be treated simply by having the patient ingest additional vitamin B12. It is often caused by a digestive problem; Dr. Vetrano states that in the case of deficiency the body has a problem absorbing nutrients from food. Vitamin B12 deficiency, rather than being caused by diet, is often caused by Crohn's disease, celiac disease, and other digestive disorders. The truth is people don't have to eat meat or other animal products to survive and thrive. Vitamin B12 deficiency due to a vegan diet that is properly planned is untrue B12 is also plentiful in dirt and our feces often why vegans drink fresh spring water. "Most people low in B12 are meat eaters." Dr. Neal Barnard[7] [8] [9] [10]Timpicerilo (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The only semi-decent source there is WebMD, and it states "People who eat a vegan diet and older adults who don't eat a variety of foods may need to take a daily vitamin pill to get enough B12." And you have now gone way off-topic. Nobody is saying it is necessary to eat meat; that doens't make the specific extraordinary disease claims Greger makes which aren't backed by evidence somehow okay. Alexbrn (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The simple facts are Hall's review of Greger's video doesn't stick to the facts and is superfluous. The information in Greger's video is pulled from mainstream peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. There is no WP:PARITY from her blog.Timpicerilo (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You keep asserting that but every example you give is wrong. Greger does indeed use journals but the claims he makes are not properly supported by evidence, like the "75% of cancers claim". SBM is an authoritative source for debunking iffy medical claims so we need to use it. Produce an even better source if you can, but it is not an option to make our article on Greger a criticism-free zone. Hall's view is not given in Wikipedia's voice, so readers can make up their own minds. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Timpicerilo, you keep making assertions based on advocacy sources and then dismissing the reality-based commentary of Harriet Hall (a doctor who specialises in investigating questionable claims) as advocacy. This is disruptive. It is time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well you see Hall's complaint about the 75% cancer claim is false, she uses 30% subtraction for smoking but the fact she and Alexbrn are ignorant to is cigarettes are not vegan![11] Like I have said she doesn't use facts and her reference is in violation of WP:PARITY. To research the following quote in this article (the evidence is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think) you can go back to the cited source you will find Hall (the X-Air Force Doc turned skeptic) talking in her blog about a flaw in Greger's article. She points out that the 75% of cancers Greger talks about uses a supporting reference that indicates smoking accounts for 30% of these cancers; insinuating that he is off by at least 30%. Then she concludes the piece by saying "but the evidence for health benefits is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think" used in this article. But as I have said smoking is not vegan[12] therefore Halls 30% remark was either a lie or ignorance of the facts either way her "nowhere near" comment is 30% closer than she stated and it needs removed from the article. I'm contacting Greger and recommending that he brings slander charges against Hall and User:Alexbrn.WP:LIBELTimpicerilo (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Timpicerilo, you may want to raise this issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Wikipedia has a large and active community of people interested in the Skeptic movement who are quick to defend the inclusion of Skeptic sources including Harriet Hall. As long as you avoid revert wars, questioning the inclusion of blog sources on the article talk page is not in itself disruptive.Dialectric (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cherry picking science

While I think some of the criticism of advocacy is justified, the two blogs paint a misleading by cherry picking some of the claims Greger has made over the years, out of context. I don't think Greger is really "cherry picking science", the problem is more that in his presentations he is addressing us with a pro-vegetarianism agenda, and then he is then bound to make statements that may be exaggerated. But if you watch any particular video, like e.g. this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFFWstlfDRk

You see that he's not "cherry picking" in the sense of ignoring sources that bring "unwelcome news". The problem has far more to do with what you by default assume a priori to analyze the new data that comes in. If there is some very limited data that points in some direction, then it's not strong evidence in favor of what it points to all by itself. But if you a priori had assumed it to be true then you are going to report about it differently than if you were neutral on the issue. Greger assumes a priori that eating meat is bad, therefore he'll report on small studies with positive results for some vegan diet differently than other sources would do. Because he is not writing a review article for a peer reviewed journal, he addresses a lay public, he is then not going to be very explicit about his assumptions, how he selected the articles from which he cited the data etc. etc.

I don't think one should label drawing conclusions from limited data "cherry picking". You always have to analyze the data on the basis of prior assumptions, there is no such thing as a completely neutral null hypothesis. New drugs will be tested on the basis of a null hypothesis that assumes that they don't work, even though the researchers will have pretty good evidence that they are likely to work (otherwise they would not have bothered to start an expensive clinical trial). It is, of course, standard practice to evaluate how strong the evidence from the clinical trial itself is. The problem arises when imposing such standards to nutrition where prior assumptions can't reasonably be discarded. If you want the same sort of evidence from clinical trials for a particular diet as you would demand for some new drug, then you are going to be heavily biased in favor of the status quo. So, if you think that the status quo is a very problematic situation based on other information, then you are not going to do that.

One can see the problem also by comparing this to research done on marijuana. The limited results used to be interpreted as confirming that marijuana is bad of our health and it therefore should remain a banned drug . But in recent years the attitude on marijuana use has changed and the same research results are now interpreted differently. While the evidence of positive health effects are still considered just as weak, the same can be said about negative health effects and that doesn't provide good enough evidence to ban marijuana. Count Iblis (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism and praise

I attempted to clean up a few things in the article and had my edits reverted. There are two references supposedly criticising him, while one actually encouraged his videos, and the other, one could easily argue rests on a shaky foundation. I made a section specifically for opinions about Greger and clarified that the Joe Schwarcz reference is mostly positive yet skeptical (the article melts it into the Harriet Hall reference to make it look as if Joe's criticism was similar to Harriet's and not in favor of Greger) and provided a counter criticism to Harriet Hall's criticism, while also providing a reference for the largest healthcare organization in the US promoting Michael Greger's website as a resource for its patients.

My edit was reverted with a simple claim that my edit was "non-neutral." When I reverted it back, I was told I was "pov-pushing." I take this to mean that the point-of-view of the person who reverted my comments is the proper point-of-view the article must have, that their point-of-view only allows negative comments about this person, and that if you aren't biased against the person the article is about and attempt to say anything that isn't blatantly against him then you're to be considered "non-neutral" and banned from editing.

Can you explain how I was in the wrong? And particularly, so in the wrong that my entire edit had to be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:3973:6790:4D4:64BA (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In general we avoid "criticism" sections (WP:CRITS) as it leads to a non-neutral article with "sides". We need to include noteworthy criticism in the WP:LEDE (which you removed), avoid using low-quality blogs as sources - and when we use sources we should not give partial summaries to favour a POV. Having this source (not great) to imply somehow Greger was endorsed by Kaiser would seem spectacularly dishonest, given that the source just lists his site for recipes and specifically disclaims any kind of endorsement (page 15). Finally be aware of WP:EW and maybe try to stick to WP:BRD for any future edits? Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I felt it made sense to have a criticism section of some kind since we currently have his criticism posted in two random areas of the article, which looks very sloppy. I also disagree that Harriet Hall's criticism should be considered noteworthy enough to include in the lead section. I understand if published diet author Don Matesz isn't official enough to cite here, but let's not act like Harriet Hall is the queen of objectivity and an amazing resource to reference. I also tried to clarify that the reference to Joe Schwarcz was not negative, but actually encouraged watching his videos, stating that the science is sound although Greger shows a bias towards plant foods. His use of the phrase cherry-picking was followed by "that doesn't mean the cherries he picks are rotten, they're fine" and then a link to sign up for a subscription to the latest nutritionfacts videos.

