Talk:Lectin-free diet

Page / Topic Issues

Title is inaccurate

Dietary Lectin exclusion could be a better as it covers this topic in a broader sense and would appear to be more accurate.

Even Gundry's page says "Now, not all lectins are toxic. But many are". I don't see any cititations that supports a "Lectin-free" claim anywhere. As well the page says "there are several foods you might want to ditch (or at least consume in moderation) if you discover you’re indeed sensitive to lectins."

Also, his published abstract calls it a " lectin limited diet".

References

Page is missing information and misrepresentational

This needs flagged ASAP. It's missing foundational information to the claims of this topic Tonytopper (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You appear you be a Steven Gundry fringe pusher, I have raised this issue at WP:FTN. Your editing is problematic because you are adding original research and unsourced content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Not true, sorry. Not trying to push. Just trying to do my own research and I find these articles to not be NPOV. Just trying clarify things for future readers. Please recind or I will counter-claim. Tonytopper (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, still learning. Please be welcoming. Definitely not trying to add original content, just trying to add things that were omitted in a seemingly egregious way. Tonytopper (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you labeling me as a "pusher" because of such moderate edits one has to wonder how polite that is being. Again, follow the Wikipedia rules be polite and welcoming. I welcome a review of these sections because the NPOV is not being followed and you are clearing pushing cherry-picked view with your own edits. Again, recind or I will escalate as well. Tonytopper (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to do your own personal research. I see over on Steven Gundry's talk-page you have accused editors of activist editing just because criticisms of the lectin-free diet have been cited on the article. I don't think you will last long on this website if you continue down this route. The lectin-free diet is widely considered quackery and we have many reliable references that show that. No dietitian takes it seriously. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not trying to promote this diet. Just trying to make sure it is accurately represented. Removing my addition of mentions to gut microbiota is incorrect from a representation of this diet standpoint. You are promoting incompleteness. Tonytopper (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You added the claim that a lectin-free diet will improve gut microbiota. This claim is unsourced and that would be original research see WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Those statements from him are available in the existing sources IINM. It's a claim he is clearly making and clearly central to his entire set of claims, if you actually have any understanding of his claims, yet it's missing from this article. If you really wanted to improve this page you'd help me get those claims included or at least help me flag this page as missing information, instead of edit warring with me, but you seem to be the source of the soapbox that is clearly present in these articles. Am I wrong? Tonytopper (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You are promoting misinformation unfortunately. The existing sources on the article do not mention improvements of gut microbiota from a lectin-free diet so you are breaking policy by adding original research. You have not cited any references either. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, we cannot add claims that are not supported by sourcing. If you have a reliable source then add it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not promoting misinformation. Please refrain from miscategorizing my edits. Gundry clearly makes these claims and they are aviable all over the place. Anyone who has actually studied the topic knows it is core to these claims and it's directly related to this diet and it's an egregious ommission that it wasn't included in the original publication of this page. Tonytopper (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Gundry has claimed in person or has said on his website, it matters what reliable sources say, i.e. reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). You clearly misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We don't rely on primary sources. You haven't cited any reliable secondary sources so all your edits will be reverted, they are against policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Trying not to misunderstand. It's clearly in at least two of his books and clearly a main part of his and many other's claims on this diet. And it's also in the minds of many many scientists researching this topic, not just Gundry. I understand you propped up the article and are trying to defend but it's clearly misrepresenting the topic and not WP:NPOV. And the sources he aren't great. They aren't medical journals for the most part and are largely superficial analysis done by journalists.

If you're comment was something like hey, we need a source for that even if it's something we obviously missed, then I'd take a different tacted. But you seem to be clearly misrepresenting what science is actually saying on this topic and what Gundry, and other's are saying by omission. And you seem to have some weird bone to pick with Gundry.

But I'd suggest we do a little bit of a reset on this and try to get this back to someplace contructive that will make the article more accurate and complete. Tonytopper (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Previous Unresolved Dispute

Article previously accused of being low quality: "This article seems less focused on the diet itself and more interested in attacking the diets initial author. Most of the verbiage puts Wikipedia in a first person stance against the author of the diet rather than using a third person to cite others criticisms of the diet and author. I have no stakes in this so im not touching anything but this is a very poor article. "

The comment of this Talk page edit justifying removing this stated the author didn't suggest improvements.

So, I suggest the article be labeled as

Or potentially a

Or some Disputed or Dubious markup detailed at WP:DISPUTED

But I'd prefer to at least try improve the qaulity first in a way that is NPOV to participating editors.

--Tonytopper (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Uncooperative editors

Revisions being wholesale reverted without regard for good faith attempts to improve article by both Psychologist Guy and Bon_courage.