Talk:Michael Greger

Bad Compromise

The last sentence in the intro, "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits and for cherry-picking research even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" is a great example of a bad compromise, perhaps a remnant of a bygone edit-war, and I'd like to change it. However, all of my edits were reverted by Alexbrn who, in his edit notes, said "not an improvement".

I'm open to discussing the best way to improve that sentence. But first let me make the case that there's a lot of room for improvement. "even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" is a tacky, out-of-place addition to this sentence. The main subjects of the sentence are: 1. Michael Greger's promotion of veganism and 2. Criticism of this. But the healthiness of a vegan diet is itself not the point of this sentence!

It comes across like it was written by a bipolar person in the middle of a mood swing. And I know exactly why. Critics of Dr. Greger wanted to include criticism, and proponents praise. They had a war, and they compromised by writing this atrocious sentence.

Consider the following sentences and tell me if you think they would belong in the headers of the respective persons:

"George Bush has been criticized for committing US troops to the war in Iraq by exaggerating claims of increasing regional stability, even though the war in Iraq may have led to greater regional stability."

Or, to keep things politically balanced:

"Barack Obama has been criticized for his role in promoting the Affordable Care Act by exaggerating its reduction in health care expenditures, even though the act may have reduced US health expenditures."

Or, moving beyond politics into religion:

"Jesus has been criticized for exaggerating claims of his divinity, even though he may have been the Son of God."

These are terrible sentences! And they are on par with that sentence in Dr. Greger's intro. We can do better on Wikipedia at making things sound encyclopedic rather than bipolar.

My proposed change is this: quote the article that mentions cherry-picking, and include enough of the quote that both critics and proponents will be just as satisfied (or dissatisfied) as they were for the original compromise. "There is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn't mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they're fine." That may be too long to include in the intro, but the nice thing about such a short article is that nothing gets "buried" in the article, so this could be moved to the next section.

Perhaps there is an even better alternative, and I'll wait for input before editing again, but Alexbrn, ANYTHING is an improvement over that wretched sentence.

Bluemousered (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so what. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried to fix that as well but the people who rule over this part of wikipedia would prefer to leave the cherry-picking quote out of context. As you can see from the above conversation, if they disagree with you about something, you're not getting anything changed no matter how strong a point you have or how weak theirs is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:7D47:5396:3290:C1C2 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have little motivation to improving this article when Alexbrn, who seems to be oblivious to his own agenda, keeps forcing his point of view as neutral and just reverts all edits without actual discussion. Looking through his post history, he seems to be on a crusade on this topic and has made such fine edits like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_A._McDougall&diff=677431201&oldid=677429048, where he decides to state the diet is "fad diet" that causes farting as general truth. The farting part was only removed after other long-time editors stepped in. He forces the exact same thing in this article where the header has criticism but doesn't tell who criticizes. I have no patience for the kind of passive-aggressive behavior he exhibits. --Sapeli (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense. "Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".[ What does "the evidence for them" mean? Who is "them"? The evidence for whom? And what are "true believers"? I don't have a pos or neg pov, I just think this is a very awkward sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.73.246 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Because of the persistent disruption on this page by IPs and "fresh" accounts I now think a request for permanent semi-protecton here is in order. Do others agree? Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oui. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I like how you guys immediately turn to censorship when you disagree with how an edit should be handled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveinfo22 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not true. You appear to be the one removing information. -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So, essentially, you want to do the same thing to this page that you did to Dr. John McDougall's page. I noticed you had that page protected and you are cherry-picking critics that suit your own point of view over there too, when those critics are themselves controversial or not experts in the field (not only that, but their claims are unsubstantiated). McDougall has done some promising research, the latest of which shows that MS can be treated with his diet, but none of this is mentioned on his page, and with Alexbrn around, I see no reason to try to implement it. Count me along those who believe you have an agenda here which is obviously about making these plant-based doctors look like they are vegan crackpots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciopenhauer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Plant-Based? I think it would be better if they were Evidence-Based. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

