Talk:Red meat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


User:Alexbrn's edits have altered the POV of the article towards the thesis that red meat poses few health risks. My impression is the current scientific consensus is that red meat is unhealthy, and that there is not currently enough evidence to pronounce unprocessed red meat as safe, especially since some studies suggest even unprocessed red meat is unhealthy. (As evidence for the consensus, the Mayo Clinic, Aug 19, 2014, recommends avoiding red meat: [1]). Are there any objections to changing the article to reflect that consensus? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The only POV that matters is that of high-quality (in this case WP:MEDRS) sources, which we must faithfully reflect. So far as I see, the Mayo clinic page mentions red meat once in relation to a 2009 study which our article already references. Are there newer/better sources for for effect of red meat consumption on mortality? Maybe PMID 24148709 ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Surely you agree that "medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" are MEDRS, even if they choose not to explicitly mention the latest research. (Otherwise they'd have to put out a new guideline every week stating that homeopathy is still nonsense, despite the latest claim of the week!) I'm welcome to other suggestions on how to resolve the issue; as usual, there are an unlimited number of studies that find evidence and an unlimited number of studies that find no evidence. Part of the disconnect may be that I'm not clear on this edit: [2], where one anti-unprocessed-red-meat HSPH study with a DOI link is "weakly sourced" but a pro-unprocessed-red-meat HSPH study with only a press release remains in the paragraph. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably because we already had good sources for cancer in place; less so for mortality. Looking again, this page is still a disaster area and we shouldn't be using press releases, primary sources, etc. at all. I trimmed what I thought were the worst of these. The meta-analysis I mentioned may be a good basis for some better material here on mortality, but unfortunately I don't have access. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Given resource constraints, we can get rid of most of the health section if it's a disaster area and just state that organizations X, Y, and Z advise limiting red meat consumption, and remove the health content that doesn't have MEDRS secondary sources. IMHO meta-analyses are primary sources when they data-mine and come to novel conclusions, but I'm fine either way as long as we're consistent. Anyone have any objections to the section being drastically trimmed like that? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd not object to removing all non-MEDRS-sourced content (but meta-analyses should stay, or at least be discussed, as they *are* MEDRS in general). I had a go at improving the referencing a while ago, so some sourcing/content is okay ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
PMID 24148709 is great, because it reviews other meta-analyses and meets WP:SECONDARY solidly. I'm not sure what you mean by "don't have access" though; can't we just cite the [advance access version, which is peer-reviewed but not copyedited? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hah! it's freely available! Silly me. (Add: but oh that's not the final version of the article; I'm a little uneasy using it in case something changed ... I don't have access to the version of reference.) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the mambo jambo[edit]

The "gastronomical" definition of red meet keeps itself on top of all the other more accurate ones. It is ridiculous that an Encyclopedia such as wikipedia places on top of a definition the least sound one and the one based on a 1989(!!!!!!!!!!!!!) quote and the more recent, accurate ones are sent downstair day after day. The meat lobby is strong over here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

First learn how to speek english "Mumbo Jumbo" not "Mambo Jambo". Second, not with traditional thinking or common knowledge! Pork, along with Chicken or Fish, has always been considered not red meat. It's part of common American and western culture and is supported in cookbooks and dictionaries. See discussion in Talk:White meat. It's amusing that you consider OED 2 a poor source, and seem to think that 18 years ago is a long time. Are you basing your judgement on personal experience (i.e. original research)? What about a world perspective? Have you investigated European (not to mention Asian, etc.) positions? "Red meat" has been a culinary term for a long time; the article already cites the Oxford English Dictionary and Larousse Gastronomique on the topic. One has to only look up the word in the dictionary "Meats such as beef that are dark red in color when uncooked". The real question is why did this culinary article turn into a nutritional article? (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Processed meat consumption Vs Red meat consumption Vs Vegetarianism[edit]

This article is about Red meat, not meat in general, not processed meat. Weight gain (or other issues) due to general meat eating habits (not specifically red meat) are not relevant, and the danger of processed foods are only relevant discussing the theoretical statistical correlation of red meet consumption and processed meat consumption, and how this may impact past studies. (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Please stop adding commentary [3] and unsourced material. [4] --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
First, it was all sourced, no commentary, second, use user talk pages for rants like these in the future. I removed some commentary, and tried to clear up an issue that was confusing with sourced material from the beef article. All i wonder is who is paying you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My diffs clearly show your commentary and the text you added having a citation needed tag. Also, please read WP:AGF. --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Your diffs show exactly what i described. Stop protecting a horrifyingly bad page from changes that make it more understandable, with or without citations. Citations are only required for things that people question. Place your Citation needed tag and wait for someone else to fix it. Remove it if the tag lasts for too long. THE MOST IMPORTANT POLICY IS TO IGNORE ALL POLICY'S IF THEY MAKE THINGS HARDER TO FIX. (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on the role of red meat consumption to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases[edit]

(A) Is there no consensus on the role of red meat consumption (non processed) to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases? (B) Is there no significant verifiable threat as the red meat section suggests? (C) Is there significant verifiable threat as the cardiovascular diseases section implies by giving mechanisms for the disease that is present in all meat? If (A) is true then we should weaken the wording of both sections and combine them in the red meat section. If (B) is true then we should remove the cardiovascular diseases section. If (C) is true then we should replace the claims of safety in the red meat section with the text in the cardiovascular diseases section and remove the cardiovascular diseases section. (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Red meat: concern.[edit]

Seems an ip editor is concerned about a "section" in the "Red meat" article (see below) - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied from "User talk:Drbogdan#Red meat: concern.":

-Red meat: concern. -

Hi I had previously seperated this into red meat and processed to make it more understandable. The bottom section is where i left all the content where the studies did not distinguish between red meat and processed red meat. When things are not controlled for the effects could be muddeled. This is basic science. THe only reason i left the text is as a note of what kind of content is left in this section. If you think i wrote it in a way that requires a cytation, please clean it up so that it does not require one otherwise the note will be most likely removed promptly. Citations are only needed for where there is controversy, this is a section heading saying what kind of content follows below, not a assertion of fact. Please fix as you wish and remove the tag as the comment will be soon removed otherwise. (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - you may be right about this of course - however, seems the "section" would be improved if the section had a citation(s) from a "WP:Reliable source" to support your viewpoint - otherwise the text may be considered "WP:NOR", which is discouraged - nonetheless, comments from other editors on the "talk page" of the "Red meat" article about this would be welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)