Talk:John A. McDougall/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Untitled

This reads like an ad for Dr. John McDougall. His theories, which are that you need to be vegan to be healthy and take supplements for B12 are controversial and it needs to be put into the body of the article. Ruth E (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does read like a vanity page. I am going to add some content to put it into perspective. Tom Barrister 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)

This article still reads like an ad for McDougall. Personally I think his stance that eating more vegetables while stopping chemotherapy will cure cancer makes him an obvious quack. There should at least be something in this article about how his "views" are not widely (at all?) shared within the medical or scientific community.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.194.242 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can cite actual sources stating that other doctors and scientists do not share his views, feel free to add them to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Science, or otherwise. In fact, his own website and publications are referenced as the sources. Doesn't matter what anyone believes, that's not considered a reliable source, and makes the page incredibly biased.173.24.70.30 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In this Wikipedia article, the links to his web site are for establishing biographical information, not for establishing the scientific validity of the McDougall Program. In any case, my response from two years ago stands: If there are reliable sources that say McDougall's views are not shared by other doctors and scientists, feel free to add them to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal diet

It appears John A. McDougall does not identify himself as a strict vegetarian. In an interview he was asked "How long have you been a been a vegetarian?". He replied, "My diet has been 99.9% vegetarian for the past 28 years."[1] Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

True, he eats a slice of turkey every other year to "prove" he's not a vegetarian. [2] Funcrunch (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

References

'Boring Diet' is meant to bring balance with a terrible reference?

Noting the discussion above, was introducing a one line critique meant to be be balancing? Ultimately a full discussion can't be had on a page like this - it would have to point to something else that presents pros/cons of a plant based diet as there is more than simply the McDougall Plan. Now, what this page CAN do is focus on the research and results that he performed - he is a published physician who has written books. Serious critiques of the diet should also be welcome as they specifically pertain to his research, including biases in methods, patient selection, and data analysis. The reference to "essential concepts for healthy living" is ridiculous as far as a critique is concerned and is filled with POV issues just in the table alone. Lets address the facts objectively, not with silly terms like "boring", or misleading opinions like flatulence. This isn't a moment to get into the details, but I'd like to see a revamp of this focusing on the facts (both for and against). 207.38.43.28 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Essential Concepts for Healthy Living is a well-established, well-published medical textbook: a secondary source of the very highest quality per WP:MEDRS and probably is by far the stongest source in this entire article. If there are other similarly strong sources, propose them ... but this text gives us a quality source to reflect for information about McDougall's diet plan. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
So I don't have access to the book , but if it is indeed a strong source, then its either being referenced incorrectly, or it simply hasn't developed around this topic. Right now, we are relying on a subjective statement of "boring food choice", a potentially misleading statement of "flatulence" and a confusing statement of "might feel hungry" which begs asking 'then eat more?'. Isn't food choice subjective, especially when using the terms 'boring'? And where are there problems with flatulence? Does the book (if you have access it would be great) reference studies showing issues with flatulence on long term eaters following this type of diet? Why are there issues with hunger - does the diet require careful calorie counting with the aim of restriction? Otherwise hunger should be satisfied with consuming more.
For someone looking for a brief summary, all they will learn is that it is a terrible diet because not only are the choice not fun and exciting, they'll be hungry all the time while constantly farting. As I said - maybe its a great source that is referenced incorrectly, or maybe this "great source" actually hasn't really developed this topic.
For example (and use this as an EXAMPLE, as I'd prefer to go back to the primary sources referenced in the article):
Fruit and vegetables-especially boiled potatoes-proved to have high satiating values, whereas bakery products like cakes, croissants and biscuits were the least satiating foods. Protein-rich foods (fish, meat, baked beans, lentils and eggs) and carbohydrate-rich foods (pasta, rice, wholegrain breads and cereals) were among the most satiating foods. [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/what-makes-us-feel-full/
I'm not arguing that fish, meat, eggs don't satiate because they do. But given that Potatoes, Pastas, Rice, Fruits and Vegetables are the core of this diet approach, it shows why I think the section is mis leading should be revamped per something along the lines of my original recommendations.
207.38.43.28 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
We are obliged to reflect what good sources say, not what us editors might think. Have you got some good sources to consider? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


I think it is pretty clear that Alexbrn is very anti-john mcdougall and seeks to critizise him at every opportunity. The McDougall plan is world wide known and one of the best ways to get healthy. Referencing a text book that makes an off the cuff mark that the diet is a Fad one (with absolutely NO evidence for this... i.e. NO patient sampling or questionnaires to back this claim up) is very poor editorial behaviour. Perhaps If I was to write a book saying "The diet is the best in the world" would Alexbrn use that just because it had been published in a book? Definitely not because he is obviously anti vegan and anti John McDougall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.134.70 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wrote it and it became a well-published & established textbook in its sixth edition (like our source) then yes, it would be an excellent source. But the reality is other than that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like Alexbrn has some serious hangups with McDougall and is intent on soiling his image. Just ignore people, he is out to reck what we all know is a great meal plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.132.172 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain what makes this health guide a good resource? Anyone simply searching for this publishing will find out it's nothing special. Being in its such-and-such edition means little to nothing when the majority of it might as well be copy/pasted, edition to edition. Seems that it's probably used by a certain university, which doesn't lend any more credibility to it seeing as someone here is probably working for the publishing company behind it.

Ahh, conflict of interest bias at its finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6D:B140:10D0:FF79:130D:E340 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

clip of McDougall from Tedx

There is some interesting information presented in this clip that seems to be obviously questionable specifically the reference to Neanderthals and other ancient groups. Still, it is evident that physicians present all types of diets which do result in positive successful results for their patients. Certainly, McDougall deserves equal respect as any doctor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wfMNNr3ak

203.131.210.82 (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

Delete: McDougall's diet – The McDougall Plan – has been categorized as a fad diet which carries some disadvantages such as a boring food choice and a risk of gas.[2]

This is an opinion, not factual. Hebrewman76 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It's well sourced and meets WP:V, so is in line with our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

The line "McDougall's diet – The McDougall Plan – has been categorized as a fad diet which carries some disadvantages such as a boring food choice and a risk of gas." is very controversial and seems purely objective. First of all it states "has been categorized" but doesn't mention who categorized it. In this case it is the writer of some other book with less credibility than McDougall himself. Also almost all of the McDougall lifestyle followers report feeling satisfied and happy with the lifestyle. There is no source for such claim and the source provided for the line doesn't have a source for it either.

To conclude, this line is very objective and contains unjustified and unsupported claims. Obenabde (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: As mentioned above in the exact same request, that line is referenced. We don't just remove controversial things because someone doesn't like it. As long as they are referenced they are fine. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fad diet clarification.

I don't really have a dog in this fight either way, but saying "has been classified as a fad diet" seems a bit of a biasing statement. I'd be fine with it if there were sources as to its verifiability of being a fad or not, but as it stands, seems like a statement of opinion rather than fact. 67.233.64.238 (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced to a reliable source & it's true. For neutrality we need to say it. Alexbrn (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn: What is the definition of neutral here? This is an isolated negative statement (fad diets are generally not regarded as something positive) with no positive statement to balance it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibbitybop57 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the current wording "has been classified as a fad diet". By whom? Sounds weasely to me. I am not disputing the fact, just the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.149.8 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Could just say "is a fad diet" I suppose. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have already commented on what seems like a hostile take-over of this man's Wikipedia biography. Dr. McDougall is a great leader in a health movement that is supported by a lot of research - if you have paid attention or if you read health research you would know. Even kaiser Permanente supports a vegan diet as a means of increasing one's health. Why you would call this a "fad diet" I do not know. Dr. NMcDougall has been supported and joined by an ever increasing amount of physicians: Dr. neal Barnard, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, Dr. T. Colin Campbell - author of the China Study which is a longevity study relating diet and health performed by Cornell, Oxford and the Chinese Government which documented the health benefits of the vegan diet. Also Dr. Dean Ornish supports this and has done research on the reversal of heart disease using a vegan diet, Dr. Michael Greger - who has a You Tube channel reviewing the scientific literature documenting the health benefits of the vegan diet , Dr. Joel Fuhrman, I could keep going. To trivialize this by calling it a fad diet is a horrific insult and is incredibly biased. Having just looked at the Wikipedia on the China Study - I now see that the Loren Cordain people have infiltrated these sites (of well known vegans) and are changing the biographies to suit their own beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:4000:233B:ED84:A59:573:3D69 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of fad diets (including Cordain's, as it happens). Good sources identify them and Wikipedia shall follow those sources in doing so. It's really as simple as that. Alexbrn (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit requested on July 26, 2016

I was offended by whoever inserted that John A McDougall's diet is a "fad diet" - which I adamantly disagree with. He is a well respected physician, researcher and advocate for better health. I am not an experienced editor on Wikipedia and made some changes to the page and now the page is not in cinque with Wikipedia standards. I would like some help to revise this page so improve it.

Your edit was reverted by Alexbrn. Based upon the discussion above, there is clearly no consensus for removing the sentence from the lead. To seek opinions from other Wikipedia editors, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or file a request for comment. Altamel (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's act like adults...

