Talk:Michael Greger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

LEDE

The WP:LEDE is too short and unsourced. The lede only says "Michael Herschel Greger is an American physician, author, and professional speaker on public health issues, particularly the benefits of a plant-based diet and the harms of eating animal products." without sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

per WP:LEAD sources are only needed in the lead if something there is contested. do you actually contest anything that is there? Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Without reading the refs in the body to verify the claim the lede says "...harms of eating animal products". He thinks meat is harmful? QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Jewish?

I think he is. Is it ok to mention this? Greger does actually say in one of his videos (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) "The Government blames the Jews" and then goes on to talk about Maimonides, who was a Jewish physician. The discussion was about milk and mucus. 78.151.30.121 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

current ref 9 supports that. I don't think it is worth mentioning; it is hardly ever discussed in refs about him, or by him, so seems kind of UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem with "skeptic" as a title

When Hall is described as "physician and skeptic" that makes "skeptic" to be a title, akin to a job title (like "welder") or an ascribed status title (like "woman"). What exactly does this mean? I hold that it's incorrect and meaningless. I am a skeptic but i have no degree in "skepticism" and neither does Hall. She belongs to a subculture of people who call themselves "Skeptic" and who subscribe to "Skeptic" discussion lists and magazines, etc. But this is a self-identification that is not necessarily correct to apply. The word itself is an abstract word that would require others who judge her to be so. In other words, "skeptic" is not an occupation nor an ascribed status and Hall has no "degree in Skepticism" and the use of the word there is misleading to the readers of the article and it is not NPOV to use this word as a title form for Hall. SageRad (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not again.[1] This is getting disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually saying what i said above, not banging any drum. I've said it once before, true, and that's ok. It's not disruptive. So... if you have a comment in relation to what i said above, i would love to hear it. Otherwise i would love to hear from others who might have a comment in regard to the thoughts i have expressed above. But i would not like to be called disruptive or characterized as "banging a drum". In fact i think there is a good point to what i've said above. SageRad (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I also invite anyone to go and read the past discussion at the link you provided and judge for themselves what to make of it. Thanks for digging up that old discussion. SageRad (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? It was your responsibility to bring it up, and you didn't. A simple, neutral summary is good form as well. How about that? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A summary might be "I raised this point in February and Alexbrn opposed it. Nobody else commented." I invite anyone to read it and see the flavor of it. SageRad (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The skeptical community is a thing, and Hall is identified (and self-identifies) as a member of it. It is what she is known for. You failed to persuade anybody in February, I doubt you'll have much more success now. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it could be made more apparent by capitalization and saying "Physician and member of the Skeptic community Harriet Hall". On the other hand, i don't think what you say is fully true. There is a subculture sort of community with the label of "Skeptic Community" or "Skeptics" but that's not the same as "skeptic" with a lowercase "s", which is a general noun and not a proper noun. It's not like "physician" which is an occupation with a well-known qualification pathway. It's more of a self-described label. I guess the article on Hall describes enough details for an interested reader to discern what is meant by the word. SageRad (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Or, you know, physician and skeptic, since we do not capitalise ornithologist when discussing Bill Oddie. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ornithologist is a profession, or a field of study that is well recognized. Skeptic, uncapitalized, in common usage (not subculture usage) is a noun that refers to a person who is skeptical of something, but not a profession or a field of study like orinithology. It's a general term, and can be applied to a person who is skeptical of something one day, like "Bob said the ring was solid gold, but i remained a skeptic about that," whereas there's no way to say "Bob said the bird was a white-breasted nuthatch, but i was an ornithologist about that." SageRad (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that ornithology has pretty much the same status as scientific skepticism. It's older, but most of those engaged in ornithology are, like Bill Oddie, not professionals in the field, and have no formal training in zoology. I know you don't like the skeptic community, for reasons which seem to be tied to its rejection of some of your beliefs, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. There are books about it, journals devoted to it, conferences, and prominent scientists and lay science advocates who identify and are identified with it. It is sufficiently influential that one of the world's leading anti-vaccination groups has deliberately tried to suborn the term. It's more recent in origin than ornithology, the birth of the movement is usually credited to people like Martin Gardner and Carl Sagan, but it is indubitably a thing. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, i do not find that "ornithologist" is parallel to "skeptic" (to put the original terms back in place). An "ornithologist" has studied and claims to have special knowledge about... birds. A "skeptic" has studied and claims to have special knowledge about... everything????! See, that is the difference. A self-appointed "skeptic" claims to be an expert on anything they examine. It's not a specialty or special field of study, except in the sense of the joke "Hi, my name is Bob. I specialize in everything." Therein is the crucial difference. Within Wikipedia, there is an effort to raise self-dubbed "skeptics" to a position of authority on everything under the sun, which is a serious fundamental flaw in logic and epistemology. SageRad (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course you don't, not least because you have a well-documented animus against the skeptical community that pre-dates your involvement with Wikipedia. That does not stop it being true. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Where does the source say she is a "physician and/or skeptic"? I requested verification. The article must verify the content. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that, my friend, is pure disruption. The article on Hall lists her credentials and work history as a former USAF Flight Surgeon, and pretty much everything written about her refrences her skeptical acticism. Including her own bloody website. SkepDoc. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Where does the article verify the claims? QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? We have an article on Harriet Hall, which is linked. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is being used to verify the claim. Other articles are not being used to verify the claim. If the article being used in Michael Greger does not verify the claim then it is unsourced for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You have pulled this kind of bullshit before. No, it is not unsourced. We link to the article on Hall, where it is sourced. There is no requirement to source "sky is blue" kind of statements. Hall is a doctor and a skeptic, and is notable preciusely because she is a doctor and skeptic, this is clear from the article on her. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you will remember that you said there is no requirement to source "sky is blue" statements when the tables are turned and that you will never argue in this same way about any point. I am, though, contesting the claim that she is a "skeptic" and that "skeptic" is even a title supportable by reliable sources. If someone claimed to be "omniscient" because she dubbed herself such, would that fly? Even if she belonged to a subculture that printed a newsletter or magazine that also claimed that she was "omniscient"? You see, therein lies the rub. Where is a reliable source that supports the notion of the existence of a professional title of "skeptic"? It becomes a self-referencing universe that is being privileged within Wikipedia. We could choose any subculture and argue similarly that there is a group of people who considers that "floobadoob" is a profession, and yet this would not make "floobadoob" a profession that would be supportable in Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A "sky is blue" statement is a statement of the blindingly obvious that can be verified, if the reader must, by clicking the link to the article. Hall's article makes it abundantly clear that she is a skeptic. Your aversion to some people self-identify as skeptics seems to me to be clouding your judgment. Skeptic denialism? Really? Bizarre. It doesn't have to be a professional title, just a title that is widely understood and descriptive. Which it is. And it's uncontroversial, apart from you, it seems, and you counter with such a silly example. There is no floobadob community. Nobody self-identifies as a floobadob. There are no books on the history of floobadobism. There is no magazine called The Floobadoob. There are no posdcasts devoted to floobadoobism. There are no floobadoob blogs. There are no cranks writing blogs claiming to be skeptical about floobadoob (or indeed floobadoob about it). No anti-vax cult has renamed itself to the vaccination floobadoob network. No denialist has branded themselves a climate floobadoob. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am struck with a sudden desire to design a "Floobadobber" icon to place proudly on my user page. But I basically agree with you - there is clearly a "thing" called the skeptic community, and Hall self-identifies with it. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• meh why argue about this? I added 2 refs supporting the description here. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's why: the characterisation of Hall is supported in the linked article on Hall, and QG added the template solely because he was losing an argument here. He blatantly misrepresents the intent of the source, which is to support what Hall said. I've been listening to Dave Gorman's Too Much Information, he rails againstt he tendency of tabloids to do exactly this, stating stuff that is common knowledge. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The above comment is imposing an assumption of motivations upon QG and therefore appears to be a personal attack. I thought we are supposed to refrain from commenting on the editors or their alleged motivations and focus on the content, right? SageRad (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The SciAm article does not appear to support the claim that Hall is a "skeptic" nor that "skeptic" is a title or profession in common usage. The Skepticality podcast appears to be what i'd call an in-group source, within the subculture in question, and therefore not a reliable source in a universal sense that we'd like to see to support the claim. It also doesn't seem to say that Hall is a "skeptic" even so, although it does verify that within a subculture her nickname is "SkepDoc". SageRad (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is more verification of the "doctor" and that her reputation/public role/notability is such that she gets cited in Scientific American. She is not a nobody - she is known for debunking bad "science". It says she "studies alternative medicine"; in other words, she calls out bad "science", which is what skeptics do (please do read what is at that link, which you do not seem to have done yet) and what she is doing with regard to Greger in the passage in our article here. As you note the SciAm source also references "skeptic" in her nickname. The other source provided fully supports "skeptic." Both attributions are fully verified by the two sources provided. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not note the SciAm source also references "skeptic" in her nickname -- actually the opposite: the Shermer piece uses the word "skeptic" exactly once, and not in reference to Hall, unless i've missed something. Shermer is a self-professed "Skeptic" and so his mention of Hall in SciAm is sort of within the subculture self-promotion realm. He's got that column and uses it to promote the subculture. That's my reckoning. Secondly, i have read the Scientific skepticism and i especially note the section on pseudoskepticism. I do not know why you say please do read what is at that link, which you do not seem to have done yet which seems to be an insinuation of ignorance on my part about the meaning of the term. I think you have plenty of evidence to know that i understand the meaning of the term. Could we talk with fewer barbs, please? I am tired of deconstructing undertones of scorn. I understand the full argument being made about Greger in reference the content guideline of WP:FRINGE and the like, but i disagree with the interpretations in light of that guideline and in conflict with the spirit of WP:BLPSPS as wel as the policies in WP:NPOV and WP:RS. SageRad (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Harriet Hall is a doctor, ut she is known for her skeptical activism. Get over it. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just keeping the facts correct about the sources and what they say. SageRad (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

SageRad you removed a comment I made along with my close when you reverted me in this dif. In any case I have copyedited this to simply replace "skeptic" with what it means, and added a third source, in this dif. Your objection has been addressed; the description is over-referenced now but that is what is happens in cases like this. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It was unintentional to remove your comment and i'm sorry, but it's also what you risk when you comment and then clse a section that is under active discussion. SageRad (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

When you say "keeping the facts correct", you are applying idiosyncratic definitions of the words "facts" and "correct". Would you like a picture of Harriet Hall wearing a T-shirt saying "I am a skeptic"? She's a skeptic. It's what she's known for. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, i'm saying that i am keeping straight whether the sources say what Jytdog claimed them to say, which they didn't actually say. That's important, right? Accurately representing sources important i think. SageRad (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an actual issue with the current content? If so, please clearly identify the problem and clearly identify what you want to replace it with. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To be clear: the current content is:

Physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims, has written ...

References

• Boston Globe ref says: "Dr. Harriet Hall, a retired Air Force flight surgeon who examines medical claims for Skeptic magazine"....
• Skepticality ref says: "Skeptic magazine's resident expert critic of alternative medicine,..." and if you listen to the audio, at 1:16 the interviewer says: "Now a retired airforce colonel, Dr. Hall writes about critical thinking and questionable medical practices, especially in alternative medicine. In addition to writing a regular column for the Skeptic Magazine, as the SkepDoc, she is the scientific editor for ... blah blah blah.
• Scientific American ref says: "I consulted Harriet Hall, a retired U.S. Air Force flight surgeon and family physician who studies alternative medicine...."

What exactly is the problem with support? Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Here let me beat this to death - refs we are not citing that support the same thing:

• ISIM: "Dr Hall writes about medicine, so-called “complementary and alternative medicine,” science, quackery, and critical thinking."
• from the Intro to the 9th )!) editition of "Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions" google books) (see here too) "Sine retiring, Hall has devoted her time to investigating questionable medical claims and writing and lecturing about pseudoscience, quackery, and "alternative medicine"..."
• Bill Brownstein for The Gazette (Montreal) November 2, 2011 "McGill conference has medical therapies down to a science" Pg. C1

"Too often, some of the most intriguing academic conferences take place behind closed doors, off limits to the public. But the two major events in the annual Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium, coordinated by the McGill Office for Science and Society, are open to the public - and for excellent reason.

It's in the public's best interest to differentiate between good and bad science. Or, more to the point, science that is based on proven fact. Too many false prophets lurk, and not just in the shadows, offering false hope to the desperate and/or naïve looking for a panacea for what ails them or family members. Last year's symposium, featuring a panel of international scientists and authors, tackled pseudo-science and was an eye-opener for skeptics and believers alike. This year's symposium, Alternative Medicine Under the Microscope, should be even more provocative, as four experts in the field will delve into one of the most contentious current subjects. Monday evening at Centre Mont Royal, the symposium will showcase speakers Harriet Hall, also known at the SkepDoc; Paul Offit, a leading advocate of childhood immunization; and Robert Park, author of Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Tuesday evening at McGill's Fieldhouse Auditorium in the Leacock Building, the sole speaker is Edzard Ernst, a former homeopathic practitioner and now a critic of alternative medicine. Moderator for both free events is McGill professor and Gazette columnist Joe Schwarcz, also the organizer of the symposium the last two years.

"The goal of this program is to promote science to the public and to promote critical thinking," Schwarcz says.

Really? Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not WP:V, it's WP:SYN. As I explained below:

The previously included refs did not mention Greger, but were being used to lend credence to Hall's criticism of Greger. I have no opinion on whether she's right (several people whose judgement I trust seem to believe she is), but the mandate not to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated the sources prohibits this kind of citing general profile info as a shortcut for actual RS evaluating the validity of her criticism.

The sources you've collected are excellent for her own article, but irrelevant here. They do not discuss what she has to say about Greger, so citing them in this context is misleading. Readers can get a sense of her reputation by following the wl to her own page. FourViolas (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Four Violas, the references are to support the attribution given to Hall. I agree that this is all ridiculous and doesn't help people understand Greger better, but this section is questioning the attribution given to Hall. So the issue of SYN is whether the sources support the content or if they are making an argument. The sources directly support the attibution, "who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims". There is no way that is SYN. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:FourViolas, you can start a RfC if you still disagree. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, you've shown very clearly that they support that clause. However, they don't support it in the direct context of her criticism of Greger, so in my opinion it's SYN to include this background at all. Imagine if we said "Harriet M. Hall, who has publicly disagreed with the U.S. Army on medical matters,..." QuackGuru, I don't think it would be appropriate to start an RfC over this while the one above is ongoing.FourViolas (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References

That makes no sense. You can bring that to any board you want, and that will be shot down in a heart beat. Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

FourViolas' example may be provocative for effect, not the best approach on an article that has had such a long ongoing dispute, but the underlying point still makes sense - one could add a vast range of information on Hall, with widely varying relevance. In order to avoid argument over the relevance of any given elaboration on Hall's background, her description here should stick as closely as possible to the lede of her article, with all other information covered there (on Hall's article) with appropriate refs, and not here (Greger's article).Dialectric (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, sorry if I raised any tempers. To be crystal clear, I'm not proposing it as an edit; I'm using it to illustrate why we have the WP:SYNTH policy. It's possible to combine true, well-sourced information from unrelated sources to lead the reader to accept a particular POV, but we should not do so. FourViolas (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• her qualifications are described and sourced because of previous objections along the lines of "who cares". Those of you who are new, please read the talk page above and the archives. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the fundamental problem is still that there are no reliable secondary sources available to give us guidance on how to frame her criticism; how much credence to give her; how to describe her in this context, etc.—in other words, problems derived from the fact that we are citing a SPS. Since this is the topic of the currently ongoing RfC, I won't argue this further while the RfC is ongoing. FourViolas (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this is an SPS. That is the subject of the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that Greger exaggerates health claims frequently and the fact that our article acknowledges this, is unbearable to some people. This page has been unreasonably disrupted for months. And those people who have been so fucking aggrieved "defending" Greger could not be bothered to even look at the whole article and tell Greger's whole story. This article was a miserable stub before I did this. Yet the talk page was filled with hysteria about one line. Myopic advocacy by people who are NOTHERE. Maddening. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I consider skeptic the sort of possibly controversial word that should never be used in a title, or in a infobox, or a one-sentence description, if there is any possible alternative. For one thing , it has a range of sometimes contradictory coded meanings which can only be distinguished in context: is someone a skeptic about alternative medicine, or about conventional medicine, or the existence of God, or the Jesus myth theory, or about the WTC or global warming or the flat earth theory? Now, some of these do tend to run in parallel, but it's unreasonable to expect the reader, especially a reader not familiar with US cultural politics, to decipher. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing issues

Due to the ongoing issues I have fully protected the page for 10 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Reddit recruiting

See here. I've added a recruiting tag to the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The recruitment policy bans recruitment of new users and meatpuppets, not requests for experienced WP Administrators to arbitrate articles--Dariusburst (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have good news for you: I am an experienced Wikipedia admin (had the mop for over a decade now). I am happy to arbitrate here, starting by pointing out to you our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Doc James is also a long-time admin. So, we're all good. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the number of edits JzG has made to this article, he is best described as an WP:INVOLVED admin. If you are interested in getting uninvolved editors to look over the issue, you should look over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also be interested in the WP:RFC process which can bring in outside voices when discussion breaks down.Dialectric (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. source of yet more offwiki blatheri Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am also 'involved' in this article given my edit history, but have decided to focus my limited wiki-time elsewhere. I stand by my succinct summary Jytdog linked, and can't see how it could be read as blather. In any case it is tangential to this discussion.Dialectric (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The last response you got there pretty much ended the discussion, didn't it. This section is about offwiki yammering about this article. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll get wrong, but somebody made a wonderful characterisation of one of my favourite editors in JD's links. Roxy the dog. bark 16:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The number is a bit over a dozen, and the article has been here for over six years. Most of my edits have been reverts of undiscussed POV edits, including by QuackGuru, who is absolutely not a fan of Greger and is diametrically opposed to others I have reverted. Also I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects at OTRS, so I know how WP:BLP works. But actually my comment was largely satirical since the involvement of more admins is not going to make this article any more pleasing to fans of Greger. Guy (Help!) 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It could help to have one whose contribution to the talk page would go beyond an assortment of words like "bullshit", "bollocks", "nonsense", "crank", "quackery" and "quack". --Rose (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence, the sources I have read also seem to think it would be an improvement if he also went beyond those things. And when he does, we'll reflect it here. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

An offering: a direct translation of current content, English to Spanish

Kia ora, and gidday!

A Spanish friend - a teacher of Spanish at a university - kindly translated the current English text of this page into Spanish for us. I'm a new user, so cannot upload it yet. If you're an established user, please feel free so to do. You have permission from both of us. Tena koe, and Gracias!

• * * * *

Michael Greger

Nacimiento 1972 (age 44–45) Educación Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Tufts University School of Medicine Website www.drgreger.org Medical career Profesión Medicina general Especialización Dieta y nutrición

Michael Herschel Greger es un científico americano, autor y ponente en temas de salud general, y en particular en dietas vegetarianas y los perjuicios del consumo de alimentos de origen animal. Es vegetariano y creador de NutritionFacts.org. Contenidos 1 Carrera 2 Publicaciones 3 Referencias 4 Enlaces Carrera Greger se graduó en Cornell University School of Agriculture, donde escribió sobre los peligros de la encefalopatía espongiforme bovina (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)en una página publicada en 1994.[1][2][3] En el mismo año trabajó en la enfermedad de las vacas locas en un Farm Sanctuary, cerca de Cornell, y se hizo vegetariano después de una visita de trabajo a un criadero en el Farm Sanctuary.[1] En 1998 testificó en calidad de experto en encefalopatía espongiforme bovina en el proceso judicial por difamación que enfrentó a los productores de carne y Oprah Winfrey por las declaraciones de esta última sobre el riesgo de los productos cárnicos en 1996.[1][4] Asistió la programa de doctorado en Tufts University School of Medicine, aunque finalmente, solo completó su licenciatura médica.[5] Se graduó en 1999 como médico general, especializado en nutrición.[1] En 2001 se hizo miembro de Organic Consumers Association para trabajar en la enfermedad de las vacas locas al mismo tiempo que los primeros casos empezaron a aparecer en EEUU y Canadá [1][6][7][8] en lo que él llamó "La plaga del siglo XXI."[9][10][11] En 2004 creó su página web y publicó un libro crítico de la popular Dieta Atkins y otras dietas bajas en carbohidratos.[1] En 2004, El Colegio americano de medicina y estilo de vida tenía su sede en Loma Linda,[12] y Greger era miembro fundador[1], uno de los primeros en formar parte de la asociación.[13] En 2005 formó parte de la división para el bienestar de animales en granja, en Humane Society , como director de la salud y bienestar de los animales en granjas.[1] En 2008 testificó ante el Congreso[14] a raíz de la publicación de un video grabado secretamente en Westland Meat Packing Company por Humane Society mostrando animales moribundos entrando en la cadena de alimentación, lo cual obligó a la USDA a retirar 143 millones de libras de ternera, parte de ellas destinadas al programa nacional de alimentación escolar.[15] En 2011, fundó la página NutritionFacts.org[16] financiada por la fundación Jesse & Julie Rasch.[17] En sus clases, videos y escritos sobre nutrición intenta persuadir a los consumidores de cambiar sus hábitos alimenticios de una dieta occidental a una dieta vegetariana—idealmente una dieta vegan—y argumenta que este tipo de dieta no sólo puede prevenir sino incluso revertir muchas enfermedades crónicas.[18][19]:10 Critica la actitud de otros doctores por no difundir entre sus pacientes dietas vegetarianas y evitar alimentos de origen animal.[19]:1–12 y es contrario a la actitud del gobierno americano por restar importancia a los consejos médicos sobre llevar una vida sana a través de la dieta y nutrición, con el objetivo de favorecer los intereses económicos de los productores —especialmente productores de comida rápida y productos animales.[20]

