Talk:What the Health/Archive 1

Long list appropriateness

@DGG: I have noticed in your previous edits that you take exception to long lists. Is the loooong list on this page appropriate? Also, how about in the sister article, Cowspiracy? RobP (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

it is not the length that matters. We do not give tables of contents of books, except for the most famous, nor complete cast lists for most films. We're not IMdB or allmovies. They are databases of everything verifiable in their field, but we are an encyclopedia. The policy that applies is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. If a film consists of a series of interviews, we coudl certainly justify listing the most significant; we could also justify listing the ones who are independently notable. These two lists do not seem to follow either guideline. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have trimmed the list, leaving only Wikipedia:NOTEABLE individuals. RobP (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Undue materials dominate the article

This article is highly biased against the documentary, and the sources cited are either unreliable (a youtube channel) or questionable (a science blog). No actual reviews from reliable sources have been added, and the narrative is strongly skewed against the film. Therefore I have removed references to such undue materials from the lede and added a tag to the appropriate section which is entirely based on these two questionable sources. When reliable sources, such as professional reviews, etc., are added and the narrative isn't so extremely skewed, the tag should be removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin:We have a disagreement over several points:

The first is whether or not the material I added to - and you deleted from - the lede belongs there. My contention is that the lede should summarize what is in the article which is why I added that material. I believe this reflects guidance: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic... and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (From WP:Lead)

The second is whether or not an Unbalanced Section flag belongs on a section containing Critical Analysis. I don't see how it belongs. The point of the section is to point out to readers that there is an alternate POV to the one in the documentary. That is what is being documented there. If you want to add material supporting the documentary's POV, you may add it elsewhere in the article to balance the criticism.

The final point of disagreement is whether the two items I added are reliable sources.

First the YouTube reference: Per WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed. So the issue is whether the YouTube channel of a person with a WP article, WP:N, and with some expertise in the area under discussion (medicine/health) is a reliable source. My contention is yes. Also, someone added counter material to the points made in this video, and I think, all in all, that balances it well.