And not put farting in the lead of this BLP. It's mentioned once in passing, it's not about the person but is about his diet, and it's simply in bad taste. TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a medical reality, from the best source we have. If anything is mentioned about the McDougall plan, then this sort of high-quality sourced content needs to be there. Children may find "farting" funny, but in a medical context it's just a natural phenomenon (and an irksome adverse effect). Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And belongs in the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the most important contents of an article. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
For the record, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. TimothyJosephWood 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It is the most important thing about the diet (which the lede dwells on): it's not very good (in part because of the flatulence issue), according to strong WP:MEDRS. For NPOV we really need to say that. I don't really care if the flatulence thing is in the lede; it could be swapped with the "feeling hungry" criticism. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The source lists: limited food choice, feelings of deprivation, increase intestinal gas, reduced mineral absorption, and often feeling hungry. MEDRS is irrelevant because no one is questioning the validity of the source. STICKTO is irrelevant because no one is suggesting going beyond the source. NPOV actually is relevant because these two things are, for apparently no reason, chosen out of this list of five for inclusion in the lead. Exhaustively linking to WP:NOTRELEVANT WP:MISAPPLIED WP:POLICY does not constitute an argument for why this should be the case. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If you don't care. Then I'm going to remove it again. Looking at the history, it's already been removed a half dozen times or more in the last 50 edits. That's probably because it's immediately striking as POV and not particularly relevant. If you want to replace it with something else feel free to do so. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I would support its removal. I deleted it but then one of the editiors called ALEXBURN repalced it back again. If you go to his website, he has lots of great meals and it's definitely not boring. I can see above that Alex Burn has been the main one keeping this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.210.102 (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

== Overuse of Obscure Tertiary References

A few have made it their job to misinform the reader by war-editing in dubious claims from obscure tertiary unfounded references to the detriment of McDougall's reputation and the potentially the reader's health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.254.223.2 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Fad diet" claim revisited

It appears that the claim about the McDougall Plan being a "fad diet" is highly controversial on this talk page, which I only discovered after I removed the claim (and which was promptly reverted). Rather than potentially inciting an edit war, I might as well just explain my rationale here and hopefully resolve this dispute here.

I investigated the citation that the textbook provides, namely Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition (8th Edition), and the source does not technically classify the McDougall Plan (or any of those diets) as "fad diets". The table is indeed located in the chapter section on fad diets, but the title of the table itself is simply "A Summary of Popular Diet Approaches to Weight Control". Included in that table is a category of diets which the authors of the textbook themselves describe as "[a]cceptable if a balanced multivitamin and mineral supplement is used and if physician approval obtained", and the category under which the McDougall Plan is placed does not mention any apparent "boredom" whatsoever. Specifically, the category states its outcomes as the following:

Flatulence; possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber; limited food choices sometimes lead to deprivation

Not necessarily to be avoided, but certain aspects of many of the plans possibly unacceptable

This description and table is markedly different from the description and table provided in Essential Concepts for Healthy Living (6th Edition), which is what is cited. Specifically, there is no mention of "boredom" or "favorite foods" or feeling "hungry", the McDougall Plan is not technically classified as a fad diet, and there is no explicit indication that the McDougall Plan should even necessarily be avoided or that any parts of the plan are unacceptable. The same is true for the other diets specified in that category. In fact, the McDougall Plan arguably doesn't even qualify as a fad diet according to the textbook's own criteria. The only mention of "boredom" or "favorite foods" is in the later text about "low-fat diets", wherein the textbook specifies:

Low-fat diets, especially those that are very low in fat, turn out to be very-high-carbohydrate diets. These diets contain approximately 5 to 10% of energy intake as fat. The most notable are the Pritikin Diet and Dr. Dean Ornish's Eat More, Weigh Less plans. Low-fat diets are not harmful for healthy adults, but they are difficult to follow. These diets contain mostly grains, fruits, and vegetables. Eventually, many people get bored with this type of diet because they cannot eat favorite foods—they want some foods higher in fat or protein. Low-fat diets are very different from the typical north American diet, which makes it hard for many adults to follow them consistently.

It's appears to me that the authors of Essential Concepts for Healthy Living (6th Edition) took dubious liberties in their claims which their own source either does not support or which better contextualizes it. Moreover, their source is yet another nutrition textbook (a tertiary source) and that textbook provides no sources for the the pertinent claims it makes.

In other words, we are including on this tertiary (quaternary?) source called Wikipedia a claim which is supported by an obscure tertiary source whose substantiation is itself a tertiary source that has no substantiation of its own; and the tertiary source we used doesn't even faithfully represent the tertiary source it cites as supporting evidence. For this particular claim, this source is so incredibly weak that it arguably doesn't pass verifiability, or at least only passes based on the most shallow and uncritical appeals to authority as it relates to WP:RS. It may qualify as a fringe position, as well, since I cannot find a single corroborating reliable source, including the source that the source use in this article cites. Per WP:MEDRS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". The source provided to substantiate the claim is a tertiary source and its source is also a tertiary source, at least with respect to this particular claim; therefore, it is clearly not a satisfactory source for this claim.

Given the aforementioned realities, I see no reason why the assertion that the McDougall Plan is a "classified as a fad diet" should remain, which seems to violate WP:NPOV. At the very least, I suggest that this claim should be removed from the lead and qualified per WP:DUE and WP:RSOPINION, respectively, since there is no secondary reliable source basis for this particular claim and the current cited source arguably isn't satisfactory proof to substantiate it.

On a related note: due to the relative obscurity of this textbook and the aforementioned problems (which remain consistent throughout the instances it is cited on Wikipedia), I recommend that this Essential Concepts for Healthy Living (6th Edition) source is promptly removed from other articles, such as rice diet, Pritikin diet, Scarsdale diet, Sugar Busters!, cabbage soup diet, etc. If a better source can be found for any of the claimed cited with this source, I encourage for it to be used, including in this article. My opposition here is not with classifying those diets as fads (some of them, in my opinion, clearly are); my problem is with this particular source being used to provide substantiation to a claim that a given diet is a fad diet simply based off an unsubstantiated table. Given that Alexbrn appears to be the one who has added this source as a citation in all (or virtually all) such articles, it's best for Alexbrn to address this issue, though any other comments are welcomed.

As a final remark, it may be worthwhile to consolidate this section with the others pertaining to this particular claim. Given that it is so controversial, it may be useful to also to submit a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, since this is a dispute between more than two parties. To my knowledge, no consensus has been established on this particular claim in the article, either, so calling for a poll to determine whether there is consensus can also help.

―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you very briefly summarize all that, and make it clear that you have read past discussions and are addressing others' concerns? --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Basically, Ronz, I believe that the source does not sufficiently support the claim it is cited to support; the source does not pass Wikipedia's own standards per WP:MEDRS due to it being a tertiary source that it itself supported by another tertiary source; the claim and accompanying source appear to be POV (and thus violate WP:NPOV), particularly by placing undue weight on the source by using it as alone sufficient to support the claim and on the claim by placing it in the lead; the claim appears to be fringe and moreover isn't discussed enough to be considered even a notable fringe claim; and the source fails to faithfully represent its own source upon which the entire claim is supported. Due to these realities, I suggest that we should either remove the claim entirely (per WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NFRINGE), or at least remove it from the lead (per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE) and qualify it as the opinions of the authors (per WP:RSOPINION). I have already attempted to remove the content per WP:BLP, but I'm not interested in having an edit war with anyone, so I'm here. If it were up to me, this content would be removed immediately as first and foremost a violation of WP:BLP.
Yes, I have read the previous discussions about this issue and I don't think there were really any particular concerns being raised or addressed that my above post did not itself either raise or address, or that didn't seem to be dead ends which would not be worthwhile to pursue. Rather than disputing the particular claims the source makes, like others have previously done, I'm disputing the credibility of the source itself as being satisfactory evidence to substantiate the claim it is cited to support, and I'm disputing whether the claim and its accompanying source are compliant with Wikipedia's standards. Hopefully, that is a brief enough explanation. If not, then apologies for the verbosity. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. As this is not a health claim, I don't see how MEDRS applies. It's almost as if you are reversing MEDRS, as his claims are not backed by medical science, bordering on pseudoscience. I think you are reversing FRINGE, and his claims most certainly are FRINGE. Likewise, I think it would be a POV violation to not present relevant material from sources of this quality. As the content isn't about him but his diet, I don't see how BLP applies. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS applies because the source being cited is about nutrition. If WP:MEDRS doesn't apply, then Alexbrn's defense of this source as being "ideal WP:MEDRS" is wholly debunked. I was being generous by treating this as a WP:MEDRS, since that seems to be the defense, and even on that basis this source doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Anyway, if you're referring to the claims of the authors of the textbook, then I would agree that their classification of the McDougall Plan as a "fad diet" is "not backed by medical science". If you mean McDougall's claims, however, then I have no idea where you got such an idea, Ronz. McDougall's books and advice are predicated on a wealth of scientific research. Have you read any of his works whatsoever? Perhaps you don't agree with his claims and conclusions, but to accuse his claims of not being "backed by medical science" and "bordering on pseudoscience" is not really a tenable criticism.
WP:FRINGE applies because the claim that the McDougall Plan is a "fad diet" is itself a fringe claim, and not even a notable one at that. Whether McDougall and his McDougall Plan are fringe is not particularly relevant (though he seems rather mainstream to me) to the fact that this particular claim is fringe. Fringe claims can be made even about fringe claims (and claimants).
Are you seriously suggesting that the source in question is good in quality, at least with regard to this particular claim? The source—at least for this specific claim—is incredibly weak and unsubstantiated, one that wouldn't even pass being a credible source on this particular claim for a college research paper, much less in any other encyclopedia. On what basis are you determining that this source is good enough quality to substantiate the specific claim it is being cited to support?
WP:BLP applies because it is a contentious claim about his work, which is necessarily tied to the author of the work, on the article about him. This claim is not only controversial and contentious, but is unbalanced (especially when included in the lead) and may violate WP:NPOV. It's clear to me that this claim is poorly sourced and should therefore be removed immediately, which is what I attempted to do. However good and reliable that source may otherwise be, that fact doesn't render literally anything and everything stated therein as automatically good and reliable, as well. When it comes to this particular claim, the source being cited is about as credible as an opinion piece on a blog. Perhaps if this article was about the McDougall Plan in specific, such claims may be appropriate if supported by good enough sources. This article is about McDougall himself, however, and thus WP:BLP applies. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but while you may believe those things, I believe they reverse the intent of MEDRS, definitely FRINGE, possibly BLP. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, your comment seems insufficient. What exactly are you contesting in Nøkkenbuer's comment? Would you explain better please? Nøkkenbuer seems to make sense here. SageRad (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm contesting his interpretations and applications of the policies to start. They make no sense to me. --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Very well researched and analyzed Nøkkenbuer, and from your comments and guidance here, not to mention common sense, that sentence/paragraph should be removed from not only the lead (?why was it there?) but from the article. To take such an all-inclusive reference, read into it, and put such language into the lead must have taken a little effort. It's okay to be biased, we are all biased about some topics (full disclosure I've been a vegetarian/vegan since 1988 and not only is the food not "boring" but every meal is a feast) but to bring those bias into a page should require full and very good references, and this lead reference isn't that. Randy Kryn 18:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a well-established, top-tier textbook: ideal WP:MEDRS. So we follow it. Editors are prohibited by WP:MEDRS from carrying out their own amateur peer-review of such sources, as if they know better than the experts! Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources. When the sources change, we shall follow. Until then, we wait. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is the reference under discussion. As we can see, this chart that the author claims are fad diets (how long does something have to be around not to be labeled "fad"?) is just a list of diets, a long list, and although I haven't looked this reference is probably not in the lead of all of those diets, especially with such biased language. Pokémon Go is a fad, but if it's around and still popular in 2030 I think the term fad fades. Randy Kryn 18:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
A fad diet is not one that is just currently popular. Maybe check out our fad diet article? In any case, your original research to counter a strong source is of no consequence here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
On what basis are you asserting that it is a "well-established, top-tier textbook", Alexbrn? This particular source is rather obscure and is scantily cited by other authors. It doesn't have its own Wikipedia page, nor do either of its authors. It seems to me like this source is simply an entry-level textbook for undergraduates, and not a particularly well-known one at that. I, for one, have never heard of it until I saw it cited in this article. Moreover, I wouldn't consider the source to be "ideal WP:MEDRS", given that it isn't even a secondary source. It's a tertiary source supported by another tertiary source which it itself not supported by any source, and the source being cited doesn't even faithfully represent the source it's citing. If anything, that's arguably the weakest possible and least ideal WP:MEDRS one can have, below even a primary source. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that the source doesn't provide any evidence, rationale, or even detailed citations to substantiate its claims. It simply made a cursory remark which, like I explained above, didn't even faithfully represent the one tertiary source it did cite. That's hardly a satisfactorily verified claim, even perhaps by Wikipedia's dubious standards.
I don't particularly care if the authors of the source are "experts". Such shameless appeals to authority aren't very persuasive to me, nor should it be for anyone. A quick review of the source shows that it's, at least in my opinion, inadequate and doesn't even meet the standards that WP:MEDRS sets, like I explained above. Even if this source and its use as evidence for this particular claim technically meet Wikipedia's standards, I nevertheless think we should consider whether it's still appropriate to include it anyway per WP:IAR.
If you disagree with this opinion, and you seriously want to stand by this weak source, then perhaps we should submit a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in order to seek a lasting resolution on this issue. Alternatively, we can seek dispute resolution at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, or the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. I don't doubt for a moment that the source and its use here may be upheld, but even that would be preferable to continued dispute on this matter in the talkpage. That, after all, is my goal: to resolve this budding perennial dispute before it clutters the talk page any further. Obviously, I have my own opinion about what that resolution should be, but that is secondary to the resolution itself. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's published by a reputable publisher and is in its sixth edition. For nutrition sources, it hardly gets better than that. It is by some distance the best source in our article. There is no genuine dispute here, you just want to edit against the WP:PAGs just because of your "opinion", and that isn't going to happen. You seem to recognize that our WP:PAGs uphold this source's use, but continue to produce WP:WALLs of text about it, and that is disruptive. WP:PSCI applies so I'll drop a note at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't care how good the source may be in general, Alexbrn; what I—and any Wikipedian should—care about is whether the source is good enough for the particular claim it's cited to support. If not, then it should not be included no matter how much of a "well-established, top-tier textbook" it ostensibly may be. If the statement was some general claim about nutrition, then this particular source would probably be fine if no better reliable sources were available. The specific claim is about whether the McDougall Plan is a "fad diet", however, and this source completely fails to substantiate that claim. At the very best, the claim is the opinions of the authors based on a dubious reading of their own source, in which case it should at least be qualified as such per WP:RSOPINION. Given that the claim also appears to be fringe, it should be removed from the lead in order to avoid giving undue weight to it.
This has less to do with my personal opinion (which is largely one of indifference about McDougall and the McDougall Plan) and more to do with ensuring this Wikipedia article doesn't mislead readers with POV claims supported by what are essentially appeals to authority just because a particular editor has a dogged commitment to obstructing amendments to it in relation to that particular claim. Like I have already explained before, I don't think this source meets Wikipedia's standards, particularly because it fails to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS, it arguably qualifies as a fringe claim, it is being given undue weight in the article, and it appears to be nothing more than the opinions of the authors. If none of those issues were present, I wouldn't be disputing this claim because its classification as a "fad diet" doesn't matter all that much to me personally. If it did, then I wouldn't be willing to support changes to qualify this claim as the opinions of the authors and removing it fro the lead will keeping the source.
I'm confident that my dispute is "genuine" and I encourage others to provide their opinions about it. If we want to discuss disruptive actions, then I have no problem questioning whether your obstinacy regarding a contentious and poorly source claim on an article about a living person is itself appropriate. Since we apparently won't be able to resolve this dispute ourselves, I've submitted reports at WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and WP:NPOVN, which can be found here, here, and here, respectively. Hopefully, this dispute can be resolved soon so that it doesn't continue to be the subject of controversy on this article. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This diet meets the definition of fad diet (the main thing) and we have a reliable source for it. The things that make it a fad diet are the same as all these other diets marketed by celebrity doctors (really gotta write that article). healthy eating is really simple - you don't have to wrap it up in branding and put weird constraints on people (the two hallmarks of a fad diet). The branding and constraints happen in order to a) make money; b) differentiate their branded diet from the zillion others out there, so that c) they can make money. Of course people who are into the diet don't like it that it is a fad diet, but that is not WP's problem. (btw veganism is not a fad diet; The McDougall PlanTM is) Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In what way does the McDougall Plan meet the definition of a "fad diet"? According to who? Regardless of however good and reliable the source in question may be, I don't think it's reliable or satisfactory for this particular claim, like I've explained above. Of course McDougall would brand his dietary plan, since it's profitable to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean the McDougall Plan is a "fad diet". As for "weird constraints on people", I'm not sure on what basis you're making that claim.
To dispel any confusion that might result from this exchange, I want to clarify that I do not follow the McDougall Plan nor is it particularly important to me as a person whether the McDougall Plan is classified as a "fad diet", especially when that classification is the unjustified opinion of two authors of a rather obscure undergraduate textbook. My goal here is to, first and foremost, settle this seemingly perennial dispute; and, secondly, to potentially rectify the problems I see in this article. The outcome of the first goal, and thus the chances of accomplishing the second goal, is secondary to resolving this conflict. If I actually cared all that much about whether the McDougall Plan is classified as a "fad diet", I wouldn't be open to supporting the inclusion of those claims so long as some modifications are made or a better source is found. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The source supports fad diet, the diet itself meets the usual definition of fad diet, and attempts to make this somehow not a fad diet clearly stray over the line of WP:SYN. This is not particularly complex, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The "usual definition of fad diet" according to who? According to the definition and explanation of fad diets in Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition (8th Edition), which is the source that the Essential Concepts for Healthy Living (6th Edition) cites, there is no clear indication that the McDougall Plan qualifies as a "fad diet" and, at least in my opinion, it doesn't meet the minimal criteria for being one as enumerated in that very source. If anything qualifies as WP:SYN, it would be the dubious actions of the authors of the source in dispute (Essential Concepts for Healthy Living) in deciding to classify the McDougall Plan as a "fad diet" based on a dubious reading of their own source.
Nothing I have stated thus far even remotely qualifies as WP:SYN. It makes no sense to accuse me of such behavior and I encourage you to demonstrate where you think I have engaged in WP:SYN activities. If anything, I have been arguing against such activities in my criticism of this source. This issue is, at least to me, more complex than you seem willing to admit, so why you are so willing to dismiss this rather complex dispute with such simple declarations? At the very least, please explain where I am incorrect so that this dispute can finally be resolved. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Posting this on four noticeboards in addition to the talk page is bordering on openly disruptive. You need to fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Then what should I have done? The point of my doing that was to invite more input on this matter with the goal of dispute resolution and achieving consensus, since it's clear that neither were likely to be accomplished among the current parties. I have virtually no experience with achieving this, so I searched through the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines articles for information about how to do so. The bulk of them were pointing toward submitting noticeboard reports, so I did just that. I found nothing that prohibited or discouraged cross-noticeboard posts about the same issue. Since this issue is, in my opinion, related to matters of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, I decided to open reports on all three. I didn't want to leave out any of them, since the editors from those noticeboards would probably have valuable information and opinions on each of those matters.
I have zero interest in being disruptive (which is the last thing I'd want to do) and would prefer for this dispute to be speedily resolved, especially since I don't like to participate in talkpages and prefer to stick to minor editing. If there was a better approach, then please let me know because I don't know of one. Oh, and minor clarification: I only posted on three noticeboards, not four, unless this talkpage counts as one. I did not post on the WP:DRN because I thought that would be the next step if consensus could not be reached. Perhaps I should have gone there first before going to the other three noticeboards. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You could have contributed to the existing discussion at WP:FT/N. Or, better still, have dropped the WP:STICK since it should have been fairly clear already that consensus dictates the "fad diet" description is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion, i note well that Nøkkenbuer explains their reasoning very well, and it seems very sound. The source cited appears to not support the claim. There seems to be a lot of WP:IDHT going on where people seem to not hear that the source doesn't say what is claimed that it says. Seems pretty simple to me, and yet we have such a tangle tension here. SageRad (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"The McDougall Plan" is listed in a table called "Fad Diets" (source) How in the world can you say "The source cited appears to not support the claim."? Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, seems i misread the description of the source in the comments. Thanks. This would be a case where i admit that i am wrong Jytdog. Nøkkenbuer's objection above was that the source cited in that source did not call it a fad diet, and that may be so, but the primary source listed here does call it such. Thanks for the link, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Great. It is not a primary source, so not totally great. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I've said this before and I suppose I'll say it again, there's not enough article here to warrant more than couple of sentences in the lead. The most reliable way to trim bias is to trim. Remove everything possible in the lead that is not directly about the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 01:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
if we are going to describe his diet plan (which i think we have to, since this is why he notable) we have to note that it falls outside of mainstream advice about healthy eating. This is what we do for all health claims in WP. The article seems pretty OK to me now. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree, his notability is in his diet.
I've been searching for potential sources to help us, not finding anything that will help yet. I've been looking for something about the history of diets and nutritional recommendations that covers the 80's. Vegetarian diets had become more and more popular since the 70s. Low-fat was typical of that time (and turned out to be misguided). Low-protein was an artifact of that combination. McDougall's medical training and experience was all pre-evidence-based medicine. Taken together, his diet wasn't very fringe at all, but fit nicely with the fads of his time and ever since. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
So there is one fairly good source calling it a "fad diet" and i haven't seen much else to support this. I've also not seen a whole lot about this diet in the universe of available sources that i've found in a quick survey of peer-reviewed papers and books. Remember that NPOV asks editors to look at the sources that speak to a subject, and to represent the subject in light of those sources with a sense of balance. If 90% of good sources call it a "fad diet" then we ought to call it such... if 90% of good sources do not call it a "fad diet" then we ought not to call it such, but only note that some sources call it such. In other words, one good source calling it a "fad diet" is not sufficient for this term to stick in the primary definition of the topic in Wikivoice if there are many other good sources that do not call it a "fad diet". It would be sufficient sourcing to have Wikivoice state that it "has been categorized by some" as a "fad diet" but not to define it as such. We must represent sources honestly. My quick survey doesn't turn up much about this particular diet, though. SageRad (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
That shows a basic misunderstanding of how sourcing is applied in Wikipedia. We follow good sources. If there are other good sources that consider the categorization question then we need to account for those. But since (it seems) there aren't then this categorization is clear in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, i agree with this to a point, but it's also the case that a source that seriously discusses a topic at length and does not name it as being in a category that would be salient if the source considered it such, it's de facto considering the categorization question. In this case, Alexbrn, i am agreeing with you that there are few good sources i've found on this diet from third party sources (i.e. not the proponent of the diet), and one good source that did mention it explicitly categorized it as such. However, on the general principle, please consider a case where there is person "X" and one source calls "X" a "NeoNazi" whereas 9 other sources describe "X" at length and nowhere at all call them a "NeoNazi" -- in that case you would be justified to be skeptical of the claim of the lone source making such a strong claim, and not to state that claim in Wikivoice with such weak sourcing. SageRad (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Godwin's law applies. The fact that this diet is a fad diet is obvious - it fits the definition like a glove. So for something so mundane only a weak source is needed. But instead we have a very strong source, by far the strongest in the entire article. A better thought exercise for you would be to say that if one strong source says the earth is round, but that you can find lots of sources that don't mention roundness, then you'd be skeptical of the fact, and would insist Wikipedia held off of mentioning it. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep Godwin is validated again, and that flag going up signals that this conversation just went over into the ridiculous. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ridiculous rhetoric to mention Godwin's here. Here, the "NeoNazi" example was not related to the topic of the article, and you use that as a slight. I was making a point in general about sourcing because Alexbrn said "That shows a basic misunderstanding of how sourcing is applied in Wikipedia." whereas it actually does not and did you also get the point that i was not disagreeing on the particular content of this article? Will you ever work with me on anything? Or do you see my username and go into oppositional mode? Secondly, we do not go by what's "obvious" Alexbrn. We go by what sources say. If it's "obvious" to you then you find sources to support that and you can include it, which has been done here, rightfully in my opinion as well. But to say it's obvious and therefore we need to say that is really WP:SYN or WP:OR. If i were to act like you above, i'd say "that's Wikipedia 101".... SageRad (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
What is "obvious" decidedly does inform wikipedia editing because it allows us to judge sources to use for lightweight claims, as in this illustration:
Reliable sources must be strong enough to support a claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.
Actually, Alexbrn (author of above unsigned comment) -- Wikipedia is explicitly not about what seems "obvious" to any editor. When challenged, anything is required to be sourced to WP:RS standards. Please stop with your "Wikipedia 101" edit summaries and your continual projection of attitude that you're the expert and i'm a fool, because it is not civil. Also, i think the picture is distracting and not needed. Anyway, this is a meta-discussion gone off track because of derailment by others. So ta ta for now on this topic in this venue. SageRad (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I posted my comments on RSN and will now comment here. A reasonable approach to this or any other article is to search for the best sources and reflect what they say. In this case we have decided what the article should say and searched for sources to support our opinions. A reliable secondary source about the diet should be sufficient to explain it without using tertiary sources that mention it once in a list, without any explanation how it fits their definition or any sources. I am sure that the readers supporting the source are experts on nutrition, have read the diet plan and can explain why it is ineffective or unhealthy. But that is not how policies and guidelines expect us to write articles and in fact synthesis is specifically prohibited. If we cannot find adequate relevant secondary sources then the solution is not to bend policy and guidelines, but to reduce the text. If that means eliminating the section or even deleting the article, then do it. We can always write articles of our own and post them on other sites. TFD (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Medical textbooks are ideal WP:MEDRS. It's our best source. We reflect what it says. So you should be happy. The "try to make reality fit my preconception" problem applies to the diet fanbois. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS says, "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources." However this is an introductory textbook for undergrads.[3][4] MEDRS says, "A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate textbooks, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources." "...the information [in tertiary sources] may be too terse for detailed articles." Putting the diet in a list is as terse as it gets.