Harriet A. Hall, científica retirada, conocida por la aplicación de razonamiento crítico en las cuestiones de salud, [21][22][23] escribió que, aunque es sabido que es más sano comer una dieta de origen vegetal que una dieta animal, con frecuencia Greger sobrepondera los beneficios de la primera y los perjuicios de la segunda, (por ejemplo, en una ponencia argumento que una sola comida rica en alimentos animales puede perjudicar las arterias), y que en ocasiones no comenta sobre evidencias que contradicen sus declaraciones.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpw1234 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments on SBM source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS? Sammy1339 (talk 00:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Self-published expert sources such as the Science-Based Medicine are covered by WP:RS which states Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources). There have been two substantive objections to applying BLPSPS. One is that the blog is not self-published due to its editorial policy. However, this policy applies to outside submissions from the general public, not to the blog authors' posts, which are not subject to editorial oversight. The other is that Hall's criticism concerns claims made by Greger but not Greger himself. I believe this is transparently false. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The text has changed considerably. My "transparently false" refers to the longstanding text in this revision. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes This source does not seem to satisfy our sourcing requirements for BLP. Hall is a member of the editorial staff of Science-Based Medicine, and I don't see evidence that there was rigorous independent peer review of the post in question. If it had been covered by a high-quality source then it might be a notable commentary, but I don't see evidence of that, either. — soupvector (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• No First, Science-Based Medicine is not a "blog" as intended in WP:BLPSPS - it is nothing like say this , and says nothing like that, and the RfC question is skewed in describing it that way. Second, the content supported by the source is not about Greger, per se. It does not say "he is a quack" but rather discusses his arguments.

As noted in the section just above this, Greger's views on diet are not discussed in mainstream scientific sources - mainstream nutrition doesn't appear to have much time for some one who sells books with exaggerated titles like "How Not to Die". (And it is interesting that every one of the comments he has made on pubmed abstracts was removed by site moderators....)

Science Based Medicine is one of the few sources we can turn to, to get out-of-bubble, independent, scientific discussion of people who make pseudoscientific claims, like Greger does at times. In the short-lived BLPN thread that I had opened just prior to this being launched and withdrew afterwards, some of the feedback we were getting was that the article needs more discussion of the claims that Greger actually makes, and that was reasonable and helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note - I updated the article a lot tonight. He has quite a history. Jytdog (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• No WP:BLPSPS is about comments on the person. I think the topic is this edit which shows attributed opinions of Harriet A. Hall on the content of a video made the person—the text concerns what is know about the subject's work. Per WP:PARITY if someone makes health claims that are not part of evidence-based knowledge, it is satisfactory to show suitable opinion on the claims. Greger has not performed extensive research to test his ideas, and it would not be reasonable to require an opposing opinion to be based on peer-reviewed research. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia has a policy for biographical subject matter (WP:BLP) and a policy that covers fringe views (WP:PSCI within WP:NPOV). The latter says we should include an "explanation of how scientists have reacted" to the fringe view. This we do in the Greger article, and so are in line with the relevant policy. Obviously we wouldn't use the same source for biographical details about Greger. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. As far as I can see SBM is being used to comment on the statements, not biographical details about the person. (A simple test, if you removed Greger's pseudoscientific claims from the article, there would be no reason to have SBM here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• no per reasons given by the last four editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• No agree with others that is not a violation of WP:BLPSPS; her opinion is attributed and she appears to be qualified to express that opinion. But is this particular opinion that she expressed in relation to Greger notable or the majority viewpoint, in that, have other reliable sources covered it as a significat viewpoint. Is it a widespread belief/opinion shared by others that - Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products - if it is, I would expect to see confirmation in other reliable sources that it is a prevalent point of view. If it isn't, then we need to be careful that we don't give her opinion undue weight.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

When Sammy started this RfC, the article was in a much worse state (and has been for a very long time). It had this in the lead: "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits.". There was no attribution and it clearly had undue weight for the reasons you mentioned, and it's exactly the view I have expressed here for a while. As of right now, as the result of Jytdog's recent edits, it's not in the lead and it's attributed to Hall, so it's better. --Rose (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• No I added my thoughts above when this all started a few days ago. VViking_TalkEdits 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Clearly not. We have been round this loop a dozen times, this is now well into WP:IDHT territory. Hall is a noted authority on bogus medical claims, Science Based Medicine is a respected site with an editorial board, and the claims of quacks like Greger are not published in the peer-reviewed literature so we can't be expected to demand all rebuttals are drawn from the peer-reviewed scientific press. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a clear BLP violation. See WP:Localconsensus, and pinging Bishonen, as Sammy seems to have been topic-banned because of this. WP:BLPSPS does not allow any self-published sources other than by the subject, and even then with great caution if there's anything contentious (and not at all if it involves third parties).

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

Science-Based Medicine is a group blog. Its authors are self-published. There is no editorial oversight, no staff, no one who can say no to the bloggers. If they want to publish at 3 am in their pyjamas live to the web, they can do so, just like us. If the source is being used to balance something contentious, the solution is to remove the contentious thing, not to add sources that violate the policy. This RfC should probably be taking place on the BLP noticeboard. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (Slim Virgin put a note on BLP, which is how I came here - that's just FYI, the note is perfectly fine) Having looked at the website [2], the Science Based Medicine article and the Harriet A. Hall article, I am having a hard time being convinced of the factual basis for almost everything Slim Virgin wrote, which is really unusual, so I leave this comment, if Slim wants to bring more information (eg. links) to actually convince. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well quite. The main thing as has been pointed out is that Hall is being used for parity for Gregor's claims about diet. Not for biographical information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Only in death, no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for. It's an important line in the sand, because it protects BLP subjects from people writing whatever they want on their blog and adding it to Wikipedia.

Alanscottwalker, if you mean how do I know they're self-published, you can see it on their website. There's no professional editorial staff, just the bloggers. They call themselves "staff", but it's the same list of doctors or retired doctors, and the author of the blog post in question, Harriet Hall, is one of them.

If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicine, the editors here would never allow it, and that it's an SPS would be a strong part of their argument. It's important to examine the type of source independently of whether anyone agrees with its contents, because if this is allowed, other sources of its type will be allowed too. If there are poorly sourced health claims in the article, they should be removed rather than adding an SPS to "balance" them. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• That is not true and you lack understanding of the BLP policy if you think it is. I suggest you read the BLP again and take note of 'about a living person' under BLPSPS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for. I believe BLP indicates otherwise.

If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicine It would fail WP:FRINGE and ARBPS spectacularly.

The issue is whether or not the material in the article is specifically about the person (which I don't believe anyone would dispute falls under BLP primarily), or about the claims made by the person (which many editors say falls under FRINGE primarily.) --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, I helped to write the BLP policy, and I understand it very well. WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person ..." That includes about a living person's claims or anything else about a living person, whether in a BLP or elsewhere. This is a long-standing principle of a core content policy. It overrides any local consensus. The blogger is making health claims herself that don't sound right. You don't fix bad text by using non-RS. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"That includes about a living person's claims" We go by what the policy actually says, not what you wish it would say. You are also wildly out of touch with how fringe/psudoscience and other junk science claims are countered. By your reasoning every time someone makes unsubstantiated claims or misrepresents science, it would be impossible to provide parity because peer reviewed reliable sources refuting junk science are often not available due to people having better things to do than waste time on obviously bogus claims. You may want to take a look at more biographies with dubious claims (eg Vani Hari and Stephanie Seneff) as experts like those at SBM are routinely required. However I should not need to explain this to you, because you have been aware of the use of SBM as a reliable source in biographies since at least the beginning of the year, as well as the general consensus that yes, it is appropriate when used correctly to counter fringe claims. Likewise Sammy who has attempted to remove SBM from a number of articles for equally as long, on a number of noticeboards including - fringe, BLPN, and RSN and has been rebuffed. So at this point the argument is getting tired. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"The blogger is making health claims herself that don't sound right." (dif) ..... undercuts the claim to objectively interpret policy here. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We've more than BLP to consider. Ignoring everything but BLP appears to be the problem here. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• $0.02 I'm glad to see that some context has been added, yet it still seems out of place to me. For the source itself, while I personally agree with much of what Hall says, the simple fact that it's written in persuasive style rather than expository makes me very uncomfortable. Then the lack of oversight is just as troubling, because this isn't the type of thing you see in peer-reviews. I know nothing about Hall and have no intention of digging deeper, but the style is something I'd expect from perhaps Wendy Williams rather than a professional evaluation of a video.

The next thing that bothers me is the question that, while it may be necessary to understand someone's belief in order to understand them, is it really necessary to refute those belief in a biography? (in an analogy, should an article on say ... the Pope include the opinions of notable people who think Catholicism is a bunch of hooey (even if they have the science to back it up) or that Hinduism is much better? Does an article on Alistair Crowley need to have criticism of his belief, letting the reader know that Satanism in bad in Christianity.) If the idea is to protect the reader from the subject's beliefs, then a biography seems like the wrong place to do that. This information would better be served in an article about the video.Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a man who makes his living peddling false and misleading health claims. We don't do our readers much of a service if we don't identify the problems with the nonsense he peddles. Guy (Help!) 05:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree if the claims were the subject of the article, or possibly if the information was placed in a section about the video. For the former, Hall's article would probably pass muster, but for the latter I just don't think it makes the cut. Barring that, at best it seems like an attempt to right great wrongs. At worst, it's more likely to cause a Streisand effect. Zaereth (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The claims constitute his public persona and the source of his notability. Without his business built on borderline fraudulent health claims, there owuld be no article. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes This source does not satisfy our sourcing requirements for BLP. It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here. SageRad (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here. You sure about that? If so, do clarify because it sounds like it could be a ArbCom violation going on here. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Especially since SageRad is in dispute with the managing editor of Science Based Medicine and has inappropriately edited his article. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Struck the text in question ("It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here"). However, the circumstantial evidence about this is pretty clear to me and the source is what the source is. Request Guy to strike his accusation about me being "in dispute" with or having anything to do with SBM except that i've been observing its content and its place in the world of sources. That is personal attack / poisoning the well and untrue and is not focusing on the content but rather on commenter. I dislike that source for solid reasons, because of the content of the source itself. It's an ideologically loaded source with an agenda. SageRad (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. The managing editor of SBM is David Gorski ([3]). You have a right to express an opinion on this source, but in the interests of openness you should declare that you have a dog in the fight. It would actually make your position stronger, believe it or not. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a "dog in the fight" in any sense of any personal conflict. The source is, in my estimation, clearly an agenda-laden bloggy site, in the same way that Infowars.com would not be an acceptable source for most content. SageRad (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So it was not you who made this edit where you admit you were banned by the managing editor of SBM David Gorski? I suppose technically you are right, you cannot be 'in dispute' with someone who found you so objectionable they had to ban you from their website. If by 'has an agenda' you mean 'has an agenda that is focused on debunking duff science' you would also be technically correct. Then there is this of course. Frankly you should not be touching anything related to SBM with a ten foot pole given your lack of credibility in the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, you are your own worst enemy. As OID points out right above, yes, you absolutely do have a stake here. Just be open about it and let others weigh your comments on that basis. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• $0.02 Science Based Medicine is a blog but is it reliable? None of the above comments have made it clear to me whether the source is reliable or not reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• No I don't think the question of "Is it a blog or reliable or whatever?" is really relevant here. The point is, the piece is clearly by Hall, it is under her byline. The quotes used are her opinions of some of Greger's work - whatever else the blog may be, it is a source for what Hall thinks about Greger's work. Since Hall is herself notable, I think her opinion of Greger's work is worth including - that's why I put it in the article. Note that I did not put in quotes about some of Greger's other work which is, IMHO, much sketchier - his alarmist books about bird flu and mad cow disease, for instance - because I couldn't find any good quotes about them, by people with some standing. Hall has that standing, this is indisputably her opinion of his work, and I don't see why it should not be included. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

so you did, back in 2014. You also cited that mcgill blog that we have forgone. Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that the wrong approach? Instead of deciding what should be in the article and looking for sources, we should look for sources and decide what should be in the article. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no. A problem with fringe/pseudoscience BLP's is that quite often their promoters want their fringe/PS ideas/views included in detail and the rules on primary sourcing allow this. As a result this means you have to look for sources to cover WP:PARITY. When in an ideal world we would start from the position of 'Lets look at what reliable sources say about this (fringe/PS) stuff - oh wait, nothing because its rubbish, then we shouldnt cover it'. Which has so far failed to be enshrined as a policy. With *notable* fringe/PS areas, there are plenty of easily accessible sources to counter, with non-notable ideas not so great. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are good policy reasons not to use primary sources to summarize someone's views, but to source it to secondary sources explaining them. There is no reason for the article to contain information not available in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing stopping readers from following external links if they want to read what Greger has to say. TFD (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey if I could get consensus to leave out every half-baked idea that wasnt covered by secondary sources it would be a start. The next problem is that often these people get coverage in secondary sources for their crackpot ideas, but there is little/no rebuttal (in the same sources) because serious scientists are too busy doing serious science to take the time to address them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• No The article is published by Skeptic, not the author. The magazine chose this writer because of their confidence in her competence. However, that does not necessarily mean the source is reliable, useful to the article or has been used properly. TFD (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

*No Summoned by bot. At first blush this appeared to be a self-published blog, and I hastily said so (comment reverted). However, a bit of further examination indicates that this published commentary falls within the exception stated in the policy. Note that I am just addressing the BLP issue, not any other that may be relevant (such as weight, WP:V, etc.) Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Changing to Yes. Sorry to be such a flip-flopper, but I am basing my changed opinion on this article cited below. Since it calls into serious question the bona fides of the website in question, I think that we need to err on the side of discretion, as this is a BLP, and exclude the article in question. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  it calls into serious question the bona fides of the website in question Could you explain, as I seem to be missing how WaPo article you link address their reliability? --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  On the contrary, that article concerns the legal action with Edward Tobinick, which rather tends to confirm the worth of SBM! Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes This does not seem to me to be a matter to settle by consensus, but by rule. Even if Hall is a competent and wholesome voice in such matters, it is not true that, as someone said, "if a notable or reliable person makes a comment on a blog then that comment is reliable to use". Casual statements, or even seriously stated evaluations based on slips of memory or casual wording or misconceptions in matters in which there is room for disagreement can happen both to popular authors and top-ranking authorities, especially in informal media such as public interviews or blogs. And all the points made by our NO voters, about everyone else's bad faith in hinting at Greger's quack status or otherwise are beside the point. This is about the permissibility of the citation, not about anyone's evaluation of the subject, or indeed the subject's good or bad faith or value. If the point in the text stands or falls by that one citation, then either find a different citation or ditch the point -- it would thereby be unencyclopaedic by definition. Hall may be a good source, but certainly is not an authority categorical enough to settle a point in violation of our principles, or good sense for that matter. JonRichfield (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  Casual statements, or even seriously stated evaluations based on slips of memory or casual wording or misconceptions in matters in which there is room for disagreement can happen But that's not the case with this specific reference. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the citation encyclopaedic. And the illustrative examples I instanced in passing were just that: examples. JonRichfield (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. SBM article is fine to cite in this context. WP:BLP is about biographical information. SBM piece is not about Greger's personhood or information about his person, it's about his claims. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - called by bot - looking at the paragraph citing Hall, it is a milktoast and quite reasonable criticism that does nothing to defame Greger. Hall is an expert in her own right. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per Sammy1339, SlimVirgin, and JonRichfield. Sources failing BLPSPS should not be used for information about living persons; this is a clear line for a good reason, and should not be disregarded based on Wikipedia editors' evaluation of who is or isn't a quack. We have a responsibility to ensure that such information meets reliability standards, including at a minimum third-party editorial review, which this blog does not demonstrably meet. FourViolas (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Greger is a public figure with regard to diets - he gives significant effort to communicating his thoughts about diet and health to the public. What he advocates is often exaggerated and our article needs to discuss that and SBM is a great source for that. The intention of BLPSPS is to prevent someone citing (for example) a blog that says he beats his wife to support content about that in WP. This is nothing like that. This has to do with the ideas he is contributing to the public sphere about health. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• No I pretty much agree with SemanticMantis above. A claim that "he's a fraud" or "he's a kook" would be a problem in a BLP with this level of sourcing. Criticisms of his work, if done with a reasonable degree of respect and without taking over the article, are certainly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. This is not about the person, it is about the validity of a view he has published. So BLP considerations should not apply. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

And even if BLP did apply, nothing in that policy mandates omitting valid data just because it might hurt someone in the feels. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - it is an article posted to a website by a contributor (not the Editor) of the website. It is definitely not self-published. The argument seems to be that the publishing of articles at this website is not reviewed by the editors or staff; that the claims of it having staff and editors are basically fraudulent. If that is the claim that is being made this should be more of a WP:RS issue. I feel the way the way this RfC is presented could leave one with the impression that someone is shopping for the best WP policy with which to challenge the material. If the source says it has staff and editorial review, then until someone provides reason to disbelieve, it can't just be labeled as self-published in the interest of removing the content under WP:BLPSPS.
• Yes - Per BLPSPS Third Sentence "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." emphasis on the writers being professionals. The editors, and contributors of this site are not professional writers. As a follow up, this is an article about the person, material that isn't discussing the person is a coatrack, and fails BLP on BLPSTYLE. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

actually, they are. Those writers are living people, and per WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages, you need to bring a source for the claim that they are not. (you are going to have a hard time doing that, as this is what they do) Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• No The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies. Greger's video in fact links to nutritionfacts.org, where each claim is backed up by a large number of peer-reviewed, independent sources. Some claims have over 20 references, yet Hall presents them as being based on one or two weak leads. The total references behind his summary video numbers in the thousands if you combine each claim's content, and they are all made clearly available in nutritionfacts.org's "Sources Cited" tab. Hall's misrepresentation of nutritional science is manipulative and unethical at best, and certainly inappropriate to appear in Greger's living biography.

Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13} yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).

[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.

[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.

[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.

[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.

[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.

[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17

[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.

[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.

[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.

[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.

[11]Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.

[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.

[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757--Dariusburst (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim that arteries are "crippled" by "one bad meal" is bullshit, plain and simple. The word crippled has no objective meaning, for a start. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please keep your responses here civil. "Crippled" in the context that Greger employed it obviously means "impairs endothelial function". He was addressing a broad audience, and quibbling over semantics here is really pointless. See my references above if you need to be convinced that a clinician can feed subjects a meal rich in animal fats and then measure an impaired endothelial response. As Zhao et. al discuss, one bad meal can induce angina and a heart attack in patients with coronary artery disease. So, "crippled" isn't the worst way to describe the effect.--Dariusburst (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"Crippled" might be considered "manipulative and unethical" too, and I think that is one of Hall's points. Given the extent of time that the research above has been available, I'm wondering where the surveys and reviews might be. Wasn't that one of Hall's points, that the degree of certainty is poorly founded? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hall mischaracterizes Greger (and plant-based nutrition more broadly) as relying upon one or two weak sources. However, in this case, Greger included multitudes of peer-reviewed sources for each. Hall is mischaracterizing Greger; his sources are clearly visible alongside each video in the "Sources Cited" tab. I posted sources above (and have added more, as requested) specific to the question of how a single meal can inhibit (AKA cripple) endothelial (AKA artery) function in human subjects. If you seek reviews linking cholesterol-rich diets to atherosclerosis, there are many. Animal products, I will remind you, are the only source of dietary cholesterol.--Dariusburst (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.