Second, Harriet Hall is a medical doctor and author who writes about and lectures on alternative medicine and quackery for Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, as well as the "blog" you disparaged, Science-Based Medicine. Per its wiki article: "Science-Based Medicine is noted as an influential and respected source of information about medical controversies and alternative medicine." It is referenced many times on WP to provide the mainstream viewpoint for fringe ideas. I do not see how you have any standing on this point. RobP (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the link you posted, I glanced at the guidelines regarding Facebook postings right above the Youtube section, which says: "Facebook: Facebook is generally not acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone may create a page and add comments, and there is no stringent checking of a user's real name and age. On occasion, Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources." Interestingly enough, the Facebook posting from the official facebook page of Dr. Garth Davis, which was added as a rebuttal and you subsequently removed, appears to conform to what this link says. Based on this, I am restoring the materials. Update: I will self revert for now, and consider restoring these materials in a few days after some discussion to avoid further edit warring.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Good deal C.J. Griffin. The FB guidance surprises me - I thought FB was always off limits. In any case, you saved me from making at least a slight revert to what you added to the lede - because Davis did not comment on Hall's review... hers was actually published after his video I believe. RobP (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reinserting a neutrality tag. This article is nothing more than a hatchet job on the film. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be balanced, not one-sided diatribes as this one has become recently.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Balanced? Where do you get that idea? This isn't the media. Does that mean we need to expand the article on the Earth should include information about the Flat Earth Society? There is a lot of work to be done on the Apollo Mission page, I'm not seeing any balance on that page, we didn't go to the moon did we? Some people don't think so, maybe we need to get that up to date? "Hatchet job" is a bit of a biased statement C.J. Griffin. If the criticism is from a notable place then it is expected to be used.Sgerbic (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The reception section is disproportionately large for this article. Part of the reason is that it includes non-noteworthy commentary, for example from Robb Wolf sourced to his own website, which by the way, promotes the author's books about a competing nutritional philosophy. Then there's the non-noteworthy opinion of a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald. I'm not too impressed by using the Diet Doctor as a source, but if we do, we should also use similar sources like New.com.au.- MrX 01:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that Robb Wolf should be removed as he is not notable nor is his book. What I'm seeing in this discussion is that there is push-back to the criticism of What the Health, as there is much more criticism than there is support of the documentary. That is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors, if notable experts publish criticism, and notable experts don't publish support, that does not mean that the criticism can't be used. We used to see this all the time on psychic's Wikipedia pages. The talk page was supporters complaining that there was false balance, that people were picking on the psychic who we were assured "...had helped so many people, and were really nice people, and lots of people buy their books and attend their shows." The media tries to balance, by pulling in fringe theories and non-notable "experts" in order to get a good story, Wikipedia does not do this. We go where the notable citations are leading us.Sgerbic (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with Robb Wolf being there as long as his opinions are not presented as facts. It is a fact that the documentary cherry picked the science studies and that almost everyone featured in this film is vegan, this is a common criticism from the reviewers. I agree that this article should present both point of views (criticism vs support), but as of now there are no positive reviews that support the cherry picking method nor the biased sources of this documentary.--NicolasEng (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@NicolasEng:You said "I agree that this article should present both point of views (criticism vs support), but as of now there are no positive reviews that support the cherry picking method nor the biased sources of this documentary." Sounds like you're saying that positive reviews that support the cherry picking method, or are biased sources, should be added to counter the scientific criticism in the article now. Please tell me I read that wrong! RobP (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006:Of course they should not be added. My point was that there is a reason why there are a lot more criticism than support of this documentary: it used cherry picking method which is not recognized as a good scientific methodology.--NicolasEng (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. The definition of positive review is not one that "support the cherry picking method". The notion that the documentary cherry picked data is not an established fact anyway. As a rule of thumb, a reviewer's opinion isn't noteworthy unless it is cited by other third-party sources. Failing that, we just need to choose a few from the most reputable sources that represent the mainstream view as well the minority view, proportionately. Wolf needs to go for many reasons, including that it's not a third party source.- MrX 19:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not making any argument, straw man or otherwise. I just did not understand what you wrote, so I asked for clarification. How was that not clear? In any case, I am glad you did not mean what I thought you did. However, if the documentary claims to be about science, but they blew the science, it doesn't seem there should be a balance of pro and con reviews for the sake of getting balance. But, I do agree on removing Wolf. RobP (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-indented. I was responding to NicolasEng's comment. I completely agree that we should not seek to balance the positive and negative reviews; only that we should represent them proportionately. There is actually surprisingly little coverage of this film in reliable sources. It's barely notable.- MrX 21:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Institutional(ized) Racism?

The actual phrase used in the film is "institutionalized racism." Since that phrase links to the same Wikipedia article as "institutional racism," I have edited the text used in this article. rowley (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, while 94% of Blacks may be Lactose intolerant, Blacks are still twice[1] as likely as Whites to get Prostate Cancer obliterating this idea of racism and that dairy is directly linked to cancers Tymes (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation and quotes

In these two edits, editors have demonstrated conflicting notions of what the MOS:LQ page says about the relative positions of quote marks and periods. This is not a hill I want to die on, but it looks to me like their respective interpretations are both inconsistent, but that it all depends on how you interpret whether quoted words form the "logical" end of a sentence or not. So, before either of you, @Mom4josh and Shortsword: reverts the other again, please consider the full advice in LQ. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh:My opinion is that MOS:LQ needs more examples. I refer to it constantly, but often am still confused and am not sure I am doing the correct thing in certain situations! I cannot be alone in that. RobP (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

December 2018

Hi User:Zv7db9s. Please state your case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Zv7db9s (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)== Standards of Quality of Sources ==

It is clear at this point that the contributors of the page have a complete disregard for any kind of standards of the sources that are cited. Any media article that one can find simply by doing a quick google search is now apparently a legitimate source for citation, even if such articles are being used to make objective claims related to health.

It is evident that prior editors were simply looking for sources that aligned with their opinion regarding the film, and decided to highlight only the reception with which they agreed. This is a misrepresentation of what the actual public opinion is. Actual public opinion is clearly divided, and nowhere near as one-sided as the previous revisions implied.