Here's a chart that shows your some fails rs for MEDRS:

Books can often be a great source when starting an article, giving a good overview of the subject. However, all books are not equally good sources." This simplified flowchart shows which books make the cut for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

I appreciate you think it is a public service to warn the public about the diet, and no doubt your opinion of the diet is correct. But the reason we have policies is to prevent editors from arguing for fringe views.

TFD (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that chart TFD. you noted it is an undergrad textbook and as the chart shows, those fall on the "OK" side of that line. btw that chart is a pretty new addition to MEDRS; not sure it is going to last. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Yup, this is a WP:MEDRS for biomedical information, so for something so trivial as a "fad diet" categorization it is overkill. We are fortunate that this diet gets any coverage in decent sources; where it does, we should be all over it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Clearly passes the MEDRS threshold. Passes any other RS criteria. Fine as a source for obvious fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

>fad diet, risk of feeling hungry, boring food choices This is really grasping at straws. Hunger has barely anything to do with diet. Also why would you feel hungry on this diet, the foods would fill your stomach up more since they are less processed and therefor less calorically dense.... And boring food choices? He literally has cooking tips on his youtube channel showing a variety of meals. Obvious shilling against him is obvious. 104.231.250.148 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

List of works

I put this page on my watchlist after seeing you remove all this doctor's "Works" with a misleading edit summary. You seem to have been around here long enough to know that listing a person's works is encyclopedic and not just a "collection of lists". There are positive points of view that you seem to want to delete, and just leave the negative. A balance is needed on this and all articles, yet can't be had if an editor "owns" not only a page, but seemingly entire groups of topics, and in that sense of ownership pushes one point of view and excludes all others. This page has a remarkable lack of remaining positive statements and sources, and maybe you can help find some and balance the lead, and only then should it stay as is. If not, those lead points under contention should be deleted as well, as defining the subject's career this way is certainly unbalanced and unencyclopedic. Randy Kryn 20:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't just dump lists of "works" into articles (though selected work can be okay - perhaps those mentioned in the text or in cited RS). We also don't "balance" criticism with positive statements if the criticism is mainstream and well-sourced, and the counter is not. That is to fall into the WP:GEVAL trap. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
But oh, you've added this dump of stuff back in without engaging in this discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
A "Works" section, something which is allowed on every author's page, is an important part of any article. It is not a judgement on each and every work, it is saying that here is a noted person, and here is his/her published work. There should be no need to even discuss this. As mentioned above, we all have bias, yet this type of edit seems to be taking your personal bias against this doctor and doing your best to lessen the Wikipedia article on him. As you are an experienced editor, I'm not understanding your motivation and action here. Randy Kryn 2:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you stop trying to personalize this. I am concerned that you have added a link to unreliable/fringe material in breach of WP:ELNO. On what basis are you selecting items of primary research by McDougall for inclusion? Alexbrn (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Only one of the items in the "Works" section is linked, and that to the Nutrition Journal. I've added no links except reverting your edit. You removed the entire "Works" section, including his bibliography (an author's bibliography seems fine for any Wikipedia page on a noted individual), which is the concern. As for his research papers, I'm not a medical professional, so I don't know if the journals that he published in are totally fringe, reliable, or semi-reliable. Are they all loony-tune fringe enough, including the Nutrition Journal, to remove any paper published in them? The DVD section possibly could be removed without controversy, I'm not sure if Wikipedia usually provides a list of a noted person's DVD's (can anyone else answer on that point?). More later. Randy Kryn 3:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You reverted the material so you are responsible for it: the videos, the primary research (WP:MEDRS tells us what is reliable in this space) and the diet books. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
A list of DVDs seems fairly WP:PROMO, especially if they are self published, and therefore more akin to a list of youtube videos and less akin to the filmography of an actress.
I'm gonna throw a wrench in things as far as the lead goes though. In my view, the problem with the lead is that this: John A. McDougall is an American physician and author is literally the only part of the lead that is actually about the subject of the article. Personally, I would scrap everything after that, write something concise and generic like: He is the creator of his name sake diet, the McDougall Plan, and leave the rest to the body entirely. TimothyJosephWood 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, removed the DVD's. If the lead is trimmed it should at least briefly describe the topic of his noted work, which is about him and his notability. Just saying 'name sake diet' doesn't give enough of a descriptor, as a diet can be anything from cockroaches to cantaloupes (literally. I knew someone who only ate one cantaloupe a day for about half a year, said it was all you needed to survive. He lived though that, so at least in his case, if he was being honest, he was right). Randy Kryn 13:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the Works section per multiple areas of NOT. If there is something noteworthy in that list, especially if it is strongly related to his notability, then it should be restored. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And I have reverted. Please see literally any article on an author. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please revert and get consensus. As far as I'm aware, complete lists of works are typically not appropriate, and certainly not in cases such as this. Again, if something is noteworthy or strongly related to his notability, those should be included. Meanwhile, BLP places the burden on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Negative. The burden of getting consensus rests on those suggesting a change. This content was removed on 12 August with no discussion and has been restored multiple times. Prior to 12 Aug the content remained on the article for a period of at least three years. Please see WP:NOCON. In the case that there is no consensus reached for a proposed change, the article is retained as it was prior to the suggested change.
Listing the works of authors is standard practice, no one has offered anything to the contrary besides their own personal opinion, and there was no consensus for the removal of this long standing and relevant content. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE says otherwise.
Could you please focus on noteworthiness and notability, or perhaps point out discussions on such matters in similar articles, preferably GA articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking over the few independent sources that are accessible online, I can't find mention of any of his works. I assume that the Rocky Mountain News source verifies the mention of his 1983 book. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE deals with requests for admins to restore deleted content. Notability deals with standards for article creation, and not the inclusion of content within an article. Stop edit warring and citing random policies you haven't read. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC and WP:AGF.
deals with requests for admins to restore deleted content What are you interpreting to mean this? --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You'll have to quote whatever it is you think somehow overrules BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the policy you are quoting is a policy on restoring deleted content. That you don't understand what deletion means, and lack the competency or motivation to read the policy on it, which I linked to, does not constitute a burden for anyone else to "overrule" policies that have nothing to do with this conversation. TimothyJosephWood 21:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You misrepresent my comments while failing to support your own. I've pointed out to you on your talk page other sections of BLP supporting my interpretation. I've stated that the same interpretation is backed by ArbCom multiple times. I've asked you to quote anything that supports your interpretation. You choose to ignore all this and attack me instead. Am I misrepresenting or overlooking anything of importance in this dispute? --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list of four research papers which was removed, please explain why these are all from unreliable sources. I'm not in the medical profession, but seeing these are peer-reviewed journals I don't understand the problem. There seems to be at least a perception of an effort on some vegan-related doctor pages to lessen their work and views (example, why did this page get an advertisement-tag after all this time?), so hopefully medical-knowledgable editors can understand the concern that non-medical editors such as myself have that there may be a non-neutral slant to some of the edits here and on other vegan-related pages (again, the advertisement tag as an example of this concern). Thanks. The list in question:

Thanks again for an explanation of why all four of these papers are from unreliable sources. Randy Kryn 13:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would think that why "these papers are from unreliable sources" is pertinent to the discussion in any way. It's not that I see. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Because that wording was used in the edit summary as the reason to delete them. If they are all unreliable, that's certainly a legitimate reason, but they have been on the page for awhile with no problem before the earlier, and now these, deletions. Randy Kryn 15:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Given that it's in parenthesis, I interpret it to be a side issue and that the problem is "certainly don't need this arbitrary smattering of papers". --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
And now you've just removed his bibliography (which I've restored). If his work is in such dispute maybe the route to go is that he is not notable enough for Wikipedia, and put this page on a "pages for deletion" discussion. But if he is notable, then his work is what makes him notable. I'm at a loss to understand the concepts being used to delete his material, and to put an advertisement tag on the page. I assume it's in good faith, which is why I'm asking for a fuller explanation. Randy Kryn 16:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in book list?

I found the list to be inaccurate, so removed it. If someone wants to add it again, please first identify the authors of each book, publisher, etc - the basic info that is expected in an encyclopedia but was not there for some reason. In doing so you'll note that apparently at least one of the books aren't written by him. It's unclear. Looks like his wife wrote the books and in later editions his name was added maybe? I'll try to figure it out. Meanwhile I hope editors will try to "get the article right" and follow BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the list, including my edit of the first (1983) book to include the material that needs to be in each entry: --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The Starch Solution (2012)
  • Dr. McDougall's Digestive Tune-Up (2006)
  • McDougalls' All-You-Can-Eat Vegetarian Cookbook (2005)
  • The McDougall Program for Women (1999)
  • The McDougall Quick & Easy Cookbook (1999)
  • The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart (1996)
  • The McDougall Plan for Maximum Weight Loss (1995)
  • The New McDougall Cookbook (1995)
  • The McDougall Program 12 Days to Dynamic Health (1991)
  • The McDougall Health-Supporting Cookbook: Volume 2 (1986)
  • McDougall's Medicine—A Challenging Second Opinion (1985)
  • The McDougall Health-Supporting Cookbook: Volume 1 (1985)
  • McDougall J, McDougall M A. The McDougall Plan. Ingram Book Company. (1983)

John wrote an introduction for the first cook book apparently. Most verifying sources that I find don't mention him at all as an author. I've yet to find one for the second volume that does. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The two cookbooks you removed seem like an accurate removal, they are attributed to his wife on Abebooks and on their cover. This is the way to go, one by one, which none of us has actually done as yet, either in deleting or restoring. Randy Kryn 16:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot verify that a 1995 edition of the new cookbook was published, so I'm leaving the 97 paperback edition that is verifiable. I did find a 93 hardback edition though. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll get back to this at a later time. Two things to note for others working on it: It looks like he used, at least initially, small publishers and changed publishers when a book did better than expected. His wife is a co-author for most of his books. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the general consensus on how to address different editions, printings, publishers, etc. My impression is that in general we don't list them, though we might note that multiple editing have been printed if it is noteworthy. It's also my impression that self-published, vanity-published, etc books are not generally listed unless noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think they're good for "proper" authors. But we're not dealing with Henry James here exactly, but somebody who apparently co-authors diet books. OTOH, such a list is mostly harmless. The nearest parallel I can think of is Deepak Chopra where selected publications were included (those, in general, which had risen to the attention of secondary sources). For "proper" authors of course all of their works will be covered by multiple secondary sources so a bibliography makes perfect sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I'd hope we can come up with some inclusion criteria acceptable to all. In the meantime I'm focusing on getting a verified list together. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section. If we can find secondary sources that demonstrate any of the works are WP:DUE, then we can determine how to present them, most likely in the article body unless the list becomes large. I think I see what happened now. The material was all added in violation of WP:COI for promotional purposes, being copied from McDougall's website by Csmcdougall (talk · contribs). That's why the dates are off - the dates are of the editions that I assume were sold at the store at the time. The proper authors and publishers were never identified because no subsequent editor tried. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

And the list of books has now been restored, I believe for a fifth time. It takes a google search to find these. They are WP:DUE because they are works by the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
They are WP:DUE because they are works by the subject of the article. Howso?
Are you going to address any of the concerns and recommendations here at all? --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, they are due because they are works by an author who is notable primarily as an author. Also, it took me about three minutes to find sources for them, or...about 1/50th of that spent here on unproductive discussion, and your own efforts to remove the material for no particular reason. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, for about the fifth time, it is common practice to list the works of an author on their WP article. Go to List of American novelists and pick a few. The first one I picked was Donald Antrim, whoever that is. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You didn't find any independent sources, you just linked to google book pages from editions that are available there. That borders on WP:REFSPAM.
You've still not addressed the concerns here. Donald Antrim is a exceptional author. McDougall is nothing like him. If you want to search for GA-quality articles about similar authors, that would be very helpful - other authors of diet books, maybe healthy lifestyle or similar. While Deepak Chopra was been brought up earlier, it isn't high-quality, the bibliography there is not complete, and the selection criteria is unclear. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for independent sources. Self published sources are allowed by policy for generally mundane facts, like what books a person wrote. If you would like to propose a policy for listing bibliographies of authors, the appropriate place is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Barring that, your personal opinion on whether McDougall is a top notch author is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you do realize that you're admitting that the consensus that you believe exists in fact does not exist? Either there's a standard for listing such a bibliography or not. Which is it? --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As I have said a half dozen times, it is standard practice on WP to list the works of an author when the author is the subject of an article and they are notable for being an author. Any other arbitrarily higher standard you would like to impose (such as significant coverage of those works in secondary sources), should be taken to the Village Pump and argued there. TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
it is standard practice on WP to list the works of an author when the author is the subject of an article and they are notable for being an author But you've not demonstrated that, and Deepak Chopra clearly demonstrates otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The article on Chopra lists a score of his works, because it is standard practice on WP to list the works of an author on their article. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Repeating yourself gets us nowhere.
Let's continue with the comparison to Chopra (and maybe add others later): The Chopra list is incomplete, and is easily supported by independent sources because Chopra's works are so well known. McDougall isn't well known at all, and you want to treat his works as they are more noteworthy than Chopra's. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You must be. Repeating myself is only necessary because you fail to WP:LISTEN. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
LISTEN says, "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."
I don't agree that it is "standard practice" to list all works from an author. The Chopra article does not do so, and Chopra is much more similar to McDougall than the example of Antrim. We could look for closer examples with better quality perhaps?
Note we agree that material strongly related to his notability should be in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to propose policy on listing the works of authors on their biographies, the appropriate place to do so is the village pump, already linked to above. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you appear unable to LISTEN. Others disagree with you. I've offered ways to get beyond this disagreement, and you now ignore it. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to list books which have garnered attention in RS? Haven't some of these books bestsellers (and so will be mentioned in the book trade press?) Such a course is surely unobjectionable? Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If there's enough, a "Select bibliography" would be appropriate. Given all the publisers, printings, and editions I ran across doing the basic verification, I think we can expect that there are bestsellers here and that we should be able to find reviews for at least some. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement that books be notable in order to include them in the biography of their author. There is no requirement that a book be a best seller in order to include them in the biography of their author. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No one said there were such requirements specifically about books, though there are numerous policies and guidelines about sourcing, the quality of those sources, and determining what information belongs in an encyclopedia article. We're going to do our best to follow them. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The source that the book is written by the author...is the book. TimothyJosephWood 17:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt this discussion. You don't agree with us. We know. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You can argue about it all you want, so long as you don't again try to remove long standing verifiable information. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
long standing verifiable information is absolute nonsense, or haven't you paid attention to the section title and discussion here? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Any chance we can find online versions of mid-90s and older bestseller lists and book reviews? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can get lots of that sort of thing. We can start to build a list of the more notable works this way. Goodo. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Highly popular? Negative. I have included a source based on the official bibliography of works which remain in print, and have updated the bibliography accordingly. POV nonsense like "highly popular" is not the way Wikipedia works. TimothyJosephWood 17:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's best-selling it's highly popular, surely? Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You have a source for neither, and the language is highly WP:POV even if you did. A metric ton of WP:PROMOTIONAL material has already been removed from this article. Kindly refrain from reinserting it. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Added a source, as it says, this guy was a "household name" back in the day. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you added a reference that, according to google, doesn't exist anywhere besides this WP article. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Because a lot of the relevant material pre-dates the age of the mature web. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So...let me get this straight...you're trying to say that a newspaper article from 2012 "predates the mature web", and that you also happened to have a four year old newspaper lying around handy, for you to cite on this article? TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I was think of the Publishers Weekly stuff for the pre-dating material; I can get 2012 newspapers through my library a/c (online!). Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
OK...so...before I report this to a noticeboard...
You found this source through your library account...from a newspaper that doesn't seem to exist...for a piece that somehow doesn't exist anywhere on the internet other than this article...despite the fact that was published in 2012? Do I have that about right? TimothyJosephWood 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh wait wait wait. Also, even though you literally just added this source 2 minutes ago, you thought it was from pre internet days, and then forgot where you got it from, until all this was pointed out to you? Just, you know, feel free to fill in the gaps there. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Google ≠ reality. I have provided a source to satisfy the requirements of WP:V. It is online, but not on the free web it seems. If you want more details, ask away! Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume what you intend to link to is this article. I have no idea where the rest of the information in the "source" came from.