User: Iloveinfo22 please come and explain your objection. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The source in question is a blog post that has no credibility beyond its being on the Internet. I conceivably could create a blog post criticizing that blog post and then include my criticism in the post. I usually don't edit Wikipedia, but I saw that source as being included and felt the need to remove it since it lacks any objective credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveinfo22 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for talking here. Wikipedia content is based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are not presenting any policy/guideline based arguments. We do understand that you don't like this content, but not liking something is not a valid grounds for changing content here. This place is not a wild west. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This has been a perennial issue with activist IP editors showing up to remove this material. However, they happen to be completely right. The source is a blog, it does not have editorial oversight (except for outside submissions, which this piece isn't), and its use here violates WP:BLPSPS. I have floated the idea of putting this issue on WP:DRN before. Would you object to my doing that? --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to Harriet A. Hall as her opinion, it is not stated in Wikipedia's voice. She appears to be a well known skeptic and has the background to be skeptical of such claims. If this was in Wikipedia's voice I would agree it shouldn't be in there, however since it an opinion of a well known skeptic with a background in medicine it is a good counter opinion to show not everything Greger says is fully accepted in the scientific community.

The reason say; I couldn't just create a blog criticizing Harriett Hall and have it included in Wikipedia is; I am not well known for being an expert in the field. --VViking_TalkEdits 21:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but the relevant guideline here is 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). --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that in his advocacy for veganism, Greger pushes his claims beyond what the science can support. A lot of "celebrity doctors" do that - people who rely on their medical credentials to get people to listen to them but "popularize" their message to the point where it just unsupportable. Dr Oz does this too. That is what it is, out there in the world, but here in WP we need to actually deal with the science. My preference would be that this article didn't exist at all because content that complies with Wikpedia's policies and guidelines ends up angering fans of the celebrity doctors, so we have these endless problems. So it goes. We use sources like Harriet Hall because the serious scientific literature doesn't take time to address these kinds of exaggerated statements; that is what WP:PARITY is for. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's an opinion, and not necessarily an unreasonable one, but there is still no valid policy-based rationale for including this specific source. There's no exception to BLPSPS for this situation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The content is written so as not to criticism him but rather the scientific validity of the claims he makes about medicine. Different things. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, it refers to him. The article doesn't even mention any specific claims which demand rebuttal from a self-published expert. Anyway we are rehashing the same arguments from months ago and it's obviously not going to be productive, so I'll go ahead with DRN if you don't object. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It specifically refers to his "promotion of veganism". It is a kind of WP:CRYBLP to say that a person's fringe views are somehow exempt from criticism because they come from a person. If it were otherwise, you're going to be re-writing a lot of WP articles. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, nobody said exempt from criticism, but everyone is exempt from self-published commentary of all kinds according to the policy. Clearly you could go very far with SPS commentary on everything to do with a person, claiming it's not "about" the person. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You said "it refers to him". It doesn't. Anyhow this horse has been beaten to death long ago by you.[1] So I'm not proposing we re-run all that. Alexbrn (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If it said "he is a quack" it would refer to him. It doesn't say anything like that. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: @Alexbrn: I requested DRN, so hopefully this will be put to rest one way or the other. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That filing should include Viewmont Viking from above, all the editors who have removed/added this content in recent days, and should point to previous noticeboard discussions on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I notified the others and amended the filing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes Harriet Hall such an expert in nutrition? This is a woman who referenced a raw food blog run by a sock puppeteer as a response to the findings of the Cornell-Oxford China Project ("the china study"). This article at one point also referenced another famous skeptic, Joe Schwarcz, which was removed when it was pointed out that Joe generally liked and recommended Michael Greger's work. A reference to the major American HMO Kaiser Permanente also wasn't allowed because it recommended Greger's website as a resource for health information. This article is biased and tries to make him out to be a quack giving unsupportable, radical diet advice. To improve the article, we could either add back in the references to Joe Schwarcz and Kaiser Permanente or remove the reference to Harriet Hall, as she can't be the only person referenced if this article is to be unbiased.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:44AC:9A9B:4102:1365 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