Using a youtube video from ZDoggMD (a video with over 60% dislikes), which reflects only the opinion of one "doctor", to represent public opinion, is NOT a reflection of public reception. It is just the reception of ZDoggMD, and thus should not be posted under Reception. Anyone can make a video on youtube and comment on the film - does that mean every single reaction video on youtube should now be under the Reception section?

Any attempt to construct a Reception section where only a one-sided negative opinion of the film is included, is misleading, and should not meet Wikipedia's standards of accuracy. Editors who wish to highlight only opinions with which they agree, should do so elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zv7db9s (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up here rather than reverting. That was smart. Reverting would have gotten you blocked, and then you would have no influence over the article.

Now, to force others into discussion, I suggest you type here "So, does anyone object if I remove the text to which I refer?" If nobody arrives to discuss, after a few days you can make the changes you want, and nobody can object. Please be patient, though. Take things slowly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of the material could be removed, including a good portion of the material referenced to zdoggmd.com, per WP:UNDUE. I do remember previously searching for positive reviews of the film but didn't I find much. Perhaps the Zv7db9s can show us some positive reviews. Failing that, it's reasonable that the article would be tilted toward negative reviews. - MrX 🖋 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

While I could not find any third-party commentary on Zubin Damania/ZDoggMD's response to this film, he is both a legitimate medical expert and noteworthy cultural critic, per many sources at his article (such as this one). I wouldn't be upset if this particular entry were removed, but it seems acceptable to include a brief summary of it. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There you go, Zv7db9s. You made a good case, and have support. It looks like two others in the community think most or all off the content you dislike could be removed. When you get unblocked, come here and work it out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the “or all” assessment. Agreeing that it MIGHT be trimmed somewhat seems reasonable, but the current criticism seems to reflect what is out there in WP:RS. RobP (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zv7db9s: For clarification, note that the Reception section does not aim to "represent public opinion" (whatever that is). It summarises what reliable sources have said about it. So if there are other sources we're not aware of, please list them here so we can get the best balanced article. Be sure they are reliable and independent.

And since nobody else has mentioned it - please leave out the personal attacks. You are welcome to feel however you like, but the discussion here will be a lot more productive if everybody sticks to the issue.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Zv7db9s is blocked indefinitely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding Controversial Topics

"The documentary has been criticized by a number of medical doctors,[1][2] dieticians,[3][4][5] and investigative journalists[6][7] for what they describe as confusing causation with correlation, cherry picking science studies, using biased sources, distorting study findings, and using "weak-to-non-existent data"."

The above is a tremendously biased misrepresentation of public reception, as it implies that the majority of people who have watched What The Health dislike or disagree with its message. If that is really the case, one would imagine a drastically different like/dislike ratio for the youtube mirror of the film found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL2cLhOqPsE Needless to say, public reception is not as one-sided as some editors would like to believe. Now you might say, a youtube like/dislike ratio also doesn’t necessarily reflect public opinion - and yes, I would agree with you as well. Which is why I wouldn’t use the above link as a reference and then say in this wikipedia article, “Public reception is great.”

The problem with citing many of these articles is that often, the authors of these articles are doing the same exact thing as some editors here are, looking for and referencing only other articles that they were able to find through their confirmation bias, while at the end of the day stating only their opinions as if they were objective facts.

Are there many articles disagreeing with the film? Absolutely. Are some of them from doctors or dieticians? Of course. But there are also “a number of“ doctors who agree with and support the film. Yes, many of those doctors are featured in the film, but that does not negate the fact that they are legitimate medical doctors as well.

The fact is that currently, there is no actual consensus in the medical community regarding any diet or its effects (this is not saying there is no evidence for anything, merely no universal agreement, even when studies are examined). There are strong and loud supporters of essentially any diet, if one digs around for long enough. So naturally, when a film like this one comes out clearly arguing for the universal adoption of one particular diet, anyone who disagrees with it (and is passionate enough) is obviously going to write some article denouncing it, and anyone who agrees with it will praise it. This is just the nature of any controversial topic in the world.