  1. This doesn't mention any individual books at all.
  2. This says he was popular in the 80s, and two of the books currently listed were from the 90s, so it's definitely not talking about those.
  3. Also not talking about the other two books you removed for no reason at all.
  4. This provides no criteria for why the books here are here, when the source you removed listed all books currently in print.
  5. The language is still inappropriately promotional.

So if you can provide a reason why a miscited puff piece in a local newspaper (readers everywhere are dying to know whether he windsurfs) should be preferred over a comprehensive bibliography, please do so. Also, I can only assume that you intend to write the article "celebrity doctor" right away, because that's the only real reason you would change an actual long standing wikilink in the lead to an article that doesn't exist. TimothyJosephWood 19:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not miscited, it's syndicated; the source supports the fact his books are highly popular (which text has now been changed to something equivalent) - which it does. And yes, see Draft:Celebrity doctor. You appear to be on some kind of WP:ABF crusade here. Alexbrn (talk)
Yes, you probably want to wait until that wraps up before you start spreading red links. And yes, I tick slightly closer to assuming bad faith when people revert with no explanation, and put things in an article that isn't in the source. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The guy sold millions of books - bestsellers. So obviously they were highly popular and the source supported that. Not sure why this uncontentious fact seems problematic. These kinds of diet books are often hugely popular. And red links are fine things when they're likely to turn blue! Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless you can find a source that says he sold millions of books, he didn't sell millions of books. That statement was supported by neither source and I have changed it to what the source actually says. TimothyJosephWood 19:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Like:

"In the '70s and '80s, we had 2 million books sold on the New York Times bestseller list

Not to mention the subsequent best-sellers. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
there is not a big difference between "millions of books" and "millions of copies". (dif). The level of acrimony here is .... ridiculous and is what leads people mock WP. but thanks for catching my 2008/2011 error. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a great deal more ambiguity and potential sensationalism in "millions" than there is in "1.5 million". Also, the source that was there at the time, said 1.5m in 2008, the one that was added has him saying in an interview two million in the 70s and 80s alone. Barring any other sources, I'd say it's a fairly clear which one of those are probably more reliable estimates. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress here.

I agree that the Press Democrat source is rather poor. "In the '70s and '80s, we had 2 million books sold on the New York Times bestseller list," he recalled. By attributing it directly to McDougall, it remains a primary source by the subject for that information. McDougall became a household name in the 1980s, after writing a string of best-selling diet books and cookbooks. That is in the PD's voice, but there's less detail. Finally, has anyone been able to verify what books were published in the 70's? I am also concerned with the vagueness of both sources about which books and when.

I think using drmcdougall.com for noting which books are currently in publication fails WP:BLPSELFPUB. I believe the inaccuracies in the original list were due to using his website rather than verifying the information elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've searched WorldCat and Library of Congress for anything written by him in the 70s and found nothing. No wonder the Press Democrat was quoting him. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Fad diet" claim revisited redux

"Fad diet" should be removed as WP:Undue because all diets that are not based on eating less and exercising more are fad diets. Referencing a chart that shows a dozen books of the more than 5,000 diet books on Amazon.com is undue. We have a Category:Diet creators but not "Category:Fad diet creators". It is as useless as labelling things as "junk food". All diets have to be labelled "fad" otherwise it is undue to choose a few. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The claim that all diets are fad diets is not accurate; not clear where that is coming from. Trying to generate an UNDUE argument from a made-up claim like that is difficult at best. When we generate content in WP we look at what reliable sources say about it. It is true that we don't find a lot of discussion in the relevant literature on these fad diets - in this case we got lucky and found two, and they say the same things. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It also ignores medical-requirement diets. Which are neither about eating less/more exercise (as they are often not about losing weight) nor are they 'fads'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pointy whitespace edits.

Article is on my watchlist due to BLP concerns. Knock off the point whitespace edits and snarky edit summaries or I am going to drop this at ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this? Experienced users need to include useful summaries when they edit articles that we all know dozens of people are actively watching. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

whoever maligned this Wikipedia entry should be banned from Wikipedia

McDougall is a well known and well respected pillar in the vegan community. His advocacy helped bring the plant based diet to the forefront of health based eating. Your "Essential Concepts for healthy Living" book is not even orderable - probably out of print and no one thinks anything of it. And THIS is what you hold up against McDougall??? This listing is despicable. I am personally writing to a list of vegan organizations to attend to this Wikipedia character assassination which I have NEVER seen on any Wikipedia page before! The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1932100660 http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/09/thoughts-on-mcdougall-advanced-study.html http://lanimuelrath.com/my-mcdougall-diet-failure/ http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/dr-john-mcdougall-md-reversing-disease-with-a-starch-based-diet/

Also - guess what - there are pages and pages of reviews for Dr. McDougall on the internet - both scholarly and popular THERE ARE NO REVIEWS OF ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS FOR HEALTHY LIVING. This is a dead unrespected textbook with filler outdated ideas passed off to poor college students in lower level universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrfran (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What are the WP:MEDRS?

Can somebody help me on this? I came here because McDougall was claiming his diet has reversed the kidney damage of lupus nephritis. https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/vanessa/

I couldn't find anything that McDougall has published on PubMed.

In the References in this entry, I couldn't find any WP:MEDRS.

OTOH I can't find any critique or criticism of the McDougall diet in Quackwatch or similar sources.

Here's my question:

What are the claims that McDougall makes for his diet or program?

What (if any) WP:RS support those claims? (Or reject them?) --Nbauman (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing has been discussed at (great) length above. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I read that, but the conclusion seems to be that there are no WP:MEDRS to support his claims. --Nbauman (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

Answered. In future it would be wise to consult the Talk page history in advance. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Alexbrn, you keep saying this but your claim and source was thoroughly debunked by Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC. You are defending a single reference that did not cite their work properly. You are perpetuating their mistake and greatly amplifying misinformation. How many times must you be told that your source was inaccurate. Just because you have a single source does not make your claim gold or beyond reproach. Why don't you do everyone a favor and try backing up this claim with an additional source. It can't be done. This is clearly a controversial claim. There is no reason why the claim cant be modified to say "some believe this to be a fad diet, however current scientific evidence does not supoprt this". The definition of a fad diet is one that "claims weight loss or health benefits but is not backed up by science". McDougall's nutrition advice is based on sound science and corroborated by many leading medical doctors, authorities and publications. I could literally list hundreds of sources to back this claim. You can only list a single fringe source that has been shown to be misguided and wrong. Medical texts are often wrong and evolve over time as science progresses. In light of overwhelming evidence this source has been shown to be wrong and its time to evolve past this point. McDougall's diet is not a fad diet. In fact, McDougall himself advises against (fad) dieting and instead recommends adhering to a lifestyle approach to healthy and sustainable nutrition. That's why he calls his plan the "Starch Solution" and not the "Starch Diet". He has also grounded his findings in science. Unless you can accurately support your claim with at least three direct sources I respectfully ask that you detract yourself from editing this thread. You are clearly biased and closed minded.

