Talk:Pete Evans/Archive 1

Links re Debt

Another possible ref for the Debt issue: The Austrailian Jim1138 (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this one too: The Australian 29 October 2014 Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I have added this section because of the controversial statements regarding nutrition and nutritional bodies Evans has been making on social media recently. I believe I have adequately sourced them so please discuss here before making reversionsBenvenuto (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For someone as high profile in the paleo movement as Pete Evans is, there's hardly a mention of his work promoting it. Putting a mention in the Controversy section probably isn't doing it justice 131.181.64.231 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group

the section "career" opens; "In 1996, the group expanded to Sydney to launch the Hugos Restaurant Group." this makes no sense, can someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpren (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea what "the group" is supposed to refer to, as it is not previously defined. I added a clarification needed tag. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Spoon Award & bubby book

Evans book:

"'Bubba Yum Yum' was dumped by publishers over warnings from dietitians that a recipe for baby formula could be seriously harmful to children. It was later self-published."

And he has received the Bent Spoon Award from the Australian Skeptics. [1] over supporting the Paleo diet.

Are these notable enough for inclusion here? I have added it to the Bent Spoon Award page. 220 of ^Borg 09:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Bent Spoon Award Boneso (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative POV & Guard Dogs 2017

Are there editors with a pejorative POV guarding this article in order to discredit Pete Evans? Chef Evans has always said he was been misquoted in order to sell newspapers and in Sunday’s interview 26 March 2017, which was also highly pejorative, he reiterated that as he demonstrated his use of sunscreen and complained that the media failed to do its homework before unfairly misquoting and attacking Evans. Subsequent to that story airing, Chef Evans revealed that he had provided documentation supporting his statements to the reporter who failed to respond. I made two small edits with references in the CONTROVERSY section and they were undone within a few hours.

On milk - my edit (bolded) with a reference to a 2014 NY Times news story listing 4 studies that state milk isn’t as beneficial as the milk lobby and doctors claim was undone by anonymous editor: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/upshot/got-milk-might-not-be-doing-you-much-good.html

…. He did not credit a source or study. His remarks were challenged by medical professionals…….. However, Evans' statements are supported by several reputable studies. (Aaron E. Carroll. "Got Milk? Might Not Be Doing You Much Good". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 2017-03-26.)

On sunscreen - my edit (bolded) with a reference to the reputable Environmental Working Group which has published an annual report on toxic sunscreens since 2007 that lists those to be avoided and those that are reasonably safe and effective was undone by AussieNewsHound: http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/executive-summary/

…….as advised that ingredients in many sunscreen products are toxic, so chose carefully - an opinion supported by the Environmental Working Group.(Environmental Working Group. Accessed 26 March 2017. http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/)

Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reference on evidence that milk consumption can be harmful to bones with 25 citations published by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine on its website in or since 2010 : http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/calcium-and-strong-bones

Seabreezes1 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding stories that support Evans' views that don't mention Evans at all (like the NY Times story and the EWG page and the PCRM source) is considered to be a synthesis of sources, a type of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieNewsHound: --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@122.108.141.214: @Seabreezes1: Your language is heavily loaded. Telling people to "chose [sic] carefully" is hardly the words of someone who is trying to be neutral. AussieNewsHound (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about "synthesis" not being allowed in a wiki bio - didn't know that, but believe I've seen it in other wikipedia articles, albeit mostly used to discredit someone rather than defend them.

Pete Evans emphasized that his position on sunscreens was to make an informed and careful choice in the Sunday interview and that he had been misquoted previously, so I hardly think my choice of language is pejorative. However, I'm fine with another word choice. Moreover he stated that the references he provided the news source were missing from the aired interview, so I suggest we are allowing wiki to be used as a biased source when we limit our references to biased sources. Seabreezes1 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. We cannot include sources that support Evans' views without them mentioning Evans, and we can only source what reliable sources are telling us - we have to wait until the sources tee up before we can fix things. In regards to the "choose carefully" word choice, it seems to quote Evans without sourcing his quote and putting it in quote marks. This could be considered a form of plagiarism. Even though Wikipedia is fast, it follows the reliable sources instead of breaking the news. For example, including that Evans uses a "less toxic" brand when his family are in the sun for a while (quoting his words, "less toxic", and citing it) tells the reader that according to Evans, there are "less toxic" brands out there. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editing

There's some questionable content on this page and then lookinng through the edit history, see an single purpose editor called EvansEditor who clearly edited COI and possibly UPE. I'm going to revert what I can from his edits. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. If people want to add content in a neutral way, there's a better balanced foundation to build on. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection request raised

I've raised a request for semi-protection due to the amount of vandalism going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Pete_Evans - Tytrox (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Criticisms" section be renamed to "Controversies" ?

There's a lot more publicly notable issues as of recent where Pete's antics/stance on things are becoming more provocative/controversial. Would it be suitable to rename this section, or keep it as is? I am aware of what WP:Criticism has to say, and my interpretation of these guidelines suggest to keep it as is, but at the same time the content in his article swings both ways. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes most probably. CatCafe (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]