However, Wikipedia is NOT a medium for people to advocate their opinions regarding controversial topics (and then presenting them under a heavy implication that their opinion is the correct one). Just because you may be able to provide a citation that supports your viewpoint, does that automatically make that source authoritative. One merely needs to take a quick view of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars, (namely the second one) to understand why the Reception section of the current version fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

“We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.”

Again, my problem here is with people who think any article/video on the internet is an authoritative source. “Oh look, I found a doctor or nutritionist who says something I agree with! Time to cite it as a reference on Wikipedia.” Newsflash - several doctors’ or nutritionists’ opinions do not equate to public consensus. The same logic applies to articles or videos from doctors who support the film, and is precisely why I would not cite them on Wikipedia either.

Just because you and I are able to find articles or videos on the internet which aligns with our respective opinions, does not make those sources authoritative. If even medical doctors cannot agree among themselves, then what makes us think that we know enough to attempt pushing public opinion (regarding a hotly debated topic) in one direction on a Wikipedia article?

As for ZDoggMD’s video, here is a response from Dr. Garth Davis (yes, he is featured in the film): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7b4kBTuHF0. If you think Dr. Garth’s video should not be mentioned in Wikipedia’s article, then neither should ZDoggMD’s. Zv7db9s (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia's policies specifically say to avoid user generated content such as like/dislike ratios or web surveys. Further, both the medical content guidelines, and the Manual of style for film articles (specifically #Audience response) caution to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of opinions in this context. If a reviewer is neither a credible expert on medicine, nor on film, their personal opinion is unlikely to be encyclopedically significant without a good reason, and that reason will be supported by an independent reliable source.

If you know of positive expert reviews published by reliable sources or from recognized experts, let's see them. If you have a reliable source about the consensus of experts, even better! Please propose it here for discussion. We are not interested in false balance, because "balance" is not automatically more neutral. If most reliable sources are unflattering the article will reflect that. Understand? Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that is evident is that you have actually not read the entire post. Or you simply cannot comprehend that a lack of consensus does not equate to consensus existing. If you claim that there is a consensus, then "let's see" some proof. You think the articles cited is proof? Again, you have your own biased definition of what is a "reliable" source, simply because the author of an article is a doctor or nutritionist, and is saying something you like. None of the sources cited are actual authoritative, primary sources, but rather just opinions. The fact that you are okay with those non-reliable sources and not okay with others, merely reflect your demonstration of a double standard. Understand? Zv7db9s (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Opening this section as you did says a lot: "The above is a tremendously biased misrepresentation of public reception, as it implies that the majority of people who have watched What The Health dislike or disagree with its message. If that is really the case, one would imagine a drastically different like/dislike ratio for the youtube mirror of the film found here..." (Bolding is mine) That you chose to go with this argument demonstrates clearly that you do not understand the first thing about the topic of reliable sources, nor how scientific consensus is achieved and needs to be reflected in articles on matters of health. RobP (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that at this point, none of the editors of this article know how to read the actual entirety of a post before replying. That you chose to think that I think a "like/dislike ratio" is a reliable source demonstrates clearly your lack of reading ability. Judging by the amount of braindead editors on this article, it is clear as day that further discussion on this "talk page" would be a laughable waste of time. No need to reply; this site is clearly a joke. Enjoy the circle-jerk, folks. No wonder people laugh at Wikipedia's credibility. Zv7db9s (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to reply; this site is clearly a joke. Ah yes, how creative. Why would we worry about the opinion of someone who demonstrates contempt for the project? Well, if your not interested in civility, I'll be honest: Your post was too long to bother reading carefully, since it started off with misconceptions experienced editors have read a thousand times before. Sorry, we're volunteers, we are not obligated to waste time on this nonsense. Instead of continuing the productive discussion you started above, you ignore all that and post almost 5k of vague comments about basic policy aimed at people who've already read all of this. Again, this is, apparently, about something we were already in the middle of discussing above. The video should be trimmed down, and should be better-contextualized. We agree on that. Including a separate youtube video is probably not going to help, and that's the closest thing to a reliable source you've proposed, so... Enjoy thinking your better than us, I guess? Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Zv7db9s is now blocked indefinitely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Why is this article categorized under Pseudoscience documentary films? What kind of pseudoscientific claims are in the documentary? HempFan (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)