Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The China Study: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:21, 11 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. There clearly is disagreement as to whether the necessary independent sources have been shown, but the article shouldn't be deleted under those circumstances. Hopefully people looking to see this article kept permanently will attempt to better source the article. CitiCat^♫ 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The China Study

This article appears to fail WP's notability guidelines and may constitute the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. The article is published by a small, private, comparatively new, general publisher instead of an established academic publisher. There seem to be no reviews of the book in any peer-reviewed medical/scientific journals. More than a year ago another editor noted that this article cites only the book itself as a source and that remains unchanged.DieWeisseRose (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The China Study is a best selling book, written by T. Colin Campbell, a highly-regarded researcher and an expert in nutrition. He is included in List_of_Cornell_University_people.

The China Study is included on two category templates: Vegetarianism and Health in China.

This can be confirmed by clicking here:[[1]]. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established by reliable secondary sources.--Boffob (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book is referenced in pretty much every vegan and vegetarian website and forum out there and it was a best seller. DieWeisseRose, I feel that your behavior is starting to be vindictive and personal for some reason that I don't understand. And what is wrong with including the criticism by Masterjohn that you and I wrote? Michael H 34 has recused himself concerning it, so let's put it in there and get rid of this "only one source" problem. It was published in a journal of The Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization which apparently passes notability standards for Wikipaedia. I honestly don't see the problem. Just because you think a book that advocates veganism must be part of a fringe theory doesn't make it so. This book is notable and we can fix the "only one source" problem by simply adding to the article what is already written on the talk page.--Hraefen ^Talk 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hraefen, no doubt my discussion with Michael H 34 has been frustrating but there is nothing "vindictive" about my nominating this article for deletion. When I first flagged the article on 7 January because it did not have an NPOV, I noted that there may be notability problems. During the course of the back-and-forth with Michael H 34 I became more convinced that this was a real problem and acted accordingly. As for Masterjohn, I'm not entirely sure that Wise Traditions is a reliable source as I already indicated on 15 January. In any case, it was Masterjohn's criticism that first alerted me to the fact that we may be dealing with a fringe theory in The China Study. You write, "Just because you think a book that advocates veganism must be part of a fringe theory doesn't make it so." You really do assume too much. I don't have any axe to grind against veganism and this is the first and only article on vegetarianism I've edited. So, how about assuming good faith? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss the book in the Google news archive and Google books. We are not here to discuss whether the theory contained in the book is correct, just whether the book itself is notable. The article does, however, need extensive work to make it NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger, I looked at your Google results and I'm not so sure as you are. Notability requires "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." Some of the Google hits seem like fluff infomerical pieces devoid of criticism such as the KUAM piece, which seems to be inaccurate to boot. I did a separate search of the NYT and found no evidence that the Times ever reviewed the book let alone called "it the Grand Prix of Epidemiology." And in the first NYT item that pops up in your results--"Unhappy Meals"--The China Study merits exactly one parenthetical remark--15 words out of a 10,130 word article. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the sources for this article they same and often tied to the author of the book. This makes the article seem less, than objective. If this article is to remain in the wikipedia it should contain more diverse sources. this search shows that there has been academic criticism of this study. I think the book may meet notability criteria hence I think we should keep the article-- but only if there is some clean-up and some other sources are added so the content is presented in a neutral manner. futurebird (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory Issues: I want to be reiterate that I don't consider veganism to be a "fringe theory" per se. The fringe theory issues come from the authors' advocacy of strict veganism in association with claims such as:

Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals.
The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages can also halt or reverse it in its later stages.

It is inappropriate for me to go into more detail about free radicals and anti-oxidants, but even these selected principles are not "fringe theory." I am reminded of a recent TV advertisement (U.S.) for a cancer center that flashes the word nutrition on the screen and shows the narrator walking past a fruit stand. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Also, there are the remarks of Chris Masterjohn, a principal critic of The China Study. Here's an example (emphasis added):

Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that “eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,” 5 is drawn from a broad—and highly selective—pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.

The "fringe theory" issue is related to the book's notability. According to the content guideline on fringe theories: "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." --DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have just provided us with a source that shows the the book (which is what we should be discussing here, not the theory) is "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." A critical reference is just as valid for notability as an uncritical one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Wise Traditions is a "major publication" or a reliable source. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with China Project since the book's notability derives from its status as an output of that project. Add more information on the project's scientific status since that has a major bearing on how this book has been received. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting to me that The China Study is not included among the numerous publications listed on the China Project web site. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that The China Study is not included on the Cornell - Nutrition - China Project website, but no books are included on this website after the mid-1990s. The China Study was written just a few years ago by T. Colin Campbell, the Director of The China Project, along with his son. T. Colin Campbell's name appears often on the website, and in some respects, The China Study summarizes the career and thinking of this intelligent and knowledgable man. The website also includes the following:

"The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undetaken (sic) of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings." - The New York Times

"...the most comprehensive survey of food, environment, social practices and diseases ever made in China-and one of the largest epidemiological studies ever done anywhere." - Science Michael H 34 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Curiously, T. Colin Campbell is not listed as "Director of The China Project" on the China Project web site or on his Cornell bio. To my knowledge, his book and associated web site is the main source of the claim that he is the Director. It's not entirely clear that the China Project is even active any more. The two blurbs you quote above refer to the China Project, not the The China Study. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the author's bio:

Noteable Accomplishments:

Recently published the book titled: *The China Study. Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health (2005)*. This book is now a national best seller and has been translated into 10 languages and distribution shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, its sales continue to climb and some in the publishing world are suggesting that it is going to have a very long life of several years. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

That is just lovely, Michael H 34, but being a "best seller" is NOT one of the notability criteria. It still remains to be shown that The China Study is notable. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that The China Study is fringe: I have already noted that T. Colin Campbell's academic colleagues have, apparently, not seen fit to review the book in any scholarly journals. I just looked at Amazon.com and only two other books cite The China Study. One is a book about social nudity/body freedom/public nudity and the other is about "ethical eating" and is by an ethicist and an animal rights activist. In short, of all the health and nutrition books on Amazon.com and published since TCS came out in 2005 none of them cite TCS. I wonder why? Apparently, Chris Masterjohn isn't the only one who can spot bad science marketed in the guise of "Startling Implications". --DieWeisseRose (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not a scholarly book; it is written for the public. Why do you expect that the book would be reviewed in scholarly journals? I also suggest that it is inappropriate for you to imply that the book is based on bad science or that the authors principles are a fringe theory. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Strong keep per the earlier comments. --Green wood tree 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - it may be an internet fad, but that doesn't solve the other problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A serious study, about 100 real citations to it in Google Scholar.DGG (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean 9 citations, and some of them seem quite dubious themselves. HerbClip^TM?--Boffob (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boffob, your search was severely limited. There are many citations that do not use the exact wording - The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Try searching for: "The China Study" Campbell - and Google Scholar will come up with 105 results, the majority of them relevant. See here --122.107.170.190 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is faulty. You're looking for any document with the string "the China Study" in it, which may or may not actually cite the book of this article. They may be referring to the China project itself, and not the conclusions or claims included in the China Study book. Any serious article citing the book would have the full title in the citation. Google Scholar provides the actual number of citations for the book itself (at the very top of your search: "Cited by 9", you click that link and you get my search result) .--Boffob (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Any serious article citing the book would have the full title in the citation." I disagree, Boffob. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Strong keep! It's not an internet fad or a fringe theory. It's written in an easy to read consumer version, but with lots of good references. If there is controversy ... include that ... but this book has changed lives and it has changed the practice (both private and professional) of more MD's than any other that I know of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiebel (talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with proviso. Right now, there is no assertion of notability per the book notability guideline except for one comment stating that this book is "bestselling". Scholarly references are lacking and dubious at best. A source asserting notability beyond internet chat groups and messageboards (which are generally not considered reliable) would be nice. In any case, right now the article is essentially serving as a coatrack for the book's content: a very problematic situation. If the book is found to be notable, the article needs to be rewritten with an emphasis on the reception of the book rather that a cliff notes for its content. A merge with China Project may also be found to be appropriate. Current state of the article, however, is wholly unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the current state of the article is unacceptable then you can edit it - that's the whole point of a wiki. As regards WP:BK, did you check out the Google Books and Google News links that I provided above? They establish notability by criterion 1 many times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, not at all convinced through those searches. What this does seem to indicate is that the author of the book has gone on a publicity seeking rampage, but he clearly hasn't had the level of success I would like to see from a self-promoter. Wikipedia has higher standards for fringe promotion for this very reason. Since you've indicated that you would not mind me editing the article, then I'll edit the article. My inclination would be right now to redirect the article wholesale to China Project. The question then becomes, is this book a search term that is worthy of redirect? Hmm, not sure. How many people will type in "The China Study" in caps with the leading article hoping to find information on this book in Wikipedia? Not many, I'd say. So, still, I say, delete although redirects are usually not that harmful. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is inappropriate to add a redirect to an article that is proposed for deletion. (When did "eat your vegetables" become a fringe theory?) Michael H 34 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

To be fair, this is a bit more than simply "eat your vegetables". It's more like "don't drink your milk". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "eat your vegetables and don’t drink milk" is not a fringe theory either... it's called veganism. Millions of people do it. I would hope that people here can separate their personal feelings about veganism from the topic at hand: whether The China Study is notable or not. I realize that most people think that an entirely plant-based diet is extreme (I sure used to), but please do not let this belief color your judgement on this matter.--Hraefen ^Talk 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. has 10 times as many google hits as the China Project. Fringe or not is irrelevant -- is a more than notable social phenomenon. And this, from a non-vegan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please explain why you do not believe that this meets criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books), based on the Google News and Books links which provided above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 is: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". The article includes no references other than the book itself. Dlabtot (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is just book burning. On the grounds mentioned any book covering a topic not previously covered elsewhere (or not published by a mainstream publisher apparently) can be removed allowing a gaps in the knowledge that Wikipedia is allowing the public to view. Freedom of expression is surely at issue here, those who wish to criticise the work have the right but removing it altogether for any reasons stated above is just indulging the critic's viewpoints and accepting their rights over both the author and those in favour of keeping it here where it is easily accessable to the world community. FastFonty (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is User:FastFonty's only edit. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Book burning"? That is certainly a new low in the rhetoric of this discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and "freedom of expression" is no issue here whatsoever. If the book is not notable then the article about it has no business here--end of story. WP:BK says "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." So, to all of you 'keepers': Let's start seeing some reliable sources or this AfD should be closed as DELETE. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many who have provided reasons that the article should be kept, and therefore your claim that "this AfD should be closed as delete" is contrary to Wikipedia's rule on consensus. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Yeah, and none of those "reasons," so far, satisfies the notability criteria for books. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Wikipedia not being a soapbox bears no relation to this issue. The China Study article is neither propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment, nor an opinion piece, nor self-promotion, nor advertising. It is an objective article about a celebrated work of literature. --122.107.170.190 (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I find it notable that a book written for the general public is cited in scholarly articles that are published in scholarly journals. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

On the contrary, I find the article smacks of propaganda, advocacy, and advertising. Michael H 34, what "scholarly articles" are you talking about? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is a best seller, and best sellers are notable, fringe theory or not. People will look up this book. It will deprive people of a valuable resource if the article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.79.67 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the notability criteria for books. Hint: "best seller" isn't one of them. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book passes notability "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." This book is a best seller and has been discussed in newspaper articles (yes), television documentaries (yes) and reviews (yes). The science in this book is better than that found in the Atkins Diet and it certainly deserves a page. lk (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you,lk. Of particular note, a book written for the general public was reviewed in Leonardo, a scholarly journal published by the MIT Press. The book was recommended to readers by the reviewer. In fact, the reviewer stated that "the book will have an impact." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 ::The book is not a scholarly book; it is written for the public.  Why do you expect that the book would be reviewed in scholarly journals?  I also suggest that it is inappropriate for you to imply that the book is based on bad science or that the authors principles are a fringe theory.  [[User:Michael H 34|Michael H 34]] ([[User talk:Michael H 34|talk]]) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
-'''Strong keep''' per the earlier comments. --'''<font color="#1A8645">[[User_talk:Greenwoodtree|Green]]</font><font color="#24BB60">[[User_talk:Greenwoodtree|wood]]</font><font color="#67E298">[[User_talk:Greenwoodtree|tree]]</font>''' 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
+'''Strong keep''' per the earlier comments. --'''[[User_talk:Greenwoodtree|<span style="color:#1A8645;">Green</span>]][[User_talk:Greenwoodtree|<span style="color:#24BB60;">wood</span>]][[User_talk:Greenwoodtree|<span style="color:#67E298;">tree</span>]]''' 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 '''Delete or merge''' - it may be an internet fad, but that doesn't solve the other problems. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 '''Strong keep''' This is just book burning. On the grounds mentioned any book covering a topic not previously covered elsewhere (or not published by a mainstream publisher apparently) can be removed allowing a gaps in the knowledge that Wikipedia is allowing the public to view. Freedom of expression is surely at issue here, those who wish to criticise the work have the right but removing it altogether for any reasons stated above is just indulging the critic's viewpoints and accepting their rights over both the author and those in favour of keeping it here where it is easily accessable to the world community. [[User:FastFonty|FastFonty]] ([[User talk:FastFonty|talk]]) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
-::::'''Note:''' this is [[User:FastFonty]]'s only edit. [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#7d7d7d">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets</font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;><sub><font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP!<font size=4>☺</font></font></sub></span>]] 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
+::::'''Note:''' this is [[User:FastFonty]]'s only edit. [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets</span>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;><sub><span style="color:#7d7d7d;">Call me MoP!<span style="font-size:large;">☺</span></span></sub></span>]] 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 *"[[Book burning]]"? That is certainly a new low in the rhetoric of this discussion. [[WP:ENC|Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia, [[WP:SOAP|not a soapbox]], and "freedom of expression" is no issue here whatsoever. If the book is [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)|not notable]] then the article about it has no business here--end of story. [[WP:BK]] says "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources." So, to all of you 'keepers': Let's start seeing some reliable sources or this AfD should be closed as '''DELETE'''. --[[User:DieWeisseRose|DieWeisseRose]] ([[User talk:DieWeisseRose|talk]]) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)