A presumption that Greger is a quack underlies this whole conversation, and the extreme derision and dismissive attitude of most of the editors involved has rendered discussion impossible. This view of Greger is flatly contradicted by another skeptic blog, which explicitly says of his advocacy work "the science was sound."[4] Now, he is an activist, openly so, and is opinionated. This blog post notes this, and also his avoidance of reporting on studies which say nice things about animal-based food. ("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.") I think this is a fair criticism, and a reason to regard his work skeptically, but it's not the same as him being a crank TV doctor. In fact he is a highly cited researcher and is better credentialed in his subject area than Hall.

Hall is not wrong about the science, but it seems that her post misrepresents Greger by assuming that everything he says is part of an argument that veganism is the optimal diet. In fact, as far as I can tell, Greger never claims that the science supports the idea that veganism is healthier than low-meat diets, which it doesn't. One editor tried to change "veganism" to "a plant based diet" in this article, which was accurate to what Greger actually says, though not to the Hall source.

The Hall post is also polemical, framing Greger's work in the context of the zealotry of vegan activists he has nothing to do with. It cites a thoroughly debunked article by Steven Davis, half of whose citations are devoted to criticizing it and correcting its blatant factual errors. To me, this adds some irony.

None of this should really be necessary to mention, as BLPSPS is straightforward and unequivocal, and should end this dispute. But it explains why invoking BLPSPS here is not just a technicality. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The above comments are not a policy-based discussion of the issue and have no bearing on the question; they also express a strange and continued misunderstanding of what Hall actually writes. They also describe this blog as a "skeptic blog" which is a misrepresentation. And mindlessly citing google citations is garbage; for all you know 90% of those "citations" are dismissive of him. The pile of misunderstandings and misrepresentations like this, is one of the things that has plagued this discussion. But more than anything, the complete misunderstanding of what Hall actually wrote - the by-now purely willful misunderstanding - has been the key problem. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. These discussions smack of the problems that led to WP:ARBPS and the related decisions, policies/guidelines, etc. Sammy1339 (talk · contribs) appears to have taken break from this [5] - a very wise choice of action. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an awful catch-22. When I just bring up the policy issue, people accuse me of promoting Greger, despite the fact that I have repeatedly expressed skepticism of him. When I try to make my view of Greger clear, people accuse me of going off topic. It is very difficult to deal with the constant profanity and derision from multiple editors who think anyone who wants to enforce the BLP policy is a supporter of the person. I am very tired of it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you feel this way. When making accusations about others like this, please provide diffs or similar evidence. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear by now that the consensus is that the BLP issue you claim are at stake, are not real. And from the discussions above it seems you will perform the most elaborate contortions to deflect the reality that some of the diet/health views at issue here are decidedly dodgy. In my view your WP:STICK would have been better dropped long ago. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody else now find it impossible to AGF in Sammys case. Roxy the dog™ bark 09:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Na, I have seen quite otherwise sane editors make some really silly BLP arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The argument is that Harriet A. Hall is notable or reliable. If any notable or reliable person makes a comment on a blog then that comment is reliable to use in Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

she is WP:NOTABLE - Harriet A. Hall; her notability (here in WP) rests on reputation as a debunker of bad science. Does that answer you? Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Any WP:NOTABLE person on a topic can make a comment anywhere online such as a blog and that comment is reliable. I think that is the argument for inclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In which case you have entirely missed the point. Hall is a notable, published commentator on fraudulent medical claims. SBM is a source that is widely cited and has a reputation for fact-checking. The Skeptic magazine also. A notable person with a reputation in the field commenting in a venue with editorial oversight, is not at all the scenario that you portray. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)\

I left a note in my edit summary at Harriet A. Hall. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The sciencebasedmedicine.org blog has a reputation for fact-checking? According to who? Many blogs have editorial oversight? That does not mean they are reliable. A notable person with a reputation in the field does not mean the website is reliable. One could argue that it appears editors on both sides of the debate are unable to formulate a well reasoned argument for inclusion or exclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Most folks above do not see this as a "blog" as intended in BLPSPS and most do not see it as a making claims about Greger per se; SBM does have a reputation for being a reliable source for PSCI/quackery. I noticed you haven't !voted yet QG; it would be a great if you did. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Since editors are mainly asserting their view and not are not really formulating a sound argument I am most likely going to avoid voting. Stating "SBM does have a reputation for being a reliable source for PSCI/quackery." is not providing evidence the site is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

While nothing should be included unless it comes from a reliable source (and certainly Skeptic is reliable at least for the opinions of its contributors), whether it should be included depends on weight. That requires determining the not only the degree of acceptance any opinion we add has, but showing that it is often mentioned when discussing the subject. If readers want to know whether a vegan diet has health benefits, they can read about it in the vegan diet article. It does not have to be added to every article about its proponents. Note that Hall was commenting on a video by Greger not his views overall, and we should not imply she was. And if we are going to add commentary on the video we should at least say a little about it before launching into a tirade. TFD (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought we are discussing this source from a blog. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the material "about a living person"?

This point of the dispute keeps being overlooked. Is it about the person, or only about the claims? I hope by raising it to this level of visibility we can get editors to respond. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The criticism at issue is of health claims made in one of Greger's videos. Whether this is "about" Greger the person is the nub of the OP's complaint here. In my view notions and statements made apparently as part of scientific (or even non-scientific) discourse do not inherit the full protection accorded to any "living person" that may have made them, and WP:BLP does not say it does. WP:NPOV on the other hand is quite clear that dodgy scientific statements must be presented as such. If WP:BLP was amended to specify that its scope was everything related to a person (how it would describe that I don't know) then we'd need to revisit the question. However, any such amendment would bring WP:BLP into opposition with WP:NPOV so I don't think we'd do that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this distinction makes the RfC a non-issue in my opinion. Maybe people are mixed up because our WP article in question is about Greger as a person, and includes bits about his claims. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disputes arising from absence of secondary sources

The sections below provide evidence (ad nauseum) that there is controversy arising from the fact that no reliable secondary sources have commented on Hall's criticism of Greger. There is disagreement over whether to label Hall a "(retired) physician" and/or "skeptic", whether to cite articles unrelated to Greger which give background on her qualifications and reputation, which background information (if any) to include, and so on. These debates are, needless to say, very difficult to resolve without sources, and as a result they are straining AGF.

To me, this is further evidence that the material should not be included. If WP:PARITY should seem to demand it to counter Greger's claims, then those should be removed as well. FourViolas (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that SBM is not a reliable source. Most alt med advocates do not like SBM; that is not WP's problem. Actually read PARITY - it was written exactly because of this. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that SBM is a primary source, and that there is dispute among many editors over how to frame Hall's criticism. It is uncontroversial that secondary sources are the best way to determine the appropriate context and weight for controversial information. FourViolas (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. You can !vote above. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC is expired

Does anybody think we need a formal close here? Please review the !votes before you reply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Unarchived for WP:ANRFC. I think a formal close will be useful because as an editor noted at the beginning of the RfC: "Turns out this dispute goes back a few years". Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Its had no response for over a month... This is pointless bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Literally any involved member of the discussion could close it given the clear consensus there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, you seriously just reopened a stale RFC in order to request closure *which you are perfectly capable of doing yourself as you have not participated in the discussion above*? Why are you wasting people's time? Either close the RFC or stop playing silly buggers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a vote. We should not be reviewing or counting the votes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move towards closure

Given that this RFC is well over 4 months old at this point, I'll attempt to move it towards (non-admin) closure... or at least to move it into a state where it can be more easily closed by someone else.

• @Alanscottwalker, Alexbrn, BloodyRose, Brianyoumans, Coretheapple, Cunard, Dariusburst, Darouet, FourViolas, Hobit, Isaidnoway, Johnuniq, JonRichfield, Jytdog, JzG, Kyohyi, Maproom, Only in death, Ozzie10aaaa, QuackGuru, Ronz, SlimVirgin, SemanticMantis, Soupvector, The Four Deuces, Viewmont Viking, and Zaereth: Pinging participants. Two other participants, the RFC creator User:Sammy1339 andSageRad, are unable to participate further due to Arbitration Enforcement restrictions. Although there was canvassing, it does not appear to have had a significant effect on this RFC.
• Questions which have been raised/discussed by participants, and which need to be assessed in order to close the RFC are:

1. Where there is not a separate article for someone's work within wikipedia, and that work is covered in that person's biographical article, can critical response - positive or negative - to that author's work be included in the article on that person (living or not), and should it be?
2. Should third-party critical response - positive or negative - to someone's work be considered a third-party source about that person (living or not)?
3. Does SBM have editorial control over authors' posts?
4. Should Hall's post on SBM be considered self-published?
5. Should Hall be considered an established expert with respect to Greger?
6. Should Hall's post be considered a reliable source?
7. Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate Wikipedia:BLPSPS?

• Questions outside the scope of this RFC include:

1. If Hall's post can be used, should it be? (including questions of weight and phrasing)
2. Should Greger's views be considered fringe?

I'll leave this for at least 36 hours for comment on this approach (flagged at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests_for closure), and to see if anyone else feels like closing this. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not appropriate. The RFC has been held, and people have responded. You are essentially re-doing the RfC on some bizarre basis. Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If this really must be closed, an experienced admin should do it. They should be quite capable of working it out without guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn. That said, I do not agree that the questions use some bizarre basis. They are there to evaluate lines of arguments made in the RFC, rather than trying to cover everything in one step. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Samples
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Q1 and Q2: (some arguments made would apply to all BIOs) "while it may be necessary to understand someone's belief in order to understand them, is it really necessary to refute those belief in a biography?" "this is an article about the person, material that isn't discussing the person is a coatrack, and fails BLP on BLPSTYLE" "A problem with fringe/pseudoscience BLP's is that quite often their promoters want their fringe/PS ideas/views included in detail and the rules on primary sourcing allow this. As a result this means you have to look for sources to cover WP:PARITY" "If WP:PARITY should seem to demand it to counter Greger's claims, then those should be removed as well."... "no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for" "This is not about the person, it is about the validity of a view he has published. So BLP considerations should not apply" ... Q3 and Q4: "Science Based Medicine is a respected site with an editorial board" "Science-Based Medicine is a group blog. Its authors are self-published. There is no editorial oversight" "this policy applies to outside submissions from the general public, not to the blog authors' posts, which are not subject to editorial oversight" "The article is published by Skeptic, not the author" ... Q5 and Q6: "Hall is a noted authority on bogus medical claims" "This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist)" "The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies" "Hall was commenting on a video by Greger not his views overall, and we should not imply she was" ...