Please remove the accusation that the McDougall diet plan is a "fad" diet. The single reference provided is very weak and is not substantiated by other sources, certainly not any in the primary literature. If the claim can be backed up by additional sources that directly support the claim than this is acceptable. It should be noted by the editors that common sense dictates this NOT to be a "fad" diet since much of human civilization, both past and present exist solely on this type of diet. Just because you can "source" a lie doesn't make it true, especially when its only a single source that has hitherto been rebuked. 2610:28:3020:1155:E135:A45B:141A:9501 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The fad diet classification is well sourced (probably with the strongest source in the article). Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated sentence: Critique of the person in the article's introduction

There's a repeated sentence in the article's introduction that should be removed to stay neutral. Critique should go into a dedicated paragraph (which it already is: see "McDougall plan's reception") Please also note that: Contentious material about living persons that is [...] poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. DCEvoCE (talk)

What are you talking about exactly? Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence in question from the introduction is this: "McDougall's diet—The McDougall Plan—has been categorized as a fad diet that carries some disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry.[link to ref name fad]" It is based closely on a sentence from the article's paragraph "McDougall plan's reception" which reads as follows: "McDougall's namesake diet, The McDougall Plan, has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling hungry.[initial establishing link to ref name fad]" This sentence is repeated and even if it wasn't would not belong in an introduction to an article. It might also be questionable as to WP:Libel but that probably should be a different debate. DCEvoCE (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Very well-sourced and pertinent. It stays. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it won't as per WP:Neutral and WP:Criticism - Please note that the source itself is not point of this discussion. What we are debating here is a repeated sentence in an article that consists of maybe 15 sentences in total (not actually counted but certainly not that far off). Please also note that the article itself is not about whether the diet as advocated by McDougall is correct or not. It is about the person McDougall. Criticism of his books or diet plans should go in a dedicated section - and that's where the sentence in question was copied from already. There is no need to have the very same sentence twice in the same article. DCEvoCE (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Key points in the article are reflected in the lede; since this point about the diet is about the most sensible/well-sourced thing in the article it belongs. Alexbrn (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the objection to this well sourced part of the lead. The eponymous fad diet is what gives McDougall his notability. Roxy the dog. bark 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This article and especially its lead should be about the person and not what you guys think of the person's work. Any reception or evaluation should be moved to its dedicated section. DCEvoCE (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Others here have noted that the lead summarizes the body, so yes things are sometimes repeated in the lead. Please read WP:LEAD, which has not been linked here yet. Please also be wary of making legal threats per WP:NLT, and please know that describing the diet is not describing the person. The content says nothing negative (at all) about McDougall the person. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Short reply for now: I did not make any legal threads? nor is this the point of this debate. DCEvoCE (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that you made any; your reply to me, to which I in turn just responded, mentions "libel". Just wanted to be sure you were aware of the NLT policy. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So, instead of once again trying to remove the well sourced criticism (quoting Alexbrn) from the Mc Dougall article I looked at the source again and noticed that it also critiqued the high animal product diet fads. I took the controversial sentence from the lead of this article, edited it accordingly and added it to the Atkins diet and paleo diet articles. Within a few hours the sentence got removed by aformentioned User Alexbrn: "Atkins diet" "Robert Atkins "Paleolithic diet". Someone tell me what to think of this. DCEvoCE (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:POINT. And don't misrepresent what you actually did and did which was to lard WP:SYN into WP. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I use the same source as is considered a reliable source on McDougall's article on Atkins article and I don't see why it is not appropiate anymore?
My edit also referenced the WHO and pubmed. - Is there anything wrong with the wording, ie. if I were to write something like i.e. "This diet is high in meat consumption which has been linked to cancer" - would that still fall under WP:SYN? DCEvoCE (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand. - I'd have to find a reliable source that makes this connection then that would allow this sentence to be added to the articles. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@DCEvoCE: you already got an explanation and warning on your Talk page. You are fast moving into a position where something will need to be done to protect the Project from your antics. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)`
It would be nice if you could stop trying to intimitate me with constant threats for every edit I do. Thank you. DCEvoCE (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Fad diet section constitutes slander

Discussion has degenerated into general claims about WP and is not about improving this article. Per WP:TPG article talk pages are for discussing improvements to this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

As title suggests.

Calling Dr McDougall a fad diet salesman is inaccurate and slanderous. Whichever admin is complicit in protecting this page and failing to remove this slander should be banned. I'm surprised the doctor has not sued for defamation. The "references" for this defamation are two other diet books, Ironic. This is clearly debauching the standards of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdnussmus (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This article does not call Mcdougall a fad diet salesman. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I can't remember having seen something quite like this on any other WP articles. DCEvoCE (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Fad diets ? This is one of many. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you think is slanderous, given that we most certainly do not call him a "fad diet salesman"? -Roxy the dog. bark 15:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Adolf Hitler doesn't have any critique in the lead, it just lists facts. How come it is necessary to have a critique of someone who promotes eating potatoes in the lead ? Maybe someone can explain this to me. DCEvoCE (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Vegan and vegetarian doctors and experts pages on Wikipedia have a tendency to be downgraded, downplayed, and knocked about like they are advocating nonsense. I don't have the time to take on the editors who do so, and realize they all are acting in good faith, protecting the readers from whatever it is they are protecting them from. But using a phrase like "such as a boring food choice" in the lead? I've been a vegetarian since 1988, mostly vegan since 1991, and rather than boring, find that every meal is a feast. If statements like that one are allowed in the lead, given the negative connotations, Wikipedia should at least include a balancing phrase from another source. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


"Diet programs and products": Content Edit Request

1) Program Location: Santa Rosa, CA; not Santa Clara, CA ---- McDougall's residential program is located in Santa Rosa, CA. The cited article after the "Santa Clara" reference accurately refers to his program's location as Santa Rosa. [1]

2) SF Spice Co. (and Dr. McDougall's Right Foods Inc) now seem based in Woodland, CA; not San Francisco, CA [2] The Right Foods business page reflects this move.[3]

Could someone please change these for accuracy's sake? Thank you in advance. Gaom83 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe (based upon a 10/12/2017 e-mail) that the recent wildfires in Northern California have recently destroyed McDougall's home, but he seems to still be associated with the hospitals there. MaynardClark (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._McDougall#Diet_programs_and_products
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20170803022405/http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20151030/NEWS/151039990
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20161229130629/http://www.rightfoods.com/about/

Frederick J. Stare

It's curious to see what Frederick J. Stare actually taught, including his advocacy of drinking a daily cup of corn oil (advocated in the now debunked high-fat diet book by Herman Taller, Calories Don't Count), then to claim him as a critic. MaynardClark (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV violation

I think that the writing on 'Reception' is a violation of NPOV. User:Alexbrn seems bent on using that phrasing, which is far from neutral, objective, or even balanced, and the sources cited are neither representative nor, in the case of the first pair of authors, notable. MaynardClark (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the attempted violation is yours: yet more diet POV-pushing from you. Making up rules (authors need to be "notable"?) is disruptive and if you continue you are likely to be blocked. Factually you are also wrong, since the source is a secondary source citing other material so is not solely the authors' assessment. Misrepresenting sources is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Fad diet

Please remove the two references to 'fad diet' in this article or make clear that these are opinions, rather than facts. The Wikipedia definition of 'fad diet' is that it is not backed up by "solid science", this is not the case - McDougall cites peer-reviewed, published research such as the China Study for his dietary recommendations. 138.75.178.49 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Request moved from User talk:138.75.178.49. Taketa (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: read the responses on the rest of this page for why not. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please see the above discussions as Roxy the dog suggests. If you still dispute the usage, then please add a new section for discussion about the usage of that term without the edit request template. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 Not done, for the third time. Once again, please establish a consensus among other editors to make this change before requesting that the change be made. Deli nk (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus among editors doesn't matter. Science is solidly on the side of Dr. McDougall. Please remove or reword the 'fad diet' sections. His way of eating has consistently cured such conditions as high cholesterol, obesity and Type 2 diabetes. 2602:306:CFEE:160F:58D2:701D:8BF5:1A0C (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. General Ization Talk 13:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The way to achieve a change in consensus is to bring wp:MEDRS sources. Wikipedia editors respect current systematic reviews published in high-quality journals. Right now the article lacks these, mostly relying on McDougall's own publications instead. We need these to show us what the scientific consensus is. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Please this article to describe what the McDougall program is rather than include opinions such as "is a fad diet". Dr. McDougall is a respected medical doctor who learned many years ago through study, observation, and research that the standard American diet was the cause of many life debilitating and life threatening diseases. He especially concerned himself with heart disease and diabetes. His prescribed way of eating, which he and his family have followed for over 40 years, has helped thousands of people live longer and healthier lives, reversed heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes and many other health problems. To say that it is a fad is insulting to many people who eat and live this way and to whom the results, satisfaction, good health, and length of time following a vegan diet negates the term "fad". Good vegan whole food plant based diets are the opposite of boring and to say that they are boring means that the author of this wiki article does not fully understand what it is. 71.233.168.23 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  •  Not done See above. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

What an awful hit-piece! The diet book is nutritionally complete and is tasty (self experienced). There is no need for meat, fish, eggs or dairy. Describing a vegetarian diet as "boring food choice", is a personal opinion, not a Wiki article! 217.18.178.110 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC) zour

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

Remove the reference to 'fad diet' as veganism is a respected way of eating world wide. The source quoted is a text book which lumps unscientific ways of eating with things like veganism or whole food plant based eating which are long cultural traditions in various parts of the world. I find the word 'fad' here to be pejorative. Akonzen4909 (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See #Fad diet above. General Ization Talk 13:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

Remove the "fad diet" references as suggested. Demiourgikos (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: This issue has been asked and answered, and you have not presented any new argument or information. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is some new information that is relevant: A fad diet is described as "a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science"[1]. The BROAD study found that the McDougall diet "led to significant improvements in BMI, cholesterol and other risk factors"[2]. The references list additional studies supporting their conclusion, including McDougall's own study[3]. So there is solid science supporting the health advantages claimed by the McDougall Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demiourgikos (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Fad diet". Wikipedia. 2018-01-21.
  2. ^ Wright, N; Wilson, L; Smith, M; Duncan, B; McHugh, P (2017/03). "The BROAD study: A randomised controlled trial using a whole food plant-based diet in the community for obesity, ischaemic heart disease or diabetes". Nutrition & Diabetes. 7 (3). doi:10.1038/nutd.2017.3. ISSN 2044-4052. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ McDougall, John; Thomas, Laurie E.; McDougall, Craig; Moloney, Gavin; Saul, Bradley; Finnell, John S.; Richardson, Kelly; Petersen, Katelin Mae (2014-10-14). "Effects of 7 days on an ad libitum low-fat vegan diet: the McDougall Program cohort". Nutrition Journal. 13: 99. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-13-99. ISSN 1475-2891.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Primary sources making health claims. Certainly not. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The RCT is a weak primary study that fails WP:MEDRS (and which does not even evaluate the McDougall Program anyway). Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Diet reception

What about the good reviews and testimonies on his diet plan? Who the hell is Fredrick J. Stare? A very critized dead nutritionist, his opinion is worthless in the light of today's nutritional research. This article is a joke. Fedev80 (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Be aware of WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Per instructions, only use this template after consensus has been established for an edit. Discuss first. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove the following sentence: "His diet—The McDougall Plan—is a fad diet that carries some possible disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry."

