Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:55, 3 October 2016

Food and drink Start‑class Low‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Brands Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Fad diet"

I see "fad diet" in an article's title, but not in the body of the article itself. I don't believe that article titles are typically used in this way. If we're including something in the first sentence of an article, per WP:LEAD, we should surely have a better source than an article title alone. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The content in the body of that article fully supports the label in the title. One doesn't need a quotation for support; we summarize sources in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a contentious label, so the sourcing really needs to be impeccable. I can start a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you like, or get a WP:3O, but I think as it stands this is a serious violation of our neutrality policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

added another ref. It is not contentious except for someone trying to sell it To to any objective observer; it fits the definition of fad diet (you really should read that) to a T. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC) (strike via redaction with apologies Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

if anything violates NPOV as well as WP:PROMO it is this, btw. 100% positive stuff. 0% negative, even from the sources that were there. not good. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The second source you've added also does not refer to the Whole30 as a fad diet. The article subtitle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements," but that's as close as we get. It's also a listicle, there must be better sources out there. Also, yes, "fad diet" can clearly be seen as a contentious term by someone who is not trying to "sell" a diet. I will start a discussion at a noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've opened a discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can article titles be used as sources?. I have also removed the word "fad" from the title of this article, because the word "fad" is not in the title of the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah i'll chime in there - the question is wrong. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

After looking through the sourcing again, I think a better description of this diet is Elimination diet. It is described as such in the US News & World Report and Dallas Morning News, which look like our two best newspaper sources. According to the Dallas Morning News source, "Weight loss is not a focus of Whole30." It doesn't seem to promise any extraordinary benefits per Fad diet such as a longer diet, either. It looks like you're supposed to cut out certain food groups for 30 days, then start reintroducing them and see which foods, if any, make you feel worse. That seems consistent with elimination diet. I cannot find any sources that say you're supposed to never eat the eliminated foods after 30 days. Per Self, "The program is all about eliminating and reintroducing these potential problem-causers so you can better understand how what you eat is affecting you. Think: Paleo meets an elimination diet—just for 30 days." I think a more accurate first sentence of the article based on the available sourcing would be: "The Whole30 is a 30-day elimination diet during which participants eliminate sugar, alcohol, grains, legumes, soy, and dairy from their diets." Safehaven86 (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

it is a fad diet; stating that is accurate and neutral. you can also describe it as an elimination diet as well, elsewhere. do not remove the fad diet statement. it NPOV now, per the WP:PSCI policy. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The article on fad diet says a fad diet "is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life." I am not seeing that in the citations here. I am seeing that this diet tells you to not eat certain foods for 30 days, then reintroduce them later in a way consistent with an elimination diet. And please do not give me orders, such as "do not remove the fad diet statement." Did I remove it? Did I say I was going to remove it? I've obviously started a discussion here about it, and I don't need to be patronized. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The point of the elimination is to lose weight quickly and/or dietary detoxification which is a pseudoscientific notion per sourced content in the WLed article. and its not healthy. so fad diet. and if you read elimination diet that is an actual medical nutrition therapy thing; this is not. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems like OR or SYN to me, and i would urge the editor to be more friendly and to consider the other editor's notes abot dynamics of this dialog. This is giving me the willies. Doesn't feel like a good dialog to me. I just wish to urge people to be calm and good to each other, and speak to the content and not with imperatives. I do recall there's one indy source that does categorize this diet a "fad diet" and there are not many sources on this diet other than self-published ones. SageRad (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Start-Class Brands articles
• Low-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles