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• The critique of Miss Hall is outdated and therefore no longer useful.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 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)

Template:UTimpicerilo 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.

 Hall is a wack job in her blog that's used in this article she posts links in it that say vegans kill more animals in their gardens than meat eaters kill? Is she really that stupid? 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)