--iloveinfo22 I don't know if the issue is so much Hall's credibility as it is where her criticism was published (third-party, non-scientific blog) and if that particular blog post has enough relevance to be included in the unbiased biography of a doctor's life. I agree with you that the article is currently biased -- if we are looking for objective information about anyone on this site, we can't include snippets from critics on blogs. Looking forward to this issue getting resolved.(talk) 11:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

One day there will be an International Journal of Fatuous Nonsense where claims like Greger's can be debated. This is not that day. Until that day comes we're left with what we have now: noted authrities writing on websites with editorial boards. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on nutritionfacts.org goes beyond mere "fatuous nonsense" into claims about treating and preventing cancer with turmeric. So far as I know we have no sources on this (the claim on the site, not turmeric in general) so must remain silent on this -- but it seems Hall was just scratching the surface here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn First of all, note the qualification: may be able to prevent and treat cancer. This is completely accurate: I had no difficulty finding sources showing that curcumin's possible chemoprotective properties have been studied for decades. [2] You could quibble about the wording, such as by suggesting that he should have gone out of his way to mention that it hasn't yet been proven in phase III clinical trials, but what on earth makes you say this is worse than fatuous nonsense? I have yet to see any evidence that Greger is a quack, other than Hall's say-so. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Curcumin is a natural polyphenol derived from the plant Curcuma longa, commonly called turmeric. Extensive research over past 50 years has indicated that this polyphenol is highly pleiotropic molecule capable of preventing and treating various cancers." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence eating turmeric can treat or prevent cancer, so saying it "may" on a nutrition site is kind of problematic because of the implication. One might even say it is a case of "exaggerated claims of health benefits" ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Kind of problematic", perhaps. But that's not what you said. You said worse than fatuous nonsense. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was being understated (sorry I'm British): it is worse. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So in your view, saying something that's factually accurate and well-supported by science is worse than fatuous nonsense if it may be misunderstood by a general audience? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's only "factually accurate" in a language-lawyer's sense. One can say "unicorns may exist" and be technically accurate. The idea that eating turmeric can prevent or treat cancer has zero scientific support. It is not good to mislead "a general audience" about serious diseases, no. Once again it seems Wikipedia is bang on: "exaggerated claims". Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of "zero scientific support" is obviously wrong. Do a Google search, or just look at the sources I linked above. I don't agree that Greger's statements here are misleading. He extensively reports on original scientific research, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. MEDRS does not apply to the real world. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what evidence have you cited that eating turmeric prevents or treats cancer? Drawing this conclusion from primary lab research into curcumin is fallacious and if you're happy with such fallacies (which, yes, WP:MEDRS counteracts) I can see why you're such a Greger fan. By the ethical and logical standards of more considered medical thinking, however, this kind of exaggeration needs to be called out. I am doubly reassured Wikipedia's approach in this article is correct. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not straw-man me. I said that Greger's claim that curcumin, which is found in turmeric, may prevent or treat certain cancers is well grounded in science, and that it is not worse than fatuous nonsense to make videos which discuss the relevant primary research. I also never said I was a Greger fan, which I am not. I take issue, however, with your treating him as though he were Dr. Oz. Given the often humorous derision you and JzG have for this fellow, it's remarkable that you can't come up with anything better than a claim which is technically accurate but may be misleading to laypeople. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not straw: the claim on the site is "Consuming turmeric may also be able to help with multiple myeloma". There are some graphic pictures of cancer at work to illustrate. You've made it clear you're fine with this claim, at which point since we're veering away from what we can say in the article, I think we can just say: case closed. Personally, I am glad the adherence to policy has allowed us to produce a properly neutral article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I just would like to note that there are many claims on that page and neither you nor I ever said anything specifically about that one. But generally I do not object to making videos on primary research, using words like "may", "indicate", "suggest", and (directly from Greger's mouth in the relevant video) "but we won't know until longer, larger studies are done." --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Consuming turmeric may also be able to help with multiple myeloma". You'd be fine telling that to somebody with multiple myeloma. Okay. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, you are putting words in my mouth. Context matters. I'd be fine telling anyone that the effects of curcumin on the progression of multiple myeloma have been studied and that the studies indicate a possible benefit, with the caveat that more research is necessary. That's what Greger's video claims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the EU, selling a food product with those claims is simply not permitted. Any such advertisements will be adjudicated as misleading and if pepole continue to make them then they may be prosecuted and their websites shut down. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the IJFN one of those predatory journals? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The one in the comment to which I replied. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I found no evidence that Mini Rev Med Chem was a bad journal, and I don't know what IJFN stands for. Could you let me know where you got that information? I'll strike the source if necessary. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• even this very sympathetic book review of "how not to die" notes that Greger oversells, making claims that are not supportable by science... including the very title of the book. We have couched the criticism as carefully as we can, attributing it, using a widely respected source for debunking bad scientific claims, and making sure the criticism is aimed at the validity of some of his claims, not at him. Trying to simply remove this from the article and not offering some more acceptable way (to you all) to do it, is not OK per BLP and NPOV and it is not going to happen. If you want this discussion to end, propose content and sourcing covering the same ground that you find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not really what the article says. The author says naive readers may misinterpret his book, whereas Greger is said to be optimistically skeptical about the results of experiments. ″Since I am not a nutritionist, I do not know whether other studies exist with different results—though Greger’s inclusion of footnoted qualifying comments are a hopeful sign. Of course, as he recognizes, many of the cited studies are small-scale one-shot affairs, so the effects might wash out on replication. His argument is that, unlike the negative side-effects associated with medications, the side-effects of, for example, eating your spinach are only positive—so why not include this or that plant food in your diet?″ In other words, there is evidence to suggest that these foods can be helpful in preventing disease, and if future research leads to a wash, at least it's unlikely to harm you anyway. There's no claim that anything is a guaranteed cure for any disease.

