Talk:Michael Greger

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• The critique of Miss Hall is outdated and therefore no longer useful.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/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fdde153539-RSS_VIDEO_DAILY&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-fdde153539-23329237

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 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)