As for the Kaiser Permanente pamphlet, I have to hope you're joking with me. As the pamphlet itself shows, they obviously recommend a plant-based diet to their patients, which they define as "[an] eating plan [that] encourages lots of plant foods in their whole, unprocessed form [and]... does not include animal products." All of their references "for informational purposes" are to other websites that advocate plant-based diets, including Greger's. Of course for legal reasons they have to say "Kaiser Permanente does not necessarily endorse the information on these websites" because they don't run these websites and wouldn't want to be held accountable for everything each of them say. It's incredibly naive though to say that they're directing their patients to Greger's websites by listing it in a healthy eating pamphlet but actually don't want them to go to this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:9D63:8C07:B93B:D7C0 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes a plant-based diet (which is not necessarily vegan) is exactly what mainstream public health advice about healthy eating calls for. He goes much farther than that in pushing people to be vegan, and he goes beyond credibility with the claims he makes about the health risks of non-vegan food/health benefits of veganism. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In the context of Kaiser Permanente's educational pamphlet, plant-based diet does mean vegan, being devoid of animal products (atleast ideally, though they do recommend trying for 80% plant-based if one can't achieve 100%). Regardless, while Greger is a proponent of vegan diets, he doesn't claim that a strict vegan diet is absolutely necessary for good health or force people to give up all animal-sourced foods. That's what someone might believe if they only know of Greger through Harriet Hall's PoV. Typically, he uses the phrase plant-based diet to mean a diet of predominately plant foods, not necessarily devoid of any and all animal foods. From his book, How Not to Die: "This book is not about vegetarianism, veganism, or any other kind of -ism. There are people who completely eliminate any and all animal products as part of a religious or moral stance and may indeed end up better off as a side benefit. But strictly speaking from a human health standpoint, you would be hard pressed to argue, for example, that the traditional Okinawa diet, which is 96% plant based, is inferior to typical Western, 100 percent vegan diet." "Sometimes peoples' diets take on a religiosity of their own. I remember a man once telling me he could never 'go plant based' because he could never give up his grandma's chicken soup. Huh? Then don't!... The problem with all-or-nothing thinking is that it keeps people from even taking the first steps. The thought of never eating a pepperoni pizza again somehow turns into an excuse to keep ordering it every week. Why not scale down to once a month or reserve it for special occassions?... It's really the day-to-day stuff that matters most."

Or, from his 2015 speech, "As one eats more and more plant-based, there appears to be a stepwise drop in the rate of diabetes down to a 78% lower prevalence among those eating strictly plant-based. Protection building incrementally as one moved from eating meat daily, to less than daily, to just fish, to no meat, and then, to no eggs and dairy either. A similar pattern was found for the leading cause of vision loss among the elderly—cataracts. This suggests that it’s not all or nothing; any steps we can make towards eating healthier may accrue benefits."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:9D63:8C07:B93B:D7C0 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot cherry-pick stuff that way. Even in the intro to his 2015 book he pretends like the mainstream medical establishment is not acutely aware that, and discusses all the time how - behavioral choices like diet and exercise and not smoking are absolutely essential to health, and most of medicine - and most of the medical spending in the developed world - is trying to fix the chronic problems that we cause with our lifestyle choices. And he pushes the vegan "meat is poison" line very, very hard; he talks about "a quarter of a chicken breast" like it is a gram of cyanide. In other words, he over hypes all the time; he is a bit of the Dr Oz of veganism. Somewhere in there is good advice, sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The more we throw around the phrase "cherry-picking," the less meaning the phrase has. I just refuted the idea that he's a rabid vegan propagandist out to make everyone 100% vegan at any cost. We no longer need to push that pov, which is based on Harriet Hall's criticism of one presentation he gave 5 years ago, that she reviewed as if the video was titled "PETA Activist Michael Greger Explains Why Veganism is Great." Yes, he's of the opinion that the more plant-based a diet is, including up to 100% plant-based (or vegan), the better a diet is in general, and he presents why he believes this to be true in hundreds of videos he has uploaded to his website, compiling thousands of studies. Yes, it's taboo, but the fact that he has this opinion shouldn't be so offensive. If meat looks bad in a study, should talking about that not be allowed? Should he not be allowed to have the opinion that meat is better avoided in favor of other foods, even if the evidence he has reviewed suggests to him that this is true, because some people with a fondness for meat believe that mentioning the negatives of regular meat consumption is "over-hyping" things? To make a pov-neutral wikipedia article, we all need to consider our biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I just cited you things from the book he published last year. He presents what he says as facts. His views are not mainstream and the key role that the Hall source plays here is providing the mainstream view. This complies perfectly with WP:NPOV. You are free to believe about diet, if what you want, of course, as is Greger. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw you mention the book but I'm not sure what you cited exactly. It's very vague criticism. He referenced research and you thought he should have just ignored it instead? Why? He says things he thinks are true instead of saying things he doesn't believe to be true, therefore he's some sort of charlatan? And while I disagree that Harriet Hall alone should represent the medical mainstream and be the ultimate authority on this man's character and the tone of the article, why could we not atleast include something about him that isn't based on her negative remarks? The Joe Schwartcz reference, as I tried to clarify, is generally positive, to the point of providing a subscription link to his videos. Kaiser Permanente does list him as a resource and advises a diet much like the one he describes. These were rejected because it's already been decided from Harriet Hall's blog post that everyone must treat Greger as a villain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No it is very specific criticism. Just read the intro. He goes on about how mainstream medicine pays no attention to behaviorial things like diet. This is ludicrous; it is discussed endlessly. I can't remember the last time I went to my doctor and he didn't ask me about diet/exercise etc, and it is discussed in medical journals and med schools endlessly, and has been for at least a decade. I get it how that fits into his pitch, but it is just baloney. (heh) Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

He makes a fair point in the intro that doctors receive very little nutrition training if any and that they have a penchant for quickly prescribing medications where lifestyle modification would be safer and more effective. When diet advice is given, it's typically generic food pyramid guidelines rather than the more extreme diet changes someone with a chronic illness might need to adopt. His grandmother anecdote is meant to show us what the climate of the medical profession was like in the 1970s, when it was thought that lifestyle modification couldn't be as effective as drugs or surgeries, and how even in the modern day, after a study like Dean Ornish's lifestyle heart trial was published, most doctors still rely on cholesterol and blood pressure medication rather than routinely offering something like the Ornish Program (which is available and even covered by Medicare).