(edit conflict)This very source is a good example of reputably published criticism of Greger and some of his work. I have no objection to using it, with a fair summary of what it actually says about him, and not the Hall source. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

so propose some content using it. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing so when I realized I am mistaken. This is from the "blog" section of Psychology Today and probably also self-published. I'll look for a reputably published review of this book, preferably from someone with a background in nutrition. There ought to be one somewhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't found a scientific review, but this review says "Dr. Greger has been accused in some quarters of cherry-picking research and exaggerating the benefits of a vegan diet. But his case rests on a mountain of evidence." This would be a perfect source for inclusion of the type of claim certain editors here want... except it sounds like this was derived from Wikipedia, making it circular. This source also says "In “How Not to Die,” Dr. Greger avoids using the word “vegan” and makes a point of stating that you can still enjoy a serving of your mother’s Easter ham, so long as your regular diet revolves around vegetables, fruit, beans, nuts, spices and whole grains." And this is what I have been saying about the problem with Hall's criticism, which largely rests on an incorrect assumption that everything Greger says should be taken as promotion of veganism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue of describing Greger's work more completely is entirely - entirely - separate from the issue of clearly stating that Greger makes exaggerated, unsupportable claims Please do not mix them. The exaggerations that Greger makes do not take an expert to identify. They are as glaring as "How not to die". This is exactly the kind of thing that serious people working in the field don't bother to address because they are trying to do work and don't have time to swat this stuff away. This is however exactly the kind of thing that serious people who devote themselves to identifying bullshit in our public discourse do call out, which is why Science-based Medicine is such an important reference for the community. Please deal with the actual issue. (and yes that reporter obviously copied WP). And stop misrepresenting Hall. She does not say that "everything Greger says should be taken as promotion of veganism" - that is as incorrect as it would be to state that everything Greger says is false. These kinds of misrepresentations are not helpful. Knock it off, and I suggest you re-read what Hall actually says. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see why you would believe that, but I disagree. "How not to die" is a rhetorical device, obviously not meant to be taken literally. I have not actually seen one example of an unsupportable claim; the above discussion about curcumin is typical. It involves a claim which is technically accurate but may be taken as misleading. It's not clear to me at all that Greger's work is bunk, as several editors have repeatedly stated and implied. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not go offtopic. Please come up with content and sourcing that cover this ground that you find acceptable or let this go. I again suggest that you carefully read the Hall article; she points out several very clear exaggerated health claims that are not supportable. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear - the scientific consensus of a healthy diet is very much plant-based (whole foods, mostly vegetables and fruit, little sugar and salt and processed food; not too much food, and getting some exercise every day) and the benefits of this are not controversial at all; people tend to be healthier in many ways who follow it. Tend to be. The issue with what Greger does is that he consistently makes claims that go way beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding Hall, here are a couple examples of what I'm saying.

