This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Macrobiotic diet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 120 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I feel the text about macrobiotic diet is very biased and subjective. I can hear a judgemental viewpoint underpinning the whole article and towards the dietary guidelines, rather than a neutral curiosity and openness about the topic. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be non biased and simply for the sharing of information?
Apparently it is according to the Wikipedia guidelines: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.
This specific article seems to contradict this very guideline.
To me the macrobiotic diet sounds like a very wholesome and nourishing way to eat - eating seasonally, organically and without toxins, correct me if i'm wrong in thinking those sound are good things. It's definitely much better than the mainstream diets that most people adopt - take aways, high fat greasy foods, processed ready meals, processed non organic animal products full of hormones and antibiotics, high sugar and antibiotic filled dairy.
I feel it's very concerning that you've labelled the macrobiotic diet as a 'fad' diet and shared the info here with obvious bias and intention to influence in a certain direction. 2A02:C7C:6E40:AE00:709E:8E94:5875:601A ( talk) 19:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't even know what these short hands meanThat is why you can click on them and find out. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I have been able to answer many of the criticisms above, including the mention of of Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland TruthIan ( talk) 12:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
A fad diet is one that has a relatively brief moment of popularity. If the Wikipedia article is going to say that something is a fad diet, we need decent sources for it. Here are a few:
Looking in a few dictionaries, I didn't see any that defined it as a fad diet. The closest I saw was in Green's Dictionary of Slang, which said that "rice and beaner" was derived from the macrobiotic diet and meant a person who was concerned with the issues of the 1960s.
doi: 10.9783/9781512820010-003 also looks useful for developing the article, but doesn't address the fad/non-fad question directly. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Macrobiotic diet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 120 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I feel the text about macrobiotic diet is very biased and subjective. I can hear a judgemental viewpoint underpinning the whole article and towards the dietary guidelines, rather than a neutral curiosity and openness about the topic. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be non biased and simply for the sharing of information?
Apparently it is according to the Wikipedia guidelines: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.
This specific article seems to contradict this very guideline.
To me the macrobiotic diet sounds like a very wholesome and nourishing way to eat - eating seasonally, organically and without toxins, correct me if i'm wrong in thinking those sound are good things. It's definitely much better than the mainstream diets that most people adopt - take aways, high fat greasy foods, processed ready meals, processed non organic animal products full of hormones and antibiotics, high sugar and antibiotic filled dairy.
I feel it's very concerning that you've labelled the macrobiotic diet as a 'fad' diet and shared the info here with obvious bias and intention to influence in a certain direction. 2A02:C7C:6E40:AE00:709E:8E94:5875:601A ( talk) 19:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't even know what these short hands meanThat is why you can click on them and find out. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I have been able to answer many of the criticisms above, including the mention of of Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland TruthIan ( talk) 12:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
A fad diet is one that has a relatively brief moment of popularity. If the Wikipedia article is going to say that something is a fad diet, we need decent sources for it. Here are a few:
Looking in a few dictionaries, I didn't see any that defined it as a fad diet. The closest I saw was in Green's Dictionary of Slang, which said that "rice and beaner" was derived from the macrobiotic diet and meant a person who was concerned with the issues of the 1960s.
doi: 10.9783/9781512820010-003 also looks useful for developing the article, but doesn't address the fad/non-fad question directly. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)