But, let's not let a dislike of the intro of his book distract from everything else I've brought up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Those kinds of distortions are present throughout his oeuvre. He is an activist and this is what activists do - they exaggerate in order to make their arguments. As mentioned, per NPOV this article needs to acknowledge that. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, he's an activist; he has a message and tours the country giving presentations about what he believes is an important issue. Now why does your personal disagreement with him mean that this supposedly neutral wikipedia article has to be pov-negative towards him? Are we going for pov-neutral or pov-Jytdog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have never said anything about my personal views; you have no idea if a I am a vegan or a rabid meat eater. I have discussed what mainstream advice is about healthy eating (see healthy eating) and how his message fits with that. Hall expresses that. Again, this is what the WP:NPOV policy requires. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, there are three competing PoVs in our pool of references. Hall's point of view, which is distinctly anti-vegan and because of that, anti-Greger, Joe Schwarcz's point of view, which is generally positive although cautious, and the HMO Kaiser Permanente, which is in full agreement with his views, the latter two even recommending Greger's website. I'm not understanding why you selected Hall as the PoV for the article. Harriet Hall feels that the benefits of the diet he describes are overblown and not impressive. An actual healthcare organization, one of the largest in the United States, disagrees with her

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B4CC:8DE4:A8DD:87BA (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hall's view is not "anti-vegan". Hall, like the Kaiser Journal article, is actually perfectly in line with mainstream advice about healthy eating: The 4 authors of the journal article you cite (PMID 23704846) actually cite MyPlate and define a plant-based diet as "The recommendations for patients who want to follow a plant-based diet may include eating a variety of fruits and vegetables that may include beans, legumes, seeds, nuts, and whole grains and avoiding or limiting animal products, added fats, oils, and refined, processed carbohydrates....A plant-based diet is not an all-or-nothing program, but a way of life that is tailored to each individual. " (emphasis added) It not strictly vegan, and it doesn't try to scare the bejesus out of people by talking about a quarter of a chicken breast like it is pure poison. It is not what Greger advocates in his book and talks. (and don't ascribe the views of the 4 authors in the journal to the KP organization; that is just is silly) Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So then logically, what Greger says is also in line with mainstream advice, since KP is in agreement with him. I've already shown you, in both his book and his talks, that Greger doesn't believe 100% compliance to a vegan diet is necessary, and he even said "it's not all-or-nothing" and that black-and-white thinking was dangerous. To claim Greger says only a 100% vegan diet is beneficial would be a strawman. KP's eating plan that encourages whole plant foods and discourages animal foods and refined foods is exactly what Greger's videos are about, and the fact that their informational pamphlet specifies that the eating plan does not include animal products when followed fully shows that a 100% plant-based diet, or vegan, would also be in line with their recommendations. Don't ascribe the views of the 4 authors to KP? It's a message to the physicians in the KP network, published in The Permanente Journal, alongside a pamphlet clearly from KP meant to show patients how to eat that sort of diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B4CC:8DE4:A8DD:87BA (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for your general knowledge, please read [the about page for the journal and then read Scientific journal. A journal =/= the publisher of the journal, and all a journal "owns" is the fact that it published an article; the views in any scientific article are the author's own views. You do not understand scientific publishing.

On this topic, Greger consistently says and writes things that go well beyond what mainstream science can support. This is what activists do. You have already acknowledged above that he is an activist. If he stayed within the bounds of what mainstream science can support, like Hall and PMID 23704846 do, we would not be having this discussion. You are personally free to ignore his unsupportable claims or even to believe his exaggerations or even enjoy them; WP cannot ignore them. I won't be responding here further; I have given you a lot of time already. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't JAMA or the Lancet we're talking about, but The Permanente Journal, wherein 4 affiliates of Kaiser Permanante published a memo instructing their physicians to use plant-based diets as first-line treatment for their patients, in tandem with a pamphlet you can agree was put out by KP to educate patients on what a plant-based diet is and how to follow it. Author Carol Bortolotto is "Senior Consultant for Regional Health Education for the Southern California Permanente Medical Group" and Philip Tuso is "Regional Co-Lead for the Complete Care Program of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group and the National Physician Lead for the Care Management Institute’s Total Health Program." To say the article doesn't reflect Kaiser Permanente's views is ridiculous.

As for Greger, that's your subjective view. You believe that he exaggerates things, well that has nothing to do with whether what he says is correct or not, just whether or not you think it's important enough to care about. You believe his claims are unsupportable, well he cites research that supports them. His views are virtually identical to the Kaiser Permanente paper, which you already agreed represents mainstream, supported science. If you could accept that a plant-based diet that minimizes animal foods is agreeable, mainstream advice, then why, when a man gives a presentation explaining why that very diet is good, does it suddenly become unsupportable and exaggerated? I agreed that he's an activist, which just means he campaigns for a social change, in this case a shift towards a plant-based diet. Activist isn't a bad word. But, if you're done responding, so be it. Hopefully in the future, this article will have a more rounded perspective.

References

RfC

User:Sammy1339. you unilaterally launched an RfC in these difs here on this page, just after I just today opened a very well publicized notice board thread to address the very question you have been raising. This is a very strange thing to do and pretty disruptive. Why did you do that? I have removed it for now. Please explain. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not disruptive. There is no rule against opening an RfC while a noticeboard discussion is open. It is also appropriate as it was suggested in the DRN close, and it's clear that these discussions are not likely to generate consensus. I intended to open this RfC prior to the noticeboard discussions and am reopening it now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I have removed the RfC tag so that the bot will not see it. If there is any substantive objection to the wording, I could change the question. I thought it was very neutrally worded. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am walking away from this article for a while. Your behavior is making me too angry and I losing my cool, and that is bad for me. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Throughout this dispute I have tried to avoid the kind of ad hominem that many editors have used, but I am sure it must be very annoying regardless. We have been over the same points for months, so I think the RfC is the natural thing. I, too, am hoping not to look at this page in the future. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most disruptive things I have ever seen done in WP. The BLPSPS issue was not directly addressed in any forum directly before. I took time out of my day to raise it in the appropriate forum after you bitched about it endlessly, and then you launched this 2 hours later, asking the community to discuss the same issue again. BLPN discussions can be formally closed - it is complete bullshit that the discussion there could not have resolved the issue. So yeah, I find your behavior despicable. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This issue has been raised three times in noticeboards - twice in FTN, and once in NPOVN - prior to that. There was extensive discussion of it at DRN, and the closer recommended an RfC. I despise the RfC process, but unfortunately according to the DRN closer this is the only way to get an enforceable resolution. The whole thing has been tremendously time consuming, I know. Hopefully this will resolve the issue one way or the other. In the future please ping me as I am unwatching the page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are continuing to deny your WP:FORUMSHOPPING behavior and you have not provided a diff to a noticeboard where BLPSPS was raised and substantially discussed - so yeah this filing was completely out of process and bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bad Compromise

The last sentence in the intro, "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits and for cherry-picking research even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" is a great example of a bad compromise, perhaps a remnant of a bygone edit-war, and I'd like to change it. However, all of my edits were reverted by Alexbrn who, in his edit notes, said "not an improvement".