Can kidney failure be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet? He points to a study showing that diets lower in red meat and animal fat may decrease the risk of microalbuminuria. It also showed a reduced risk with low fat dairy!

But Greger doesn't say that it's necessary to eliminate dairy to get the possible result indicated by that study; Hall assumes he means this.

He cites a study concluding “Our results suggest that a decrease in meat consumption may improve weight management.” Suggest, may, decrease. Not veganism.

Harriet Hall's criticisms are also quite weak. It's been posted here before, but this blog gives a great rebuttal of her article against Greger's speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:44AC:9A9B:4102:1365 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not every study he cites is supposed to support veganism. Hall assumes it is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)Also I fail to see how this is off-topic? We were discussing the book review, I thought, as well as why I believe the Hall source is unacceptable. I am arguing, as always, that PARITY doesn't override BLPSPS, and even if it did, it's not clear that his work is FRINGE at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

argh. You are stuck on the "vegan" thing which is off topic. Please propose content and sourcing that says that Greger makes exaggerated claims about health. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• OK, here is one thing Hall discusses:

Listen to the video from 6:08 to 7:08, if you like, if not I have transcribed it.

• "(scientific paper is up on the screen) We've known for 15 years that a (raises voice) single meal (lowers voice to normal) high in animal fat - sausage and egg mcmuffin was used in the original study - can paralyze our arteries (calls up graph on the screen with downward pointing, then upward pointing lines), cutting their ability to relax normally in half, within hours of eating animal products. The whole lining of our vascular tree gets inflamed and stiffens. And just as that inflammation - just as that crippling of our arteries - starts to calm down after five or six hours (pointing at graph where line starts to go up) -- - lunchtime! (pause for laughter) Right? And then we may whack our arteries with another another load of (lowers voice) meat eggs or dairy, right... (raises voice to normal) and so most people are in this chronic state of low-grade inflammation, increasing their risk of these (speeds up) inflammation-related diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes (slows down) um... one .. meal.. at.. a ..time."

What Hall says:

• "He cites a study showing that a single meal high in animal fat can paralyze our arteries and “cripple” them. This was a small study of 10 volunteers with no control group. It measured flow-dependent vasoactivity. It’s not clear what that means, but surely it’s an exaggeration to say that the arteries were paralyzed or crippled. It would be interesting to compare the results to those of vegans who ate a meal with an equal number of calories. And what we really want to know is whether the observed changes have any practical clinical significance."

Again this kind of debunking of bullshit in a talk by a celebrity doctor is not something that a serious nutritional scientist is going to take time to do; it is something that people at Science-Based Medicine take the time to do. It is why we use this reference across WP to discuss bogus claims people make. But like I said. Please propose content and sourcing discussing Greger's exaggerations that you find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

From the posted criticism of Hall's criticism:

First of all, this is an experimental study, which involved feeding the subjects two different meals at different times, and closely monitoring their vasoreactivity for a time period after the meals, so can only be performed on a small group of people. Does she think that a research team can do this type of study on 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people at a time? Does she have any idea what it would cost in labor, funds and time to perform such a study on even 100, let alone 1000 or 10,000 people? And what would be the point anyway? Does she really think that human biology varies so much among individuals that the results would be markedly different in a larger study?