I appreciate your effort to close. There is ~some~ tension between the PSCI policy and BLP policy and this gets exacerbated in the context of advocacy but in my view the question asked is clear enough and so is the outcome.I'll say no more as I already !voted Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I had actually forgotten my original contribution by now, and it took me some rereading to follow what the whole argument had been about. Originally my opinion was YES, and in spite of all the about it and abouting, no substantial reason has been provided why it should be anything but YES; as a matter of good WP practice and of formal WP criteria it still seems to me clear why it was YES, so I now am saying YES for the original reasons plus everything that has followed. What a waste of time and spittle. JonRichfield (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• The issue here is very simple. "Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS? " Yes, it does; it is self-published. That has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with her or the subject. It has to do only with the source type. That part of the BLP policy is an extremely important line in the sand. We open it at our peril, so please think about that wider policy issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We're in danger of re-running the RfC here, but it's not so very simple as all that. The line in the sand as I see it is NPOV, and a few people wanting to argue that a person's views inherit the full protection BLP accords to that person. Anyway, the closer will find the answers in the responses to the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is very simple. Surprisingly frank advocacy by vegan advocates and alt med POV pushers who regularly undermine mainstream medical editing in WP. Skewing of WP content by advocates is an ever present challenge, and PSCI is a key content policy. Harriet A. Hall is not just some loon writing on a blog and Science-Based Medicine is not some random blog; random blogs are what BLPSPS is about. This is not that. Not by a mile. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alex, there are other ways of achieving NPOV.

The paragraph about Hall decribes her as "known for applying critical thinking to health claims", as if that makes a difference. WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."

In other articles, an SPS may be used if the author is an expert in the field, but not in BLPs, and the distinction some have tried to draw between being about a person and being about what they say is a fake one. The argument would be the same no matter what this SPS was saying, including if it were very positive. (If it were positive, all the editors supporting Hall would agree that it should be removed.)

If you want to change BLPSPS, please go to the policy page and argue for a change, or for exceptions in some areas. But otherwise please abide by the policy even when it produces a result you don't like. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

As the close is on hold, I'd like to respond to a point Jytdog made, because it's an important point to address.

He wrote: "random blogs are what BLPSPS is about". No. I helped to write WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and WP:BLPSPS, and I can say for certain that that's not correct.

The point of SPS was to allow expert self-publishers to be used as sources, but only if they're recognized as experts in the field in question—not in a field deemed related by editors who want to use the source—and if they are published experts in that field.

The point of BLPSPS was solely to make sure the BLP subject could be used (a) for details that usually come from the subject, e.g. date of birth and cv; and (b) for rebuttal, in case the article made allegations that needed to be addressed. No other form of self-publication is permitted in BLPs, by design, because we need a professional editorial process to screen comments about living persons before they are repeated by Wikipedia, for legal and other reasons.

BLPSPS is a well-established and thoroughly accepted part of a core content policy, and it ought not to be ignored for the sake of convenience in one article. If you feel too much is made in this article of Greger's claims, then reduce that material, rather than trying to counter it with a self-published source. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is used on more than one article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The scope of BLP is "information about living persons" - it does not extend to the pronouncements they make. NPOV gives us our policy on what to do with such pronouncements when they are dodgy. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on BLP issues since before BLP existed, and I helped to write the policy. This isn't scope creep. No self-published sources are allowed on BLP pages, whether discussing what the person says, or wears, or his hair colour, or the colour of his car. No SPS on the page, unless written by the subject (and then with caution, and only if not discussing third parties, not violating UNDUE, etc). SarahSV ^(talk) 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You may well have helped write it, but your argument is adrift of what it actually says. "No self-published sources are allowed on BLP pages" <- not so: the scope of BLP is "Material about living persons [on] any Wikipedia page", and BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person". The scope is not "BLP pages" as obviously on a BLP page there will be ancillary non-biographical content which is not governed by BLP (as with Greger's views). A number of editors made this point in the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Clearly what a person says is about that person. You can't argue that a source isn't about a living person, because it's only about something that a living person says, writes about, makes his living by, stakes his reputation on. That would be a terrible argument.

Look, please open an RfC about this on WT:BLP, because this isn't the only page or the only source affected. Several of us can get together to decide the question so that there are no arguments about whether it was a well-formed RfC.

If you allow Harriet Hall and her group, then you allow Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and their group. This back-and-forth between self-publishers is precisely what BLP is meant to avoid, but if the community wants it, let's do it via the front door. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Clearly what a person says is about that person" <- no, and especially not in the realm of science. I think BLP is fine and does not need changing. We need however to resist ingenious arguments and misrepresentations of it to extend its scope. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says (bold added): "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person".

The article says: "Retired physician Harriet A. Hall [a self-published source] ... has written that ... Greger often overstates ..."

That is an unambiguous policy violation. What Greger states, overstates, understates, believes, wears, studies, is about Greger, a living person. To argue otherwise is sophistry. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Leaving aside the question of whether SBM is really self-published, the scientific statements that Greger makes are not "about him" any more than a mathematician's theorems would be "about" them. Such statements enter in the disembodied world of scientific discourse. The article could however be worded better (I think it was in the past) to focus on the views themselves, rather than Greger's act of stating those views. Alexbrn (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We used to have this a lot before the BLP policy, in all the major areas of political dispute, about nationalism and whatever else. Experts from each side would create websites that editors used as sources. The websites would attack the other experts' views, and Wikipedia articles became lists of opinions that experts couldn't get published elsewhere. BLPSPS put a stop to it. The principle now is, if you want Wikipedia to repeat your views about another living person—including your views about that person's views—have them published by a reliable publisher. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally sources need to be a lot stronger of course (which is why this problem is controlled, not because of BLP I think). However in the specific case of fringe views, such as those espoused by Greger, WP:PARITY permits a wider variety of sourcing. It is a crucial mechanism for maintaining neutrality when fringe views are in play. Alexbrn (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:PARITY is a guideline. It doesn't override BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, but that isn't what is happening here. WP:PARITY applies to fringe views, such as some of those of Greger, and so is useful for permitting the use of sources to contextualize such views within a rational world-view. My point was to counter your argument that we are at risk of opening the floodgates to SPSs: the circumstances in which sourcing standards are lowered are circumscribed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Three replies. First -- SBM is not your standard blog and there is nothing like it for scientific commentary on a wide range FRINGEY stuff. This is nothing like, say "Scibabe", a skeptic-y blog, which in this post on David Wolfe starts out: "David Wolfe is an asshole". SBM isn't bloggy that way. And your vegan advocacy website is nothing like it - that blog is just plain old vegan advocacy. (stuff like this is just silly and I am kind of surprised that you would put your credibility on the line comparing SBM to a site that has content like that. ) Second, and to that point. You have a history of vegan advocacy here in WP and it just makes one go hm....you even took that to the point of making that posting at WT:BLP which raised eyebrows in the !votes. I am not sure you are even aware of what you are doing, citing your policy writing background in this particular instance. Third, all that said, SBM is used in other BLP articles I believe, and it would be useful to refine both WP:BLPSPS (most importantly, as it is policy) as well as WP:BLPFRINGE. So sure, let's do that. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, do not make any more ad hominem points. Focus on the arguments. This has to do with advocacy in favour of the BLP policy, which will be weakened if this is not challenged, because it will allow others to use similar self-published material in other BLPs. I have no interest whatsoever in Greger, and in fact don't agree with him, but it wouldn't matter if I did; the argument stands regardless. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP is in no danger here, per the plurality of CLUEful !votes above. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And I wanted to add, this whole RfC was just silly. It was driven by a vegan advocate who BLUDGEONed the hell out of this talk page, solely on this issue. if you look at the revision stats, you'll see that in just 7 months they racked up ~50MB of talk comments - 2nd after me, and I have been working on this page 3 times that long. And if you read any of their comments here, you will see that they consistently misread what this content actually says - namely that Greger exaggerates sometimes. Not "veganism is bullshit" or "Greger is a lunatic charlatan" (and User:Alexbrn generally Greger is not FRINGE - he just exaggerates sometimes and when he does, yes, this is a PSCI issue; but generally it is mainstream medicine that a plant-based diet is best and ~generally~ this is that Greger advocates for). So we cite Hall, to call out that he exaggerates sometimes in the course of his advocacy. It is no big deal. But vegan advocates just cannot deal with it on an even keel or deal with what the content actually says or what Hall actually writes. Sammy1339 misrepresented Hall in almost every comment they made. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

But this is more ad hominem, now against Sammy. I didn't get the impression that Sammy was a vegan advocate, though he did know a lot about it. I wonder whether that's too black-and-white a view. Again, it doesn't matter. He's right about the policy. (And he's a smart guy and good writer, so it's a shame that he felt chased off, if that's what happened.) SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Greger is not fringe, but his views which are out-of-sync with the scientific mainstream are. Hence WP:PARITY comes into play for those. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

All I can say to that is wow. I do understand your POV, SV. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If you understand it, why the wow? I'm arguing that we follow policy even when it produces a result we don't like, and that if it consistently produces bad results, we try to change it.

If your "wow" is that Sammy may not have been a vegan advocate, you'd be surprised at the strength of feeling some editors have about veganism (that it's fringe, that people who are strong and healthy and say they're vegan must be lying, etc). Sammy may have become frustrated by the combination of encountering that (whether on this talk page or elsewhere) and the support for a non-RS. But don't read into that that you know his personal views or habits. That's often a mistake.

Anyway, veganism, Greger, Hall and Sammy are not the issues here. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Veganism is not fringe, but like nearly all diets it seems to attract some fierce advocates who make fringe claims. The only tension I've observed seems to be from the paleo-diet folk since in the world at large there seems to be a silly vegan/paleo feud (that diet is essentially quite fringey however). By some of the argument here, we couldn't use SBM to criticise the paleo diet (which we do, and it's Hall again) because the Paleo diet is Cordain's view and so somehow "about" Cordain. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Understanding =/= agreeing. Context is pretty much the whole issue here, as the interpretation of what the Hall reference is, and how it is used here, is what the RfC was about. And its funny - the only vegan advocacy i have encountered in WP is people who are for it, and will not tolerate any criticism. Whatever. As i said above if you want to do an RfC at BLP to clarify the status of SBM, i would be happy to collaborate. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

and community interpretations of BLP can be surprising. There is no Great Authority on it. I am amazed that Murder of Seth Rich exists, and look at what happened at the Gamaliel arbcom case, where as you noted, BLP was weaponized into a tool for harassment. I am always interested to see community interpretations of the policy and as i noted the consensus above is pretty clear. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Re: Seth Rich, as I recall it was BLP1E; I'm guessing that could be argued now and it would succeed, but I'm writing from memory. What you're arguing here is a clear violation; nothing borderline about it. I agree that the community is weakening in lots of ways as the number of committed content editors declines. All the more reason to stand up for the policies.