I'm open to discussing the best way to improve that sentence. But first let me make the case that there's a lot of room for improvement. "even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" is a tacky, out-of-place addition to this sentence. The main subjects of the sentence are: 1. Michael Greger's promotion of veganism and 2. Criticism of this. But the healthiness of a vegan diet is itself not the point of this sentence!

It comes across like it was written by a bipolar person in the middle of a mood swing. And I know exactly why. Critics of Dr. Greger wanted to include criticism, and proponents praise. They had a war, and they compromised by writing this atrocious sentence.

Consider the following sentences and tell me if you think they would belong in the headers of the respective persons:

"George Bush has been criticized for committing US troops to the war in Iraq by exaggerating claims of increasing regional stability, even though the war in Iraq may have led to greater regional stability."

Or, to keep things politically balanced:

"Barack Obama has been criticized for his role in promoting the Affordable Care Act by exaggerating its reduction in health care expenditures, even though the act may have reduced US health expenditures."

Or, moving beyond politics into religion:

"Jesus has been criticized for exaggerating claims of his divinity, even though he may have been the Son of God."

These are terrible sentences! And they are on par with that sentence in Dr. Greger's intro. We can do better on Wikipedia at making things sound encyclopedic rather than bipolar.

My proposed change is this: quote the article that mentions cherry-picking, and include enough of the quote that both critics and proponents will be just as satisfied (or dissatisfied) as they were for the original compromise. "There is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn't mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they're fine." That may be too long to include in the intro, but the nice thing about such a short article is that nothing gets "buried" in the article, so this could be moved to the next section.

Perhaps there is an even better alternative, and I'll wait for input before editing again, but Alexbrn, ANYTHING is an improvement over that wretched sentence.

Bluemousered (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so what. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried to fix that as well but the people who rule over this part of wikipedia would prefer to leave the cherry-picking quote out of context. As you can see from the above conversation, if they disagree with you about something, you're not getting anything changed no matter how strong a point you have or how weak theirs is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:7D47:5396:3290:C1C2 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have little motivation to improving this article when Alexbrn, who seems to be oblivious to his own agenda, keeps forcing his point of view as neutral and just reverts all edits without actual discussion. Looking through his post history, he seems to be on a crusade on this topic and has made such fine edits like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_A._McDougall&diff=677431201&oldid=677429048, where he decides to state the diet is "fad diet" that causes farting as general truth. The farting part was only removed after other long-time editors stepped in. He forces the exact same thing in this article where the header has criticism but doesn't tell who criticizes. I have no patience for the kind of passive-aggressive behavior he exhibits. --Sapeli (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense. "Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".[ What does "the evidence for them" mean? Who is "them"? The evidence for whom? And what are "true believers"? I don't have a pos or neg pov, I just think this is a very awkward sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.73.246 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected this page for a three-day period due to sustained edit-warring. Neutrality^talk 05:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Because of the persistent disruption on this page by IPs and "fresh" accounts I now think a request for permanent semi-protecton here is in order. Do others agree? Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oui. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I like how you guys immediately turn to censorship when you disagree with how an edit should be handled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveinfo22 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not true. You appear to be the one removing information. -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So, essentially, you want to do the same thing to this page that you did to Dr. John McDougall's page. I noticed you had that page protected and you are cherry-picking critics that suit your own point of view over there too, when those critics are themselves controversial or not experts in the field (not only that, but their claims are unsubstantiated). McDougall has done some promising research, the latest of which shows that MS can be treated with his diet, but none of this is mentioned on his page, and with Alexbrn around, I see no reason to try to implement it. Count me along those who believe you have an agenda here which is obviously about making these plant-based doctors look like they are vegan crackpots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciopenhauer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Plant-Based? I think it would be better if they were Evidence-Based. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BLPN posting

Done. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn in light of the launch of the RfC below. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

User: Iloveinfo22 please come and explain your objection. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The source in question is a blog post that has no credibility beyond its being on the Internet. I conceivably could create a blog post criticizing that blog post and then include my criticism in the post. I usually don't edit Wikipedia, but I saw that source as being included and felt the need to remove it since it lacks any objective credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveinfo22 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for talking here. Wikipedia content is based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are not presenting any policy/guideline based arguments. We do understand that you don't like this content, but not liking something is not a valid grounds for changing content here. This place is not a wild west. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This has been a perennial issue with activist IP editors showing up to remove this material. However, they happen to be completely right. The source is a blog, it does not have editorial oversight (except for outside submissions, which this piece isn't), and its use here violates WP:BLPSPS. I have floated the idea of putting this issue on WP:DRN before. Would you object to my doing that? --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to Harriet A. Hall as her opinion, it is not stated in Wikipedia's voice. She appears to be a well known skeptic and has the background to be skeptical of such claims. If this was in Wikipedia's voice I would agree it shouldn't be in there, however since it an opinion of a well known skeptic with a background in medicine it is a good counter opinion to show not everything Greger says is fully accepted in the scientific community.

The reason say; I couldn't just create a blog criticizing Harriett Hall and have it included in Wikipedia is; I am not well known for being an expert in the field. --VViking_TalkEdits 21:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but the relevant guideline here is WP:RS which states Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources). --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that in his advocacy for veganism, Greger pushes his claims beyond what the science can support. A lot of "celebrity doctors" do that - people who rely on their medical credentials to get people to listen to them but "popularize" their message to the point where it just unsupportable. Dr Oz does this too. That is what it is, out there in the world, but here in WP we need to actually deal with the science. My preference would be that this article didn't exist at all because content that complies with Wikpedia's policies and guidelines ends up angering fans of the celebrity doctors, so we have these endless problems. So it goes. We use sources like Harriet Hall because the serious scientific literature doesn't take time to address these kinds of exaggerated statements; that is what WP:PARITY is for. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's an opinion, and not necessarily an unreasonable one, but there is still no valid policy-based rationale for including this specific source. There's no exception to BLPSPS for this situation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The content is written so as not to criticism him but rather the scientific validity of the claims he makes about medicine. Different things. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, it refers to him. The article doesn't even mention any specific claims which demand rebuttal from a self-published expert. Anyway we are rehashing the same arguments from months ago and it's obviously not going to be productive, so I'll go ahead with DRN if you don't object. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It specifically refers to his "promotion of veganism". It is a kind of WP:CRYBLP to say that a person's fringe views are somehow exempt from criticism because they come from a person. If it were otherwise, you're going to be re-writing a lot of WP articles. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, nobody said exempt from criticism, but everyone is exempt from self-published commentary of all kinds according to the policy. Clearly you could go very far with SPS commentary on everything to do with a person, claiming it's not "about" the person. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You said "it refers to him". It doesn't. Anyhow this horse has been beaten to death long ago by you.[13] So I'm not proposing we re-run all that. Alexbrn (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If it said "he is a quack" it would refer to him. It doesn't say anything like that. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: @Alexbrn: I requested DRN, so hopefully this will be put to rest one way or the other. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That filing should include Viewmont Viking from above, all the editors who have removed/added this content in recent days, and should point to previous noticeboard discussions on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I notified the others and amended the filing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes Harriet Hall such an expert in nutrition? This is a woman who referenced a raw food blog run by a sock puppeteer as a response to the findings of the Cornell-Oxford China Project ("the china study"). This article at one point also referenced another famous skeptic, Joe Schwarcz, which was removed when it was pointed out that Joe generally liked and recommended Michael Greger's work. A reference to the major American HMO Kaiser Permanente also wasn't allowed because it recommended Greger's website as a resource for health information. This article is biased and tries to make him out to be a quack giving unsupportable, radical diet advice. To improve the article, we could either add back in the references to Joe Schwarcz and Kaiser Permanente or remove the reference to Harriet Hall, as she can't be the only person referenced if this article is to be unbiased.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:44AC:9A9B:4102:1365 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

