This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Clean eating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I realise that the lead description may have 'consensus', but the the moniker of 'fad diet' is pejorative, inaccurate and the sources are weak. Two Guardian articles (a left-wing British newspaper) by people who are substantially gossip columnists does not constitute science. Both Harvard and Yale medical journals have produced articles on Clean Eating where the word 'fad' is nowhere mentioned. Could we focus on what is true instead of achieving'consensus' on things that aren't? 109.154.231.60 ( talk) 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable.Also, per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus
is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals.What you regard to be true is not the prevailing consensus. I think you'll need something more than this to succeed. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Clean eating taken to an extreme has been associated with an increased risk of disordered eating patterns, such as orthorexia nervosa.- further it emphasises the broad nature of the term, how different people interpret it to mean different things, and the mislabelling of products.
This broad statement (Health risks associated with this diet include
food poisoning and diseases from
parasites
) is totally misrepresenting the source.
What exactly the source says is:
Diseases caused by parasites. Consumption of raw meat increases the risk of contracting trichinosis, and eating raw fish increases the risk of infection by flukes and other parasitic worms.
-- so the eating of raw meat increases the risk of infection by parasites... Which is not at all what the article said.
Aside from that, this is buried within a sub-section, with the bulk of the sub-section talking about the risks of eating processed foods. An honest representation of the source would include all that content too. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is - as far as I can research - no basis for calling Clean Eating a 'fad diet', yet this bizarre claim has gone untested here for some time. The description is clearly proprietorial, and I wonder about two dubious articles in The Guardian (hardly The Lancet). Poor sources indeed. This is everything that is wrong about Wiki. The concept seems to essentially echo many basic principles of The Mediterranean Diet, yet we do not describe that as a 'fad diet'. What is going on here? Consensus - however cordial - does not mean the claim is truthful. 86.153.86.158 ( talk) 19:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Clean eating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I realise that the lead description may have 'consensus', but the the moniker of 'fad diet' is pejorative, inaccurate and the sources are weak. Two Guardian articles (a left-wing British newspaper) by people who are substantially gossip columnists does not constitute science. Both Harvard and Yale medical journals have produced articles on Clean Eating where the word 'fad' is nowhere mentioned. Could we focus on what is true instead of achieving'consensus' on things that aren't? 109.154.231.60 ( talk) 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable.Also, per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus
is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals.What you regard to be true is not the prevailing consensus. I think you'll need something more than this to succeed. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Clean eating taken to an extreme has been associated with an increased risk of disordered eating patterns, such as orthorexia nervosa.- further it emphasises the broad nature of the term, how different people interpret it to mean different things, and the mislabelling of products.
This broad statement (Health risks associated with this diet include
food poisoning and diseases from
parasites
) is totally misrepresenting the source.
What exactly the source says is:
Diseases caused by parasites. Consumption of raw meat increases the risk of contracting trichinosis, and eating raw fish increases the risk of infection by flukes and other parasitic worms.
-- so the eating of raw meat increases the risk of infection by parasites... Which is not at all what the article said.
Aside from that, this is buried within a sub-section, with the bulk of the sub-section talking about the risks of eating processed foods. An honest representation of the source would include all that content too. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is - as far as I can research - no basis for calling Clean Eating a 'fad diet', yet this bizarre claim has gone untested here for some time. The description is clearly proprietorial, and I wonder about two dubious articles in The Guardian (hardly The Lancet). Poor sources indeed. This is everything that is wrong about Wiki. The concept seems to essentially echo many basic principles of The Mediterranean Diet, yet we do not describe that as a 'fad diet'. What is going on here? Consensus - however cordial - does not mean the claim is truthful. 86.153.86.158 ( talk) 19:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)