As for an RfC, it should be about the general principle, not one website. The other one is Quackwatch. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If you saw the problem at Seth Rich (lots of people didn't), then you also see the problem here, and the implications. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I also ran the Seth Rich thing by AN and nobody saw a problem, which really surprised me. Like the Gamaliel decision did. But I know how to yield to consensus. Making the header more neutral header btw. It is really transparent that you are lobbying for the closer to make a supervote. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And it's clear that you're lobbying for them to ignore WP:BLPSPS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Did you email Cyberpower, by the way?

Politics got in the way of Seth Rich, and I don't mean people supporting it for political reasons; I mean genuinely not seeing the issue because of the politics. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Like I said I brought the Seth Rich thing up at AN (here - oh, you were part of that discussion and we were arguing the same side there) and a bunch of long-term admins shrugged. I don't know what you mean about emailing Cyberpower. What do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to chime in that all this discussion isn't changing anything that I see. I still see disputes about scientific claims (fringe science in this case) as not falling under BLP as "material about a living person". It is the best source we could find on a fringe scientific claim - we should use it. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue".[6] Where does WP:BLP allow blogs in BLPs? I am curious. QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hall's Mischaracterization of Nutritional Science

The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies. Greger's video in fact links to nutritionfacts.org, where each claim is backed up by a large number of peer-reviewed, independent sources. Some claims have over 20 references, yet Hall presents them as being based on one or two weak leads. The total references behind his summary video numbers in the thousands if you combine each claim's content, and they are all made clearly available in nutritionfacts.org's "Sources Cited" tab. Hall's misrepresentation of nutritional science is manipulative and unethical at best, and certainly inappropriate to appear in Greger's living biography.

Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).

"Crippled" in the context that Greger employed it obviously means "impairs endothelial function". He was addressing a broad audience, and quibbling over semantics here is really pointless. See my references above if you need to be convinced that a clinician can feed subjects a meal rich in animal fats and then measure an impaired endothelial response. As Zhao et. al discuss, one bad meal can induce angina and a heart attack in patients with coronary artery disease. So, "crippled" isn't the worst way to describe the effect

Hall mischaracterizes Greger, and plant-based nutrition more broadly, as relying upon one or two weak sources. However, in this case, Greger included multitudes of peer-reviewed sources for each. Greger's sources are clearly visible alongside each video in the "Sources Cited" tab. The sources I've posted are specific to the question of how a single meal can inhibit (AKA cripple) endothelial (AKA artery) function in human subjects. If you seek reviews linking cholesterol-rich diets to atherosclerosis, there are many. Animal products are the only source of dietary cholesterol, thus, Greger advises against their consumption. This suggestion stands in agreement with the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2016)¹⁴, and the American Dietetic Association (2009)¹⁵.

[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.

[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.

[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.

[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.

[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.

[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17

[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.

[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.

[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.

[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.

[11] Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.

[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.

[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757.

[14] Melina V, Craig W, Levin S (2016) Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Dec;116(12):1970-1980. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/

[15] American Dietetic Association (2009) Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. July 2009 Volume 109 Number 7. 0002-8223/09/10907-0019$36.00/0doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.027. http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf --Dariusburst (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

He does not link to "nutritionfacts.org" when he is giving a talk in front of people - Hall watches the video and responds to what Greger says in it. it is simple. More generally, you are missing the point. Greger exaggerates sometimes. It is not the end of the world and lots of advocates do it. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Archiving a current discussion creates problems. I'm just going to copy my response here:

"Crippled" might be considered "manipulative and unethical" too, and I think that is one of Hall's points. Given the extent of time that the research above has been available, I'm wondering where the surveys and reviews might be. Wasn't that one of Hall's points, that the degree of certainty is poorly founded? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, here's the part of the video (6m36s). He has a big screen showing the study's title and authors on it and then he flicks up a graph showing that artery function drops for 4 or 5 hours, and he says the "crippled state starts to calm down 5 or 6 hours later". That's the only use of the word "cripple" in the video (click "View Transcript" and search for "crippl"), and he clearly shows he means it as a temporary drop in ability.

(And Hall's article says there was "no control group", which is wrong, the control group is there on the screen in the video.)

And at a glance, the studies that cite this study seem to consider it to be solid, and the experiment has been repeated with the same results. And again. (I did find a study finding no change in arterial function, but they cite 5 studies that confirm the study Greger cites and they discuss how they might not have controlled for enough factors - and anyway, it's clear Hall didn't do even basic searches. With the above mistakes, it's not even clear she watched the video she's critiquing.)

With such quality issues, I think discussing Hall's article is giving it undue weight. I think it should be removed because the quality is low, but I don't want to remove the only critical part of the article, so I'll leave it. Great floors (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear if any of my concerns have been addressed. If there is a review or survey in the additional sources that specifically supports the topic, please identify it. Quotes would help as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I provided a list of references as per your previous request (1-13 above). Please note that the term postprandial means following a meal. Several of the articles include reviews of the relevant literature although none are specifically written as review articles. What specific points in those articles do you find unconvincing? Why do you insist that a survey would be a proper way to approach the question?--Dariusburst (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. The issue here is not whether a plant-based diet is more healthy than a Western Diet - it is healthier. The issue is Greger's exaggerations as he tries to sell that idea to people. That is what Hall points out. Hall notes that a plant-based diet is healthier. She is not "anti-vegan". Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. At best this is all original research in an attempt to discredit a reliable source and remove a point of view that is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite, these exaggerations need to be placed in a proper scientific context for neutrality. Quite why there's this push to make this article entirely criticism-free I don't know. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So the consensus reason for including Harriet Hall's article here isn't the belief that Dr. Greger said anything incorrect in one of his old speeches, but that some people are uncomfortable with a word he used to describe the clear negative effect that certain foods were found to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:93A:365C:3198:513A (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

that is not accurate. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate, Jytdog?

• User:Great floors, about your comments that you stuck above, we do not peer review sources. See WP:MEDASSESS which says "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

First, Hall says she watched a video with a control group on the screen, and she says there was no control group. I'm not pointing out that the literature is for/against her, I'm pointing out that not only is she wrong but she also didn't check her facts. Either the source is too weak to use, or the article should mention that the quality of the medium (I don't know how WP categorises these things but surely there's a way to distinguish between a respected medical journal and someone's blog they write in for kicks).

Second, there seems to be misplaced discussion here about whether it's OK for Greger to use the word "crippled", so I pointed out that in the video he shows a slide with exactly what he means by "crippled", so it would be disingenuous for the article to imply he was using the term to exaggerate.

(And you, Jytdog, made the point that "He does not link to "nutritionfacts.org" when he is giving a talk in front of people", but he doesn't have to since he has slides where are contantly showing studies and authors and he does tell people they can find all this info on nutritionfacts.org) Great floors (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No one here is going to debate with you, whether Hall's reading is accurate or not. It is not worth going there. We don't do that. Please hear that. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not my point. My point is that it's worth checking if the website/journal/whatever that published her article is reputable. From that article, I see red flags that suggest it's a rag.

You said he doesn't link to nutritionfacts.org and the studies. I showed he does.

But hey, do what you want.

If someone wants to use their experience to make contributing harder rather than easier, then I'm out. Great floors (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss article content, not other editors, per the talk page guidelines. Again, no one is going to debate Hall's reading with you. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked on your talk page, you told me to discuss it here. Great floors (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between discussing content and discussing editors. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

obvious things in the article

The article said Greger promotes a "plant based diet", I change this to a "whole foods plant based diet". Greger uses this term all the time and it's in loads of the refereneces to this article. But I got instant-reverted because it's "unsourced".

I clarified the article's claim that Greger encourages people to eat a "vegan diet" by saying he promotes a "vegan diet with a focus on health". Once again, this is already evidenced by the content of the article and the existing references. And he specifically tells people that vegan diets can be unhealthy, for example "junk food vegan diets", such as followed by many students, or the 100% plant based diets of pure alcoholics. But again, I was reverted because "unsourced".

And I removed a part of a sentence that was in brackets where the use of the word "crippled" is used to show why Hall disagrees with Greger. I don't think that reflects the points Hall was making. I was reverted for "removing sourced content", but the only thing quoted from the source was the word "cripple", and I didn't remove the reference or the sentence (other than the part in brackets).

Revert, revert, revert (and when I ask for reasons on a user_talk page I get told to go ask here). C'mon people, new contributors to an article aren't enemies. I put some thought into that edit, I could have been doing something else. Every Wikipedia article needs more contributors.

Forget it, I've lost interest.

(I'll come back because I love the Wikipedia project, but it's hard to want to when the culture has become so unfriendly. AGF? Ha. Those were the days.) Great floors (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

no, you can't just add stuff that is "obvious" to you, to an article about a living person. no one can. See WP:BLP. I took care of the content you wanted to add, by adding the "whole foods"/"healthy" things, in these two diffs], first added sourced content to the body, then updating the lead. Not too happy with that ref but the lack of independent sources about Greger continues to surprise me. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It still says the change he promotes is "optimally to vegan". But as I mentioned in my edit, and explained on your talk page, and explained here on this page, there are various vegan diets he recommends against (junk, drunks, no b12, etc.).