--iloveinfo22 I don't know if the issue is so much Hall's credibility as it is where her criticism was published (third-party, non-scientific blog) and if that particular blog post has enough relevance to be included in the unbiased biography of a doctor's life. I agree with you that the article is currently biased -- if we are looking for objective information about anyone on this site, we can't include snippets from critics on blogs. Looking forward to this issue getting resolved.(talk) 11:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

One day there will be an International Journal of Fatuous Nonsense where claims like Greger's can be debated. This is not that day. Until that day comes we're left with what we have now: noted authrities writing on websites with editorial boards. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on nutritionfacts.org goes beyond mere "fatuous nonsense" into claims about treating and preventing cancer with turmeric. So far as I know we have no sources on this (the claim on the site, not turmeric in general) so must remain silent on this -- but it seems Hall was just scratching the surface here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn First of all, note the qualification: may be able to prevent and treat cancer. This is completely accurate: I had no difficulty finding sources showing that curcumin's possible chemoprotective properties have been studied for decades. [14] You could quibble about the wording, such as by suggesting that he should have gone out of his way to mention that it hasn't yet been proven in phase III clinical trials, but what on earth makes you say this is worse than fatuous nonsense? I have yet to see any evidence that Greger is a quack, other than Hall's say-so. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Curcumin is a natural polyphenol derived from the plant Curcuma longa, commonly called turmeric. Extensive research over past 50 years has indicated that this polyphenol is highly pleiotropic molecule capable of preventing and treating various cancers." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence eating turmeric can treat or prevent cancer, so saying it "may" on a nutrition site is kind of problematic because of the implication. One might even say it is a case of "exaggerated claims of health benefits" ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Kind of problematic", perhaps. But that's not what you said. You said worse than fatuous nonsense. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was being understated (sorry I'm British): it is worse. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So in your view, saying something that's factually accurate and well-supported by science is worse than fatuous nonsense if it may be misunderstood by a general audience? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's only "factually accurate" in a language-lawyer's sense. One can say "unicorns may exist" and be technically accurate. The idea that eating turmeric can prevent or treat cancer has zero scientific support. It is not good to mislead "a general audience" about serious diseases, no. Once again it seems Wikipedia is bang on: "exaggerated claims". Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of "zero scientific support" is obviously wrong. Do a Google search, or just look at the sources I linked above. I don't agree that Greger's statements here are misleading. He extensively reports on original scientific research, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. MEDRS does not apply to the real world. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what evidence have you cited that eating turmeric prevents or treats cancer? Drawing this conclusion from primary lab research into curcumin is fallacious and if you're happy with such fallacies (which, yes, WP:MEDRS counteracts) I can see why you're such a Greger fan. By the ethical and logical standards of more considered medical thinking, however, this kind of exaggeration needs to be called out. I am doubly reassured Wikipedia's approach in this article is correct. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not straw-man me. I said that Greger's claim that curcumin, which is found in turmeric, may prevent or treat certain cancers is well grounded in science, and that it is not worse than fatuous nonsense to make videos which discuss the relevant primary research. I also never said I was a Greger fan, which I am not. I take issue, however, with your treating him as though he were Dr. Oz. Given the often humorous derision you and JzG have for this fellow, it's remarkable that you can't come up with anything better than a claim which is technically accurate but may be misleading to laypeople. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not straw: the claim on the site is "Consuming turmeric may also be able to help with multiple myeloma". There are some graphic pictures of cancer at work to illustrate. You've made it clear you're fine with this claim, at which point since we're veering away from what we can say in the article, I think we can just say: case closed. Personally, I am glad the adherence to policy has allowed us to produce a properly neutral article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I just would like to note that there are many claims on that page and neither you nor I ever said anything specifically about that one. But generally I do not object to making videos on primary research, using words like "may", "indicate", "suggest", and (directly from Greger's mouth in the relevant video) "but we won't know until longer, larger studies are done." --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Consuming turmeric may also be able to help with multiple myeloma". You'd be fine telling that to somebody with multiple myeloma. Okay. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, you are putting words in my mouth. Context matters. I'd be fine telling anyone that the effects of curcumin on the progression of multiple myeloma have been studied and that the studies indicate a possible benefit, with the caveat that more research is necessary. That's what Greger's video claims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the EU, selling a food product with those claims is simply not permitted. Any such advertisements will be adjudicated as misleading and if pepole continue to make them then they may be prosecuted and their websites shut down. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the IJFN one of those predatory journals? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The one in the comment to which I replied. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I found no evidence that Mini Rev Med Chem was a bad journal, and I don't know what IJFN stands for. Could you let me know where you got that information? I'll strike the source if necessary. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• even this very sympathetic book review of "how not to die" notes that Greger oversells, making claims that are not supportable by science... including the very title of the book. We have couched the criticism as carefully as we can, attributing it, using a widely respected source for debunking bad scientific claims, and making sure the criticism is aimed at the validity of some of his claims, not at him. Trying to simply remove this from the article and not offering some more acceptable way (to you all) to do it, is not OK per BLP and NPOV and it is not going to happen. If you want this discussion to end, propose content and sourcing covering the same ground that you find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not really what the article says. The author says naive readers may misinterpret his book, whereas Greger is said to be optimistically skeptical about the results of experiments. ″Since I am not a nutritionist, I do not know whether other studies exist with different results—though Greger’s inclusion of footnoted qualifying comments are a hopeful sign. Of course, as he recognizes, many of the cited studies are small-scale one-shot affairs, so the effects might wash out on replication. His argument is that, unlike the negative side-effects associated with medications, the side-effects of, for example, eating your spinach are only positive—so why not include this or that plant food in your diet?″ In other words, there is evidence to suggest that these foods can be helpful in preventing disease, and if future research leads to a wash, at least it's unlikely to harm you anyway. There's no claim that anything is a guaranteed cure for any disease.