Next, she says that this study had no control group. In fact, the abstract of the study states the following: "To assess the direct effect of postprandial triglyceride-rich lipoproteins on endothelial function, an early factor in atherogenesis--10 healthy, normocholesterolemic volunteers--were studied before and for 6 hours after single isocaloric high- and low-fat meals (900 calorie; 50 and 0 g fat, respectively)"

In other words, since all 10 subjects received both treatments at different times, each of the 10 subjects served as his/her own control.</blockquote

Several of Hall's criticisms show a lack of knowledge in the field and/or ability to analyze a study properly. The fact that she comments on something Greger said or cited doesn't necessarily mean her commentary is valuable.

@Jytdog: I honestly have no idea about the science in this particular case, but here again, Hall misrepresents what he says. He doesn't only refer to that study; on the contrary, he seems to be claiming that the result is explained by subsequent studies which showed that the result was not caused by animal fat. Just look at a couple more minutes of the same video.

Really, though, we are getting into the kind of technicalities for which the following passage of WP:PRIMARY was written: " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To the IP: the blog you posted is definitely not a reliable source. See WP:IRS. Also I suggest creating a username if you want to be taken seriously. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hall is not criticizing the paper that was cited; it is what it is. The issue is what Greger does with it - he makes broad, general claims that are not supportable by that study. The claims are bullshit. if someone added those claims, sourced to that paper, to WP it would be deleted in heartbeat. This WP article about Greger needs to discuss that he does this a lot. It is not everything he says, but he does it a lot. Again, please propose content and sourcing that you find acceptable that states that Greger make these exaggerations. I will wait to respond again, until such content and sourcing are proposed. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any sourcing that can support such a claim about Greger. I'm looking, but the BLP policy is pretty clear that we cannot say whatever we like without reliable sourcing, even if editors believe it is true. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sammy: The blog is at least as credible as anyone here. The point isn't that some famous nutritionist said it, it's just a criticism of Hall's reasoning that anyone would be able to see for themself and agree with. Whether I typed it, you typed it, or it was posted from another person who responded at length to Hall's analysis years ago, it's a fair response that points out her article's flaws. I also don't care about being "taken seriously" on wikipedia, but thanks.

Jyt: His claims are abviously supported by research, that's what he's reading from. You may feel that more research is necessary, but his beliefs clearly stem from scientific papers. Much of what he says are literally quotes from those papers rather than his own words, and as in this case, he cites follow-up studies for additional evidence.

• I just made this change to move this even farther away from anything that could be seen as commenting on Greger per se and more focused on his claims, and am going to post at BLPN about the objection. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Jytdog is following Alexbrn's footsteps and using the title of the book to make an argument, then adding "This is however exactly the kind of thing that serious people who devote themselves to identifying bullshit in our public discourse do call out". If they were serious and devoted, they would actually read the book and see this at the end: "How Not to Die may seem to you a strange title for a book. After all, everyone is going to die eventually. It’s about how not to die prematurely. If there is one takeaway message, it’s that you have tremendous power over your health destiny. The vast majority of premature deaths can be prevented with simple changes in what you eat and how you live. In other words, a long and healthy life is largely a matter of choice. In 2015, Dr. Kim Williams became president of the American College of Cardiology. He was asked why he chose to eat a strictly plant-based diet. “I don’t mind dying,” Dr. Williams said. “I just don’t want it to be my fault.”" Just like they would see that Greger advocates for a whole food, plant-based diet, not veganism. Yet the article still says something about Greger's claims about "the benefits of veganism". Go ahead and replace "veganism" with "whole food, plant-based" in that sentence and see if it makes sense. --Rose (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, he blatantly exaggerated things hoping to get your attention. The problem is, he blatantly exaggerated things. Not a single editor here - not me, not Alexbrn, not anybody - is criticizing veganism. Not one of us. Nobody is saying that Greger is strictly vegan. And neither is Hall. You and Sammy do not understand the problem. The problem is Greger's often exaggerated claims for the health benefits of (name your diet) and the dangers of animal products. Exactly like the title of the book. Exactly like taking a study that measured vascular flow in 10 people and drawing huge generalizations from that. That is what Hall points out that he does over and over. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with a vegan/plant-based diet; there is something wrong with saying a single meaty meal can "cripple" your arteries. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected this page for a three-day period due to sustained edit-warring. Neutrality^talk 05:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