My edit was really quite good. It should have been tweaked or left alone rather than reverted. (Ok, you want the word "cripple" to stay, for whatever reason; I disagree but it's no big deal to me.) Great floors (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit violated two policies, WP:BLP and WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit says Greger optimally wants people to go vegan. That's nonsense. You are making an BLP problem. Great floors (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the source. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

YouTube video

What is the purpose of a YouTube video? I thought it is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

10/25/1972

Dr. Greger has announced this date as his birthday several times, including at the Boston Vegetarian Food Festival when he spoke on that date, telling the crowd that it's his birthday. Why don't you just Google for it; it's out there. (1972-10-25) October 25, 1972

References

MaynardClark (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. Please don't cite stuff like "brainy quotes". Oy. I have no idea where either of those "google books review" comes from. I do not see any "October 25" on the facebook page. (I am not signed in to facebook) But if we are going to dig down into social media, this tweet will do. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

re removal of criticism

Quotes criticizing Dr. Greger are well sourced and from notable persons. They have been discussed on this talk page previously, extensively, and kept each time. I feel there are more negative things which could be said about his work - for instance, some of his early statements on "mad cow disease" now look wildly alarmist - but I feel what we have here is quite reasonable. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

more importantly, that content was heavily negotiated and was the specific subject of a well-attended RFC that is in the archives here. It is not coming out without a new consensus being identified. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, what Jytdog said.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Rasch Foundation

• https://web.archive.org/web/20181116133757/http://35.183.215.241/ may be the closest Wayback Machine result for the now-dead link.

Additionally:

• https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nutritionfactsorg-launches-free-weekly-podcasts-to-share-evidence-based-nutritional-research--healthy-eating-advice-300391103.html is a PRNewswire article that mentions the sponsorship. MaynardClark (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

Not only did a recent anonymous edit remove criticism of Greger, it also tried to add info on a "24 country world tour" of his supposedly beginning with a talk at the Sydney Opera House. Looking online, this appears to be completely fabricated - no such tour is talked about at DrGreger.com, for instance, or at Nutritionfacts, and the Sydney Opera House schedule had no mention of it. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We're being trolled. I've left the ip a final warning. --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been removed again. 174.29.37.138 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Commercial, not encyclopaedic

This isn't an encyclopaedia entry, it's a commercial. Vapourmile (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there specific wording or sourcing you have an issue with? Dialectric (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest adding "American Jews" category to Michael Greger

Hi, Michael Greger is Jewish, I have also asked him by email and he confirmed it, I have a the email (and a picture of it) as a proof, how can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimce (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

Add "American Jews" category to Michael Greger, he is Jewish, I also have an email from him as a proof :) I can show you the email (picture). Nimce (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

He's currently in Category:American people of Jewish descent, but we can't really cite private email correspondance. If you can point to reliable sources or verifiable statements published publicly by himself, please reopen this request. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Harriet Hall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In order to promote veganism, i have recommended via a pending change, to remove Harriet Hall reference. We want the world to go healtby and vegan, and therfore undue critique only serves to drive this away. As a vegan, I have cured my prostate and liver cancer fom plants and reversed my heart disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:ED12:FD7B:2CC8:D703 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not our purpose to "promote veganism". See WP:ADVOCACY. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not a valid response. It should be our duty to promote something that is healthy and cures cancer. I know what I am talking about here. Vegan Diets have cured 100s of thousands of people of disease. When we allow Harriet Hall and her band of mongaloid misfits to make awful false allegations about Greger's work, we are setting the advancement of health and wellness back 50yrs!! Are you prepared to live with the fact you are setting back the health of people by 50yrs?? I am certainly not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:89B0:71D7:E2A5:996D (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to advocate veganism, start a blog or something. Trying to do it on Wikipedia is WP:DE. Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. Why did you specify that a consensus has been reached, although that clearly isn't the case?^{(See Diff)} - Flori4nKT A L K 14:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You start a blog "or something" on veganism; oh and I don't appreciate being ordered to do something because you said so. I'll stick to wikipedia. I have a duty of care to Humanity to ensure that we all survive and are healthy. Therefore, it is my sworn duty as a human being, An American, a living entity of this planet to ensure that every person EATS a good diet. A vegan diet cures cancer and lots of diseases, so we need to promote it and to use wikipedia for the health of all! All Beings Need To Eat Plants! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:89B0:71D7:E2A5:996D (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We already have an article on vegan nutrition. You are clearly a troll not here to improve Greger's article. Your edits are disruptive and you should be blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And we have a duty of care to promote healtby choices for eating and therefore when you put fake references like harriet hall on this page, it is my duty of care to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:89B0:71D7:E2A5:996D (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Greger isn't Vegan

Michael Greger eats a whole food, plant-based diet, which isn't vegan. He has on many interviews said this. Vegan says what you don't eat and plant-based says what you do eat. Zabby owens (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add sources that support this claim in this section, that meet WP:RS. — Lentower (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Harriet Hall Reference Removed for Scientific Prosperity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone! i have removed the harriet hall section because it doesn't meet the standards of good clinical medical analysis. It also doesn't specifically suggest that Greger's work is faulty or bad, thefefore it isn't relevant here. Hope you are all well and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.224.243 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to contextualize Greger's wilder claims. This has been discussed here at length before. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I put the section back and warned the user. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well you are talking to someone who has cured all their health issues by going vegan, so I think I know what i am tlaking about!!!! I cured my cancer by going vegan!!!! And you haven't addressed the "scientific Prosperity" issue??? Are you willing to just ignore that?

Yes. What is scientific prosperity anyway? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What IP editor say when they don't have a better argument? It's a good source and a bad removal.PrisonerB (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Scientific Prosperity is the belief and admiration of science as a way to bringing about truth and prosperity for all! If you promote bad science, such as Harriet Hall, then you are stiffling the science of goodness!!! We live in a world where negative vibes prosper the vibes of positve ones!!! And I am disgusted that this abonomation of good science is being ignored, and you are allowing the vibe of harriet hall - a negative one - to prosper! "In times of difficulty, all it takes is for good man to do nothing and let bad vibes prosper." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.224.243 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like nonsense to me. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I get good vibes from Hall on sciencebasedmedicine.org [7], good vibes, good source.PrisonerB (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greger for Surgeon General - ? Should we add this to the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a lot of discusion about Greger becoming the next Surgeon General under the Biden Administartion. We need to now come to grips with this, and create an appropriate entry in his wikipedia page. May I suggest: "Greger has been named in medical circles as being the next Surgeon General in 2021 under the Biden Administration. THis would be a tremendous step forward for Veganism and Plant Based health. There has also been some word that Biden himself might go vegan after meeting Greger! This is due to be confirmed in early 2021." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.62 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Source? Alexbrn (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow. One word response? Manners aren't your strong suit. So you're suggesting I am a liar? I am happy to provide that information to you AFTER this is allocated to the article, proper. Not before. I think it is a sign of good faith if you add this to the article first, and then I will be prapered to but the references up. Greger is well known as one of the leading medical doctors in the world and his devotion to public health is without fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.62 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Placing unsourced information of this kind would be a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

THe power of having Greger in the Biden Administration would be immense for Vegans around the world. You obvioulsy choose to ignore this fact. I take it you are not going to place my suggestions into the article? Well, when Greger is made Surgeon General next Janurary, I shall be having the last laugh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.62 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harriet Hall?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey guys! I ujst noticed that harriet hall is mentioned in the article!!! I think she should be removed. She's pretty baised in her views and a lot of her evidence isn't backed up by studies. It's generic. My vote is that we remove her paragraph as a sign of good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:F0AF:3987:6ADB:A0B3 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. Also see much previous discussion in the Talk page archives. Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but let's use the enthusiasm of Greger being announced overnight, as the next surgeon general; to start a new topic on this and really clean this page up! there's a lot of anti-vegan shite on here. Needs to be cleaned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:F0AF:3987:6ADB:A0B3 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Source? I see nothing about this. If you are trying to push Greger for Surgeon General, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DO IT. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to launch a media campaign.Brianyoumans (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that I don't see any sources for the idea that Greger is being considered for surgeon general. As for sources about veganism, this isn't an article about veganism - it's about Greger and his career.Brianyoumans (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further comment on Surgeon General rumor

I can't resist adding that, if there are rumors or proposals that Greger be Surgeon General, they need to be sourced, but also, that the suggested text just does not have the neutral tone necessary for an encyclopedia article. Hypothetically, if it could be sourced, I would say something more like, "After the 2020 election, Greger's name was mentioned as a candidate for Surgeon General in the Biden administration. Proponents hoped that a Greger nomination would advance the cause of veganism and plant-based health." Brianyoumans (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And we certainly wouldn't want the rumour originating from Wikipedia! Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Not mentioned above, but relevant guidelines here are WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS I can't see anything that would suggest that such a rumour is well-founded or has coverage. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to protect this talk page temporarily. The IP is on multiple IPs spreading misinformation. The rumor is not true. I have had people contact Greger, he knows nothing about this. The IP is deliberately using Wikipedia to spread false information. His IP/S should be blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Update they have been blocked [8] Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I’d be supportive of Greger becoming Surgeon General, but my understanding is that it is a post often associated with the military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.205.28 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that protecting a talk page was pretty extreme, but I think I've changed my mind. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Charity Work - should make this a major topic in his bio

Would be good to see some reference in the article to his Charity Work. Greger has become recognised for charity work and is a member of "Giving What We Can", a community of people who have pledged to give at least 10% of their income to charitable causes. We should include this, so as to show what type of man he is. Gives a good picture into his personality and dedication to people and just causes. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/members/gregermichael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:5C6D:B866:DA67:AA00 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a person named Michael Greger on their membership list. The link above doesn't work, at least for me. So, I'm not sure this is the same Michael Greger. I don't see anything else online connecting him to the organization. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Healthline

@Bilby:, @Alexbrn:

As I understand it Healthline is not considered a reliable source for medical or nutritional content and is often removed from Wikipedia articles but is being used on Greger's article and a few other biographies. The review of Greger's book at Healthline [9] was written by Denise Minger. Minger is not a qualified dietician or practicing physician, she is not actually qualified in anything. According to her website "I spend my free time researching near-death experiences, psychic phenomena, therapeutic potential of psychedelics, astral travel, paranormal stuff, and evidence of post-death consciousness. I’ve been studying and practicing astrology since I was 12, and my first-ever statistical nerd project was on astrological patterns that show up in long-term relationships (contact me if you want to hear more about it! Or if you want a reading!" So basically this is a paranormal nut [10], she is not qualified to be talking about nutrition. I believe the Healthline link should be removed. Neither the source or the author are reliable to be citing on Wikipedia. Am I correct in thinking the source should be removed? Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Healthline is not a great source. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are hardly any reliable reviews for Greger's books. There was a review in psychologytoday but I wouldn't consider that a good source either for this subject [11]. As it currently stands it will be hard to expand the reception section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the reviews I can find have a sentence in them something like this, "Well, I'm not a nutritionist, so I can't really review the science here..." Brianyoumans (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)