(edit conflict)This very source is a good example of reputably published criticism of Greger and some of his work. I have no objection to using it, with a fair summary of what it actually says about him, and not the Hall source. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

so propose some content using it. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing so when I realized I am mistaken. This is from the "blog" section of Psychology Today and probably also self-published. I'll look for a reputably published review of this book, preferably from someone with a background in nutrition. There ought to be one somewhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't found a scientific review, but this review says "Dr. Greger has been accused in some quarters of cherry-picking research and exaggerating the benefits of a vegan diet. But his case rests on a mountain of evidence." This would be a perfect source for inclusion of the type of claim certain editors here want... except it sounds like this was derived from Wikipedia, making it circular. This source also says "In “How Not to Die,” Dr. Greger avoids using the word “vegan” and makes a point of stating that you can still enjoy a serving of your mother’s Easter ham, so long as your regular diet revolves around vegetables, fruit, beans, nuts, spices and whole grains." And this is what I have been saying about the problem with Hall's criticism, which largely rests on an incorrect assumption that everything Greger says should be taken as promotion of veganism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue of describing Greger's work more completely is entirely - entirely - separate from the issue of clearly stating that Greger makes exaggerated, unsupportable claims Please do not mix them. The exaggerations that Greger makes do not take an expert to identify. They are as glaring as "How not to die". This is exactly the kind of thing that serious people working in the field don't bother to address because they are trying to do work and don't have time to swat this stuff away. This is however exactly the kind of thing that serious people who devote themselves to identifying bullshit in our public discourse do call out, which is why Science-based Medicine is such an important reference for the community. Please deal with the actual issue. (and yes that reporter obviously copied WP). And stop misrepresenting Hall. She does not say that "everything Greger says should be taken as promotion of veganism" - that is as incorrect as it would be to state that everything Greger says is false. These kinds of misrepresentations are not helpful. Knock it off, and I suggest you re-read what Hall actually says. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see why you would believe that, but I disagree. "How not to die" is a rhetorical device, obviously not meant to be taken literally. I have not actually seen one example of an unsupportable claim; the above discussion about curcumin is typical. It involves a claim which is technically accurate but may be taken as misleading. It's not clear to me at all that Greger's work is bunk, as several editors have repeatedly stated and implied. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not go offtopic. Please come up with content and sourcing that cover this ground that you find acceptable or let this go. I again suggest that you carefully read the Hall article; she points out several very clear exaggerated health claims that are not supportable. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear - the scientific consensus of a healthy diet is very much plant-based (whole foods, mostly vegetables and fruit, little sugar and salt and processed food; not too much food, and getting some exercise every day) and the benefits of this are not controversial at all; people tend to be healthier in many ways who follow it. Tend to be. The issue with what Greger does is that he consistently makes claims that go way beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding Hall, here are a couple examples of what I'm saying.

Can kidney failure be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet? He points to a study showing that diets lower in red meat and animal fat may decrease the risk of microalbuminuria. It also showed a reduced risk with low fat dairy!

But Greger doesn't say that it's necessary to eliminate dairy to get the possible result indicated by that study; Hall assumes he means this.

He cites a study concluding “Our results suggest that a decrease in meat consumption may improve weight management.” Suggest, may, decrease. Not veganism.

Harriet Hall's criticisms are also quite weak. It's been posted here before, but this blog gives a great rebuttal of her article against Greger's speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:44AC:9A9B:4102:1365 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not every study he cites is supposed to support veganism. Hall assumes it is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)Also I fail to see how this is off-topic? We were discussing the book review, I thought, as well as why I believe the Hall source is unacceptable. I am arguing, as always, that PARITY doesn't override BLPSPS, and even if it did, it's not clear that his work is FRINGE at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

argh. You are stuck on the "vegan" thing which is off topic. Please propose content and sourcing that says that Greger makes exaggerated claims about health. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here is one thing Hall discusses:

Listen to the video from 6:08 to 7:08, if you like, if not I have transcribed it.

• "(scientific paper is up on the screen) We've known for 15 years that a (raises voice) single meal (lowers voice to normal) high in animal fat - sausage and egg mcmuffin was used in the original study - can paralyze our arteries (calls up graph on the screen with downward pointing, then upward pointing lines), cutting their ability to relax normally in half, within hours of eating animal products. The whole lining of our vascular tree gets inflamed and stiffens. And just as that inflammation - just as that crippling of our arteries - starts to calm down after five or six hours (pointing at graph where line starts to go up) -- - lunchtime! (pause for laughter) Right? And then we may whack our arteries with another another load of (lowers voice) meat eggs or dairy, right... (raises voice to normal) and so most people are in this chronic state of low-grade inflammation, increasing their risk of these (speeds up) inflammation-related diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes (slows down) um... one .. meal.. at.. a ..time."

What Hall says:

• "He cites a study showing that a single meal high in animal fat can paralyze our arteries and “cripple” them. This was a small study of 10 volunteers with no control group. It measured flow-dependent vasoactivity. It’s not clear what that means, but surely it’s an exaggeration to say that the arteries were paralyzed or crippled. It would be interesting to compare the results to those of vegans who ate a meal with an equal number of calories. And what we really want to know is whether the observed changes have any practical clinical significance."

Again this kind of debunking of bullshit in a talk by a celebrity doctor is not something that a serious nutritional scientist is going to take time to do; it is something that people at Science-Based Medicine take the time to do. It is why we use this reference across WP to discuss bogus claims people make. But like I said. Please propose content and sourcing discussing Greger's exaggerations that you find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

From the posted criticism of Hall's criticism:

First of all, this is an experimental study, which involved feeding the subjects two different meals at different times, and closely monitoring their vasoreactivity for a time period after the meals, so can only be performed on a small group of people. Does she think that a research team can do this type of study on 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people at a time? Does she have any idea what it would cost in labor, funds and time to perform such a study on even 100, let alone 1000 or 10,000 people? And what would be the point anyway? Does she really think that human biology varies so much among individuals that the results would be markedly different in a larger study?

Next, she says that this study had no control group. In fact, the abstract of the study states the following: "To assess the direct effect of postprandial triglyceride-rich lipoproteins on endothelial function, an early factor in atherogenesis--10 healthy, normocholesterolemic volunteers--were studied before and for 6 hours after single isocaloric high- and low-fat meals (900 calorie; 50 and 0 g fat, respectively)"

In other words, since all 10 subjects received both treatments at different times, each of the 10 subjects served as his/her own control.</blockquote

Several of Hall's criticisms show a lack of knowledge in the field and/or ability to analyze a study properly. The fact that she comments on something Greger said or cited doesn't necessarily mean her commentary is valuable.