BLPN posting

Done. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn in light of the launch of the RfC below. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Greger by independent sources

I went looking for reviews by people in the field, of How Not to Die. Searched pubmed, searched the hell out of google, searched my university library. Not one. Can anybody find one? (this is kind of what i mean, about how mainstream nutrition people just ignore this kind of thing) Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• no pubmed hits on him per se; 5 papers he authored
• Searched on the blog of Marion Nestle who is the doyenne among scientists who talk straight to the public about mainstream advice about eating. no hits for Greger.
• NHS Choices - website of the public health service in the UK and often great: nothing.
• google searched out to 10 pages, nothing but blogs and promotion of his books or talks (ran into, unsurprisingly, a glowing review of How Not to Die by Mercola himself here

- looking for independent highly reliable sources that even discuss him, and not finding anything... Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

went to a library and found a bunch of his older work around mad cow (same kind of exaggerations about that too sometimes...) and all the way back to when he was in college and med school; was able to flesh this out a lot. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments on SBM source

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 [3], 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 ([4]). 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)
• 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)

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."[5] 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 [6] - 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)

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)

crippling arteries claim

Alexbrn re-added the text "he claims for example that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries". This is out of context, and makes it sound as if he's claiming something he isn't. I won't defend his use of colorful language, but the short-term effect he describes in the video this quote is cherry-picked from is genuine, and, as he explains, is a result of endotoxemia, not animal products themselves as previously conjectured. Without context, it sounds as if he is claiming that a single meal of animal products is harmful, which is directly and explicitly contrary to his statements. Without this line, I am happy with Jytdog's text. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

First, I added that. Second, yes he said that, "directly and explicitly". See the transcript of the talk above, or read Hall, or heck watch the video yourself. And yes, this is exactly the kind of exaggeration he makes. See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I do not defend this statement, but the sentence makes it sound as if he's saying that one meal can cause permanent harm. He isn't. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

He. Absolutely. Says. What. Is. Quoted. Do not repeat this misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to include this, you should at least reference the studies he is referring to and make it clear what he means. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep: to transcribe from the video "we've known for 15 years that a single meal high in animal fat (err, sausage and egg McMuffin was [sic] used in the original study) can paralyze our arteries by cutting off their ability to relax normally in half within hours of eating animal products". So, are arteries really "paralyzed", or is this an exaggeration as Hall says? Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If the ability of the arteries to dilate was cut in half, crippled seems like a good word. Otherwise, at what level of dysfunction is it hyperbolic to say the arteries were strongly impaired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B98A:A038:4B78:9C07 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The study says: "These results demonstrate that a single high-fat meal transiently impairs endothelial function". To represent this as a single meal crippling the arteries is precisely the kind of overblown and unsupported claim of which critics complain. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The statement is silly, and unprofessional. I don't defend it. But our text makes it sound like he's saying something other than he's saying. He's referring to a short term effect which has been observed in multiple studies, and he goes on to explain that it's not caused by animal fat. I do think there is something very wrong with his rhetoric here, in fact that video is cringe-worthy, but I also think his views should not be misrepresented. He repeatedly says that there is no evidence that eating small amounts of meat is harmful. This quote, without context, makes it look like he says the exact opposite. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Silly and unprofessional" is perhaps rather less diplomatic language than Hall used. Watch the video. Hear the emphasis on "single meal". Stop the contortions in defence of the indefensible. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, about providing context, that is what the reference is for. I have asked you several times here and here for example to provide content and sourcing you would find acceptable for this and your responses have been: (please note that I am gathering diffs now)