Dr. McDougall's diet is wrongly characterized as a "fad diet." McDougall advocates a whole-foods, plant based diet. Veganism is NOT a "fad diet" and is accepted by mainstream medical organizations. This clearly reflects the bias of the user who chose to insert that phrase. Please remove this inaccurate and biased language.

Further, the statement regarding "boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry" are completely subjective and rather ridiculous, considering that McDougall advocates ad libitum consumption of whole plant foods with many options for seasonings and spices. 73.254.54.4 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

"is a fad diet that carries some possible disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry.[1]" This is misleading and false. Why not go make real critiques of other diet plans that really hurt people. This is not a fad diet - it is a lifestyle - that works. 173.170.90.83 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See above. Alexbrn (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a fad diet

Definition of fad diet is one that makes claims based on pseudoscience. McDougall is a medical doctor that has a plethora of evidence on his side. Whoever calls it a fad diet is clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.112.233 (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"Boring" is an Opinion

"His diet—The McDougall Plan—is a fad diet that carries some possible disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry.[1]" This is a non-objective statement. Please use scientific evidence to make claims and quote an author when stating opinions on Wikipedia. McDougall isn't asking people to eat potatoes with no salt for the rest of their lives. He is recommending a return to a pre-industrial age diet which has been the staple of human civilization for thousands of years. Asians living primarily on rice and Incans living primarily on potatoes are examples of historical fact. They are not fad diets based on their endurance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:4A51:4800:357C:6FF3:70A9:BDEC (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fad diet

We should should put unsubstantiated claims. Manyard Clark had created an opinion piece and locked the page to make it look like a fact. I promise as long as this goes on will never support a single $1 to wikimedia. Bargari (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Except for not donating to the project, the rest of what you say above makes absolutely no sense. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Poorly Written, Poorly Sourced and Contains Several Personal Options

It looks like this is a contentious post so I won't waste my time arguing over the each specific inaccurate detail and personal opinion. It needs to be rewritten by someone unbiased and expounded upon to include more than naysayer subjective opinions. This may be the most biased, poorly written page I've seen on Wikipedia. JPWikiEditor (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

WRITTEN BELOW IS AN EXPRESSION OF A SUBJECTIVE BIAS WRITTEN IN NON-SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE AND SHOULD BE REMOVED AS INCONGRUOUS AND INACCURATE: The McDougall Plan—is a fad diet that carries some possible disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry. Teleoid (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. See prior discussions. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

McDougall diet is a whole food plant-based diet

If you look it up, you see that only highly processed foods are not allowed as well as any animal products. So, it's not a restrictive fad diet in the usual sense like the Atkins diet. It's actually the opposite of a diet that risks nutritional deficiencies, because the whole foods have far more nutrients per calorie compared to the refined products like olive oil and butter that are not allowed. Count Iblis (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Great, get that published in RS and it might be useful for the article! Alexbrn (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I find it incredible that this user pretends a loaded description like "fad diet" and "boring food choice" is given any credence by its appearance in a medical document, esteemed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.174.218 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

Some of the statements made criticizing McDougall on this page are not factually correct, and have no rebuttals cited from McDougall or other researchers, suggesting bias. I will address some of them here, though this review is not exhaustive.

For example, McDougall has published scientific research on his diet being effective at improving weight, cholesterol and other issues (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.1995.10718541, https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-13-99, https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555302753507195, etc.). It can be mentioned that he is an author in these studies. It should also be mentioned that there is far more published research from other doctors and experts that advocate this type of diet, including Colin Campbell, Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish, Nathan Pritikin, etc.. I can provide some of these as well. He also bases many of his recommendations on historical populations, which he says have mostly obtained the bulk of their calories from starchy foods (https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2015nl/jul/athletics.htm).

He advocates the use of B12 supplementation (https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm), and states that his diet provides all protein and fat needed within the whole starchy foods. He has stated that human requirements for essential proteins is quite low, and that his diet meets the WHO guidelines (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/41798/WHO_MONO_61.pdf;jsessionid=999579B67ADFFCBB5E93BA296B3586D4?sequence=1). He has also stated that his diet provides sufficient intake of essential omega 3 and 6 fats from whole grains and vegetables (https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/aug/070800.pdf). The required amounts are between 1 and 2 grams a day of omega-3 (https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/) and between 2% and 2.5% of total calories for omega-6 (https://www.nutri-facts.org/en_US/nutrients/essential-fatty-acids/essential-fatty-acids/intake-recommendations.html).

There are worthy criticisms of the diet, such as the strictness (advocating most or all people eating <10% calories from fat without proof this is needed, the difficulty of never eating oil, the lack of large randomized controlled trials using this diet, etc.). However, as is, this page appears biased, and as such I've provided some reasons for revision. The article should share only substantiated criticisms, or provide counters when the opinions are not objectively verifiable or are proven wrong. Thank you for your consideration. Sechumanist (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please only use this template after consensus has been reached here for an edit, per the template instructions. Note that sources for claims about diet effect must be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Chidlhood

I would like to see more about his early life, where did he grow up, what types of foods did he eat, etc. I think this is important because he claims it is what contributed to his having a stroke at an early age. And I'm pretty sure this information has already been published somewhere.

Also, considering his early and significant contributions to the whole foods plant based movement, this Wikipedia entry seems anemic. The article should be more inclusive of his contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:101E:7:2E1D:E430:6041:4D1C:3AD5 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Strange statements in the article

I find it strange that for certain positions claimed to be McDougalls position, only the text of the critique is quoted, but not a text written by McDougall:

  1. McDougall opposes conventional cancer treatment.[11] Where did McDougall wrote that claim?
  2. He has promoted his diet as an alternative treatment for a number of chronic disorders, including arthritis, atherosclerosis, cancer, diabetes, hypertension and osteoporosis.[12] He does not claim his diet as an alternate treatment, but if you follow his diet often medication can be reduced or even fulled discared, after the respective lab tests.
  3. The diet is based on a variety of starches such as rice, potatoes, corn, breads and pasta.[12] This statement definetely not correct. In his pamphlet "food poisoning" McDougall states: The McDougall Diet is based on starches with vegetables and fruits.
  4. Butler commented that "McDougall's followers risk deficiencies in ... vitamin B₁₂ ..." At least in the more current books of McDougall he always emphasizes that vitamin B12 must be suplemented.

The article is outdated

Some part of the article are simply not up to date.

  1. There are more recent books.
  2. In 2014 he provides the scientific evidence that McDougall's diet is effective!
  3. In 2018 he receives the Lifetime Achievement Award of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM)

--VKitzing (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, especially reliable secondary sources. We would not use McDougall's own books as a source on his own article because they are primary and that would be biased. See WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:RS.
The 2014 paper by McDougall is a primary paper. On Wikipedia it is recommended that primary medical papers are not cited, see WP:MEDRS. Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used. As far as I know, there are no reliable independent scientific sources that support McDougall's diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I see that on the German Wikipedia, you have created the John A. Mcdougall article from a biased POV. I translated that article and it says "McDougall has proven the effectiveness of his specific diet in various studies. His very low fat diet can reduce the symptoms of arthritis. It is also able to lower cholesterol and blood pressure. He was also able to demonstrate the influence on the development of biomarkers for cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes in a short-term study. The McDougall program belongs to a group of high-carb, low-fat ( HCLF ) diets that have been shown to not only prevent and damage cardiovascular disease Can heal blood vessels. It also reduces high blood pressure , obesity and diabetes 2." For all these claims you listed McDougall as a source or some vegan books, no scientific secondary sources. Your edits are not in accord to WP:MEDRS but I am not going to report it. Eventually someone else will pick up on your problematic edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
As for cancer treatment. McDougall's ideas are totally at odds with the medical consensus. There's a 2015 talk here from McDougall on "The Dietary Treatment of Cancer". Around 9-10 minutes in, McDougall says that all vegetable oils including olive oil promote cancer. That is an outlandish claim. What is his evidence for this? He cites a 1970s obscure paper which tested the effects of dietary fats on incidence of tumours in rats. So McDougall will cite a single study on rats from 40 odd years ago to prove that vegetable oils cause cancer... In reality according to more recent evidence (a 2011 systematic review of 13800 patients and 23340 controls in 19 observational studies) "the highest category of olive oil consumption was associated with lower odds of having any type of cancer", [5]. We can see that McDougall is not a reliable source of information about dieting, but this is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of his research. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

effectiveness of Dr John A McDougall's Starchivore diet

The only diet to have been scientifically proven to prevent and reverse heart disease is a whole food plant based diet with no added oil. Since the Starchivore diet is a whole food plant based diet with no added oil, it has been scientifically proven to prevent and reverse heart disease. Proof: Dr Neal Barnard Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaStarchivore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article. There is no such thing as a "Starchivore diet", McDougall seems to have used the word once to describe his diet. Sounds more like a joke to me. That term is not used in medical literature anywhere. And mentioning a book published by a vegan doctor is not proof of anything. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Author of statements of opinion; Lack of content to follow up plainly denigrating commentary; Encyclopedic integrity

The plainly dismissive article on this man is not what I expect from Wikipedia.Having read much of his work, to claim he has no scientific basis in research for his claims is simply not true. He has a long history of successfully treating thousands of people in his clinics with well-documented demonstrative results! The repeated reference to support of these dismissals to one generalized book by a known vocal skeptic of alternative medicine. One wonders if he is the author of the article? This is no example of reasonable neutrality expected in an online encyclopedia wanting some respect. I'm a regular donor to the fine work of Wiki, but when I see such highly-biased unsupported dismissal of successful professional people, with whom the author obviously disagrees, I wonder what I am supporting.

125.254.18.229 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as published in reputable, high-quality sources. That appears to be the case here. If there are good sources that have been missed, what are they? Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_A._McDougall/Archive_1&oldid=1164858518"