@Jytdog: I honestly have no idea about the science in this particular case, but here again, Hall misrepresents what he says. He doesn't only refer to that study; on the contrary, he seems to be claiming that the result is explained by subsequent studies which showed that the result was not caused by animal fat. Just look at a couple more minutes of the same video.

Really, though, we are getting into the kind of technicalities for which the following passage of WP:PRIMARY was written: " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To the IP: the blog you posted is definitely not a reliable source. See WP:IRS. Also I suggest creating a username if you want to be taken seriously. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hall is not criticizing the paper that was cited; it is what it is. The issue is what Greger does with it - he makes broad, general claims that are not supportable by that study. The claims are bullshit. if someone added those claims, sourced to that paper, to WP it would be deleted in heartbeat. This WP article about Greger needs to discuss that he does this a lot. It is not everything he says, but he does it a lot. Again, please propose content and sourcing that you find acceptable that states that Greger make these exaggerations. I will wait to respond again, until such content and sourcing are proposed. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any sourcing that can support such a claim about Greger. I'm looking, but the BLP policy is pretty clear that we cannot say whatever we like without reliable sourcing, even if editors believe it is true. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sammy: The blog is at least as credible as anyone here. The point isn't that some famous nutritionist said it, it's just a criticism of Hall's reasoning that anyone would be able to see for themself and agree with. Whether I typed it, you typed it, or it was posted from another person who responded at length to Hall's analysis years ago, it's a fair response that points out her article's flaws. I also don't care about being "taken seriously" on wikipedia, but thanks.

Jyt: His claims are abviously supported by research, that's what he's reading from. You may feel that more research is necessary, but his beliefs clearly stem from scientific papers. Much of what he says are literally quotes from those papers rather than his own words, and as in this case, he cites follow-up studies for additional evidence.

• I just made this change to move this even farther away from anything that could be seen as commenting on Greger per se and more focused on his claims, and am going to post at BLPN about the objection. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Jytdog is following Alexbrn's footsteps and using the title of the book to make an argument, then adding "This is however exactly the kind of thing that serious people who devote themselves to identifying bullshit in our public discourse do call out". If they were serious and devoted, they would actually read the book and see this at the end: "How Not to Die may seem to you a strange title for a book. After all, everyone is going to die eventually. It’s about how not to die prematurely. If there is one takeaway message, it’s that you have tremendous power over your health destiny. The vast majority of premature deaths can be prevented with simple changes in what you eat and how you live. In other words, a long and healthy life is largely a matter of choice. In 2015, Dr. Kim Williams became president of the American College of Cardiology. He was asked why he chose to eat a strictly plant-based diet. “I don’t mind dying,” Dr. Williams said. “I just don’t want it to be my fault.”" Just like they would see that Greger advocates for a whole food, plant-based diet, not veganism. Yet the article still says something about Greger's claims about "the benefits of veganism". Go ahead and replace "veganism" with "whole food, plant-based" in that sentence and see if it makes sense. --Rose (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, he blatantly exaggerated things hoping to get your attention. The problem is, he blatantly exaggerated things. Not a single editor here - not me, not Alexbrn, not anybody - is criticizing veganism. Not one of us. Nobody is saying that Greger is strictly vegan. And neither is Hall. You and Sammy do not understand the problem. The problem is Greger's often exaggerated claims for the health benefits of (name your diet) and the dangers of animal products. Exactly like the title of the book. Exactly like taking a study that measured vascular flow in 10 people and drawing huge generalizations from that. That is what Hall points out that he does over and over. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with a vegan/plant-based diet; there is something wrong with saying a single meaty meal can "cripple" your arteries. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note to IP editor

In a contested discussion like this, no one knows if you are one of the participants editing while logged out, or some other person. I have been ignoring what you write due to this ambiguity. I am considering starting a sockpuppet investigation, but I wanted to warn you first; if you have an account please use it in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Greger by independent sources

I went looking for reviews by people in the field, of How Not to Die. Searched pubmed, searched the hell out of google, searched my university library. Not one. Can anybody find one? (this is kind of what i mean, about how mainstream nutrition people just ignore this kind of thing) Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• no pubmed hits on him per se; 5 papers he authored
• Searched on the blog of Marion Nestle who is the doyenne among scientists who talk straight to the public about mainstream advice about eating. no hits for Greger.
• NHS Choices - website of the public health service in the UK and often great: nothing.
• google searched out to 10 pages, nothing but blogs and promotion of his books or talks (ran into, unsurprisingly, a glowing review of How Not to Die by Mercola himself articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/12/13/how-not-to-die.aspx here]

- looking for independent highly reliable sources that even discuss him, and not finding anything... Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

went to a library and found a bunch of his older work around mad cow (same kind of exaggerations about that too sometimes...) and all the way back to when he was in college and med school; was able to flesh this out a lot. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

PP

In view of the ongoing edit-warring by "fresh" accounts (including IPs) likely at one in the sock drawer, I have requested this page be semi-protected. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You want me, specifically, to be banned from editing. I'm sure that's much easier than trying to argue rationally for how you want the article to be.

If we wanted that, we'd do it. It would be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

crippling arteries claim

Alexbrn re-added the text "he claims for example that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries". This is out of context, and makes it sound as if he's claiming something he isn't. I won't defend his use of colorful language, but the short-term effect he describes in the video this quote is cherry-picked from is genuine, and, as he explains, is a result of endotoxemia, not animal products themselves as previously conjectured. Without context, it sounds as if he is claiming that a single meal of animal products is harmful, which is directly and explicitly contrary to his statements. Without this line, I am happy with Jytdog's text. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I added that. Second, yes he said that, "directly and explicitly". See the transcript of the talk above, or read Hall, or heck watch the video yourself. And yes, this is exactly the kind of exaggeration he makes. See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I do not defend this statement, but the sentence makes it sound as if he's saying that one meal can cause permanent harm. He isn't. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

He. Absolutely. Says. What. Is. Quoted. Do not repeat this misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to include this, you should at least reference the studies he is referring to and make it clear what he means. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep: to transcribe from the video "we've known for 15 years that a single meal high in animal fat (err, sausage and egg McMuffin was [sic] used in the original study) can paralyze our arteries by cutting off their ability to relax normally in half within hours of eating animal products". So, are arteries really "paralyzed", or is this an exaggeration as Hall says? Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If the ability of the arteries to dilate was cut in half, crippled seems like a good word. Otherwise, at what level of dysfunction is it hyperbolic to say the arteries were strongly impaired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B98A:A038:4B78:9C07 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The study says: "These results demonstrate that a single high-fat meal transiently impairs endothelial function". To represent this as a single meal crippling the arteries is precisely the kind of overblown and unsupported claim of which critics complain. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The statement is silly, and unprofessional. I don't defend it. But our text makes it sound like he's saying something other than he's saying. He's referring to a short term effect which has been observed in multiple studies, and he goes on to explain that it's not caused by animal fat. I do think there is something very wrong with his rhetoric here, in fact that video is cringe-worthy, but I also think his views should not be misrepresented. He repeatedly says that there is no evidence that eating small amounts of meat is harmful. This quote, without context, makes it look like he says the exact opposite. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Silly and unprofessional" is perhaps rather less diplomatic language than Hall used. Watch the video. Hear the emphasis on "single meal". Stop the contortions in defence of the indefensible. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, about providing context, that is what the reference is for. I have asked you several times here and here for example to provide content and sourcing you would find acceptable for this and your responses have been: (please note that I am gathering diffs now)