• mischaracterizing Hall as largely resting "on an incorrect assumption that everything Greger says should be taken as promotion of veganism". You have been told this is not the issue several times - the issue is that he exaggerates what can be claimed based on the science. (as I noted here and again here and here
• casting this as though anyone is saying "all his work is bunk" when no one is saying that (same dif as above, and here
• here you said that his exaggerations (specifically "How Not to Die") are a "rhetorical device" (yes, I have been saying all along that he uses the rhetorical device of exaggeration to get people's attention and this is exactly the problem from a scientific perspective) and you further said "I have not actually seen one example of an unsupportable claim" which means that you are not actually dealing with what Hall wrote.
• you said you can't find a source to support such a claim here and
• when I provided an exact example from Hall of this specific exaggeration about "crippling", you suddenly duck saying we can't read too much into a primary source, and then here you claim (based on your own interpretation of the primary source) that "He doesn't only refer to that study; on the contrary, he seems to be claiming that the result is explained by subsequent studies which showed that the result was not caused by animal fat. Just look at a couple more minutes of the same video" which is exactly contradicting what you said when you ducked... and not what I or anyone else are doing. And you do that again in your last comment above. This is unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

He shows that a single meal high in animal fat IS harmful to artery function. There's nothing to criticize there. He doesn't go on to say "this is a permanent effect," but rather that it's a transient effect that can be repeated throughout the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner).( not signed by IP 19:54, 1 September 2016‎ 2600:8807:5408:6000:b98a:a038:4b78:9c07 )

He doesn't "show" any such thing. An old weak study is used and exaggerated generalisations are spun out of it. Exactly as Halls says. We are obliged to make this kind of thing clear here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jytdog The next couple minutes of the video is about the exact same subject. The part you quoted was the set-up for that. I do have to admit you are right, though, the use of the terms "paralyze" and "cripple" to describe this effect is a pretty blatant exaggeration. I'm not trying to "duck" that. My concern is that the wording has insufficient context and appears to conflict with his other statements "In “How Not to Die,” Dr. Greger avoids using the word “vegan” and makes a point of stating that you can still enjoy a serving of your mother’s Easter ham".

The other points are off-topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Without this claim however, I'd be happy to accept the text and withdraw the RfC, as I think the other text can be justified by the source above which refers to this criticism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I also see this part as the only significant issue since the article has been rewritten by Jytdog. In her article, Hall doesn't even make the "arteries crippling" example her main focus. It's only one of the things she didn't like, yet our article is making it stand out. A summary of what she said is enough, and we have it. --Rose (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

He cites data showing this effect. Surely your criticism could be more nuanced than "it's bad and I don't like it and Harriet Hall said so" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B98A:A038:4B78:9C07 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm also planning on leaving Wikipedia indefinitely, so please don't waste time collecting diffs. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:FLOUNCE. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note to IP editor

In a contested discussion like this, no one knows if you are one of the participants editing while logged out, or some other person. I have been ignoring what you write due to this ambiguity. I am considering starting a sockpuppet investigation, but I wanted to warn you first; if you have an account please use it in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

PP

In view of the ongoing edit-warring by "fresh" accounts (including IPs) likely at one in the sock drawer, I have requested this page be semi-protected. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You want me, specifically, to be banned from editing. I'm sure that's much easier than trying to argue rationally for how you want the article to be.

If we wanted that, we'd do it. It would be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

See also section

Can any entries please be worked into the article. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking. See also is not a required section and you can get to all kinds of related articles though the categories. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 10 September 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.[7] 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)

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)

• 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)