Jump to content

Talk:Max Lugavere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kalem014 (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 1 April 2024 (→No consensus for NPOV template: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

pronunciation

https://mobile.twitter.com/BrianNorgard/status/239073487896072192 --Espoo (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Lugavere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerns

Dear Wikipedians,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent alterations made to this page (I am Max, the subject). As a health and science journalist, I have dedicated my career to promoting evidence-based approaches to diet and health motivated by my mothers battle with dementia. However, it has come to my attention that the current state of my Wikipedia page does not accurately reflect this commitment.

It is evident that certain edits have been made with a clear bias against me. While I respect diverse perspectives on nutrition, it is crucial that any content presented on my Wikipedia page remains neutral and accurately represents my work and viewpoints. I am not a proponent of carnivore diets, or even "high meat" diets. If you look into any of my published work, I do regularly promote the consumption of animal source foods, including red meat, but always alongside other healthful foods such as dark leafy greens, fruits and vegetables, nuts, olive oil, etc. My book Genius Foods, which was co-written with a medical doctor, clearly shows this on the cover. I also rarely discuss supplements as a primary focus (always food first), do not sell any supplements of my own, and always clearly disclose when I have a brand relationship (such as when I promote a product on my podcast). Further, I have never "blamed" vegan diets  for causing dementia, though I have expressed concern that they deprive the brain of important nutrients, which I feel strongly about in part because my mother, who had dementia, was a vegetarian for most of her life.

The deliberate insertion of defamatory statements and the omission of significant contributions to the field undermine the integrity of the page and mislead readers. My focus on evidence-based nutrition encompasses a wide range of dietary approaches, including the benefits of consuming animal source foods, which have been supported by scientific research. As a journalist who is always transparent about his background (i.e. I never misrepresent myself), I also host many viewpoints on my podcast—vegan, carnivore, credentialed nutrition experts, and general wellness enthusiasts—and push back when appropriate. Though some personalities may be disagreeable to some, I believe that having these conversations is within the scope of my work as a journalist. I don't always get it right, I'm not perfect, but I try my best to be a valuable contributor to the public health conversation.

I can share my most recent talks on The Today Show (this is from 1 month ago) which clearly showcases a balanced approach, and one which is evidence-based. https://www.today.com/video/feel-better-from-the-inside-out-with-this-food-reset-203011141957

I can share a profile and interview in The Times which clearly showcases my views are not fringe, and deeply personally motivated: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dementia-killed-my-mum-this-is-what-i-wish-id-known-about-brain-food-7cwll26kk (this is behind a paywall but I'm happy to email the PDF to anybody)

I can also share my academic review, published by Springer. All research articles, and most other article types, published in Springer journals undergo peer review. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_14

My newly-released documentary, which documents why I do everything it is that I do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UpVS8ZF10I

Nutrition is a polarizing field. Nonetheless, I've dedicated my life to helping others, and have achieved respect amongst both mainstream media and the community at large. Hopefully it is clear that I'm not in fact known for "fringe claims and opposition to veganism," but for doing my part to help to mitigate suffering in the world.

I urge the Wikipedia community to uphold the principles of neutrality and accuracy in content creation. I welcome constructive dialogue and collaboration to ensure that my Wikipedia page reflects a balanced portrayal of my work and positive contributions to the broader public awareness of the power of nutrition to impact health. Vinestreet97 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have made a common error by assuming that Wikipedia's neutrality policy means that we should have a 'balanced' article. But that is specifically not what is done on this site, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the reliable, independent sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. Note they your own talks, documentaries, and interviews with you are not considered to be independent. The 'Neutral' in WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia reflects the tone of the best available sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for coming here rather than editing the article yourself, per our WP:COI policy. Ok, I'm not watching this article, but came here from WP:BLPN to take a look. First, to clarify any bias of my own, I have been a devote carnivore all of my life. I was raised on a hunter-gatherer diet for the most part, not for any nutritional reasons, but because this isn't farming country I live in.
First, a bit of advice, and this is purely meant to be constructive criticism. If you want people in the scientific community to take you more seriously, you may want to avoid the cum hoc fallacy and other logically flawed arguments. Just sayin'...
With that out of the way, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for. You provided us with a bunch of primary sources for the most part, but no specific details about what you see as wrong, biased, needs to be added or changed? One problem about having a Wikipedia article is it will reflect both the bad opinions people have as well as the good ones, and balance doesn't mean an equal portion of each but we apportion them the same as reliable sources do. (See: WP:An article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.)
We are not news investigators, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like any other encyclopedia or book you'd find in the reference section of the library. We cannot use primary sources in order to give our own interpretations of them. Secondary sources do that. We need to get all our interpretations from secondary sources. Where primary sources can be useful is for reviews, critiques, and otherwise the opinions of people qualified to speak on the matter. It is unlikely that the negative reviews will end up getting deleted, but it may be possible to find positive reviews to add to them. Those are the kinds of things you should look for and bring here.
But then you need to be very specific about what it is you feel should be added or changed. We're not mind readers, ya know. Spell it out for us, don't just expect us to see what you do. ie: "Such and such sentence needs to be changed to this" or, "This information should be added there." Tell us exactly what you think should be done so people will better understand your line of thinking, and keep in mind that you most certainly have your own biases -we all do. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim about evidence-based is an odd one, considering that Max tells us to go to his YouTube podcast. On Max's YouTube podcast his regular guest speakers are carnivore diet and low-carbohydrate diet influencers - Steven Gundry, Dave Asprey, William Davis, Mark Hyman, Jason Fung, Mark Sisson (of paleo diet fame), David Perlmutter [1]. A few days ago Shawn Baker the most well known carnivore diet influencer appeared on Max's podcast, "The Case for Carnivore" [2]. I listened to about 45 minutes of the interview. Nowhere did max make a single criticism of the carnivore diet, he agreed with Baker on everything. It should be noted that functional medicine that Max is also involved with [3], has been strongly criticized as a pseudoscience (check our Wikipedia article on functional medicine). Max says he has been interviewed by reliable sources but this doesn't appear to be the case. He is a regular guest on Steven Gundry's podcast [4] and carnivore diet Paul Saladino's podcast [5], [6], Mark Hyman's podcast [7] and David Perlmutter's podcast [8]? There seems to be a pattern here with this guys strong involvement with the alternative medicine and carnivore diet community. As for WP:RS he hasn't listed any. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, can it get any worse! Max above tells us to look at his new documentary trailer [9], both Nina Teicholz and Mark Hyman are in the trailer as key speakers. This is about as fringe as it gets. As for the today.com video [10] not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have reliable source(s) for the claim in the article that Max Lugavere is "known for: Fringe dietary claims". Without that, I do not see how we are meeting the essential requirement for NPOV on a BLP. 69.249.103.131 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a well known advocate of pseudoscience [11]. Max Lugavere is heavily involved with functional medicine (a well known alternative medicine), he is the opposite of evidence-based medicine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source you linked here (mcgill.ca) make the claim that Lugavere's dietary claims specifically are "fringe"? I don't see this language in their article, nor is there any mention of his "opposition" to vegan/vegetarian diet. Kalem014 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've closed the BLPN discussion because this is the correct forum for the content discussion. It should be in one place at a time. Please resort back to BLPN in case a consensus does not emerge. At this time, it appears no resorting back to BLPN will be needed. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking over this in more detail. Basically Max has an upcoming low-carbohydrate documentary on diet and dementia called "Bread Head" to be released on 19 April 2024 [12]. He has never taken interest in his Wikipedia article until now. The documentary features Mark Hyman and Steven Gundry. The real issue for Max appears to be this source on his Wikipedia article [13] which a blocked IP tried to remove many times [14]. The source is reliable, there is no valid reason to remove it. Max talks about "defamatory statements" but doesn't list what these are. There is no defamation.
Of note, there may be a possible canvassing issue because he has advertised his Wikipedia page on Twitter [15] Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Max's claim above "My book Genius Foods, which was co-written with a medical doctor, clearly shows this on the cover". The medical doctor he is talking about is Paul Grewal who describes himself as a "paleo-friendly functional medicine physician" [16]. It is incorrect to try and pass off a paleo diet book as a "balanced approach" to nutrition. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think comments about user behavior, such as canvassing, maybe COI editing as an IP, etc. belong on noticeboards like WP:ANI and WP:COIN and maybe eventually WP:SPI but not talk pages. I'll gladly review a ping if you go there. But I don't think we are there yet. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for NPOV template

There is no consensus for this [17]. Max is currently on his Facebook and Twitter promoting conspiracy theories that his Wikipedia article has been seized by vegan activists and is telling his keto and paleo diet fanbase to come and edit here. There is an obvious issue here of Wikipedia:Canvassing and WP:MEATPUPPET. The NPOV template is not being added in good faith. There is no valid consensus to add it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not required for Template:POV to be placed. However, consensus is required for removal of the template. The neutrality issues are highlighted here, and in the above "Neutrality concerns" topic, which is sufficient to apply the banner for now.
Also, challenged/contentious unsourced "known for" fringe, etc. must be removed from infobox Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Kalem014 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a new user with only around 50 edits on this website and you have hardly edited any articles. It's a bit silly if you are trying to lecture experienced users who have been here for years. I am well aware about the guidelines. You are saying no consensus is required for a NPOV template, actually there should be. Just because Max Lugavere and his meat-puppets want an NPOV template inserted, this is not a valid consensus. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV templates are not badges of shame to be maintained on an article - there would need to be some sort of actionable discussion topic ongoing to keep the template up. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy I have over 50 edits. Please assume good faith Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Valid neutrality concerns were raised, which is my only interest (rather than any personal/ideological interest in the subject of the article itself whatsoever), sincerely.
MrOllie Thank you. I think removal of the template is fair assuming no further action is needed on the unsourced "known for" content, which I have removed. This was by far the most glaring contentious item in this BLP to my eye. Kalem014 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Lugavere&oldid=1216731806"