• mischaracterizing Hall as largely resting "on an incorrect assumption that everything Greger says should be taken as promotion of veganism". You have been told this is not the issue several times - the issue is that he exaggerates what can be claimed based on the science. (as I noted here and again here and here
• casting this as though anyone is saying "all his work is bunk" when no one is saying that (same dif as above, and here
• here you said that his exaggerations (specifically "How Not to Die") are a "rhetorical device" (yes, I have been saying all along that he uses the rhetorical device of exaggeration to get people's attention and this is exactly the problem from a scientific perspective) and you further said "I have not actually seen one example of an unsupportable claim" which means that you are not actually dealing with what Hall wrote.
• you said you can't find a source to support such a claim here and
• when I provided an exact example from Hall of this specific exaggeration about "crippling", you suddenly duck saying we can't read too much into a primary source, and then here you claim (based on your own interpretation of the primary source) that "He doesn't only refer to that study; on the contrary, he seems to be claiming that the result is explained by subsequent studies which showed that the result was not caused by animal fat. Just look at a couple more minutes of the same video" which is exactly contradicting what you said when you ducked... and not what I or anyone else are doing. And you do that again in your last comment above. This is unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

He shows that a single meal high in animal fat IS harmful to artery function. There's nothing to criticize there. He doesn't go on to say "this is a permanent effect," but rather that it's a transient effect that can be repeated throughout the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner).( not signed by IP 19:54, 1 September 2016‎ 2600:8807:5408:6000:b98a:a038:4b78:9c07 )

He doesn't "show" any such thing. An old weak study is used and exaggerated generalisations are spun out of it. Exactly as Halls says. We are obliged to make this kind of thing clear here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jytdog The next couple minutes of the video is about the exact same subject. The part you quoted was the set-up for that. I do have to admit you are right, though, the use of the terms "paralyze" and "cripple" to describe this effect is a pretty blatant exaggeration. I'm not trying to "duck" that. My concern is that the wording has insufficient context and appears to conflict with his other statements "In “How Not to Die,” Dr. Greger avoids using the word “vegan” and makes a point of stating that you can still enjoy a serving of your mother’s Easter ham".

The other points are off-topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Without this claim however, I'd be happy to accept the text and withdraw the RfC, as I think the other text can be justified by the source above which refers to this criticism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I also see this part as the only significant issue since the article has been rewritten by Jytdog. In her article, Hall doesn't even make the "arteries crippling" example her main focus. It's only one of the things she didn't like, yet our article is making it stand out. A summary of what she said is enough, and we have it. --Rose (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

He cites data showing this effect. Surely your criticism could be more nuanced than "it's bad and I don't like it and Harriet Hall said so" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B98A:A038:4B78:9C07 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm also planning on leaving Wikipedia indefinitely, so please don't waste time collecting diffs. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:FLOUNCE. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

See also section

Can any entries please be worked into the article. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking. See also is not a required section and you can get to all kinds of related articles though the categories. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Three refs

Physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims,[21][22][23]

Is there a need for all three refs? I created a separate section as to not distract from the above conversation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

apparently see above. This happens sometimes as you are 100% aware. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The above does not need to dictate article content. Might I suggest commenting out two refs and keep only one ref visible that explicitly verifies the part "who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims". QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please wait: i don't know if we even have stable content yet. This is all a big waste of time as the RfC is not even over yet and we don't know for sure if this will remain. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this could take months to have stable content based on other similar disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

the RfC has just a couple of weeks left and i think we have maybe addressed the issue raised above. we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The RfC could be closed without a firm decision because it is not clear who is right. Editors are mainly asserting their view. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the material as unambiguous WP:SYNTH. The previously included refs did not mention Greger, but were being used to lend credence to Hall's criticism of Greger. I have no opinion on whether she's right (several people whose judgement I trust seem to believe she is), but the mandate not to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated the sources prohibits this kind of citing general profile info as a shortcut for actual RS evaluating the validity of her criticism. FourViolas (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The part "Physician" is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

addressed here. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? You want to dispute that a retired US Air Force Flight Surgeon is a physician? You have lost it. For many and varied values of "it". Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about ref

Apparently per this dif and this discussion on my Talk page, User:Ceoil thinks the source below, is somehow... unreliable? I can't tell. and also it appears they find the content UNDUE or something. I thought the context of how Greger got to NY was useful and the source is OK to me, but I don't understand what Ceoil's objections are, so I just removed it per Ceoil's initial edit. Just noting this here.

• Davidson, S. (2004, Jan 29). MIT to hold forum on mad cow disease; local physician to give keynote address. Jewish Advocate Retrieved from Proquest. Quote: "Consumers concerned about mad cow disease and other issues about safeguarding the food supply may want to attend the Jan. 29 lecture at MIT by Michael Greger, M.D., entitled "Mad Cow Disease: Plague of the 21st Century?" ...Greger was raised in a small Arizona town, "the only Jewish family within 30 miles." His parents were New York natives; his mother taught Biblical Hebrew at the community college. Following his parents' divorce, he moved with his mother and brother to Binghamton, N.Y., where she taught Hebrew school at the orthodox Beth Israel synagogue."

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. I misunderstood, and have apologised on Jydog's talk. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Critique section

I have created an additional section for this article in line with the results of the RfC. The main reason for this is that the summary of the critique of Greger's work is rather short and sort of grafted on the carreer section. A carreer section contains all the jobs and positions someone has had and any other information should either be moved to main-lead or be expanded into an additional section. Since the discussion and edits resulting from the RfC have explicitly opted to modify and move the content out of the lead, the latter option seems to be the most reasonable. As the snippet of content currently contains only one source to Hall's work, no work by other authors, nor a reply by Greger himself I think an expand tag is surely warranted. It is my belief that this edit does not change the current content nor tone of the article and merely summarizes the current situation and provides a framework for future expansion of the article. Let's stop the pointless edit warring and work constructively on expanding the article shall we? AlwaysUnite (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We should avoid "criticism" sections and badge-of-shame tagging. Your edits seem to go against the grain of RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we don't do critique/response/reply etc in WP. This is not a blog. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, bah. I've looked up your rapsheets. Your talk pages are literally filled with bans, edit war notices, and reversion questions. There won't be any reasonable discussion here anyways. Thanks btw for totally not adressing the points I am raising. No way in hell am I getting dragged into this one. Bunch of crazies. AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)