Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome — report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts

Generally, this is disruptive editing in biographies of living people (BLPs) over an extended period. Don't report short-term problems — remedy them yourself.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives
Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:



Peter Schiff[edit]

Can I get some experienced editors attention on Peter Schiff please. There was a recent court case involving Schiff, Nick McKenzie and McKenzie's employer's which resulted in what WP:RS are calling a settlement. There's a lot of WP:SPA's who take issue with McKenzie's journalism and they've come out to edit biased material into both articles as a consequence of the conclusion of the court case. Nick McKenzie is currently semi-protected, however Peter Schiff isn't and it's not appropriate to call for it at this stage. TarnishedPathtalk 00:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently trimmed the section down per suggested wording by an editor, who has only 38 edits most of which are on Peter Schiff, but apparently now that's not good enough and they are challenging the edit and casting aspersions claiming that me editing in the manner they suggested demonstrates ulterior motives on my behalf. They've also taken to editing to restore their preferred version without obtaining consensus. Again, the eyes of experienced editors would be welcomed. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should be very close to a resolution. There are 4 sources that mention defamation occurred, Nick McKenzie and 3 other respondents was part of the defamation, and other factual details of the lawsuit against all 5 respondents. One of the secondary sources, The Australian, is a reliable source per WP:RSP. The other 3 have no opinion listed in RSP. (see https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bank-boss-peter-schiff-has-all-but-won-nine-defamation-case-court-hears/news-story/120421e466c12eda69ed75e5cc1e4c4f?amp). I don't see any reason why we can't wrap this up quickly now. Mkstokes (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfCs[edit]

I've started an RfC on this subject at Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started another RfC regarding this subject at Talk:Nick McKenzie#RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rajeev Ranjan Giri[edit]

I tagged this article for some additional attention, hoping that people with more knowledge than I might see it or find it from perusing the attached categories, however the article creator insists on edit-warring the tags/categories out which makes it more difficult for this article to get attention from people who might be in a position to fix it.

I did a thorough analysis on the current sourcing at Talk:Rajeev Ranjan Giri#More analysis and determined it is entirely inadequate at this time, and despite searching both in English and Hindi, was unable to find significant coverage of the subject of the article in independent reliable secondary sources. Would someone else mind having a look at this to see if it is fixable. I would rather not send a new user's article to AFD if it can be avoided, but this clearly needs some attention if it is to stay. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A40C:77E9:C7AF:BFB1 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article raises concerns regarding compliance with WP:BLP guidelines. The cited references predominantly consist of book reviews and blogs, which may not sufficiently contribute to establishing notability. Despite efforts, reliable secondary sources to support the content could not be identified. Given these challenges, it is recommended that this article be subjected to AFD. Moonlight2006 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that AfD is probably the way to go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, I'll give it another week to see if anyone can find appropriate sources and if nothing turns up then I will list it at AFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2997:D11A:B16B:FCC0 (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Janice Burton[edit]

Hi, in support of the previous correction I enclose a photo of the framed or displayed medals 23 in total. Not sure I worked out how to send photo so please check I did it correct. This has been an uncorrected issue for some time and I will also try and correct IPC site to with a photo

Proof
Janice Burton MBE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Burton (talk • contribs)

I have fixed the link to the picture you uploaded to commons. I'm not sure what the "uncorrected issue" you are referring to is – the article on Janice Burton states that she won 23 Paralympic medals Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps this has to do with Great Britain at the Paralympics which does list only 20 without any footnote or anything. I didn't notice any previous attempt to change it but didn't look very hard. It was briefly discussion nearly 10 years ago Talk:Great Britain at the Paralympics#Janice Burton Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pedro Diniz[edit]

This [2] has appeared on Pedro Diniz article. I am assuming this kind of thing is removed and scrubbed so as not to be seen in the history? Such a claim would need a source, and a very, very good one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bretonbanquet, that edit has been revision deleted, properly in my judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zvi Yehuda Kook[edit]

Can someone please help change the profile picture? Thanks! See: talk:Zvi Yehuda Kook#Better profile picture 2A01:6500:B107:A784:F968:D28:80:C2E5 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zvi Yehuda Kook died nearly 42 years ago. This request does not belong at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree, I have fulfilled the edit request since it seems a reasonable and simple request. A perhaps more important point is editors should take great care in anything relating to to Zvi Yehuda Kook give his article suggests he had significant involvement in the Arab–Israeli conflict and his teachings remains so to this day. Requesting an image replacement probably won't be considered to be covered by the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict restrictions even broadly construed but a lot of stuff will be which means while edit requests are fine, anything else including posting even on appropriate noticeboards will not be. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein's associates list[edit]

Needs eyes. Lots of eyes. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm wondering if this should go straight to WP:AFD. It seems to me to be a blatant WP:BLP violation. On one hand it says those listed have done nothing wrong but then what is the point of naming them as associates or even suggesting that they are not clients? What definition of associate is being used? It seems to be a very lose one. Again, I don't see how this is acceptable from a BLP standpoint. TarnishedPathtalk 03:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, AfD. There's no such "list", and the guilt-by-association concerns being identified in reliable references make the mention of any names in this context-sparse article to be blatant BLP vios. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just plain awful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's way to early to say the "list" by itself should have an article and any mention of an individual on the "list" should wait until the contract etc is known. There is no reason why we need to rush such RECENT material into Wikipedia. AFD is a good place. Springee (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I nominated for deletion.[3] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, all of this can be covered at Jeffrey Epstein.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theo Lengyel[edit]

There's a developing news story about this marginally notable former member of a notable rock band. Finding extremely little about him (such sources as there are conflict even on what year he was let go from the band, and a law enforcement agency has mentioned an alias that is the name of a different performer), I first made the article as BLP-compliant as I could, then redirected it to the band. The news story has now progressed: formerly a person of interest in a possible crime, he has now been arrested. The article has been restored and updated, but I still don't find any extended coverage of him. Since the current coverage is related to a crime, I request experienced BLP editors to keep an eye on the article, and also to look at it from the point of view of notability. I don't think it's an AfD candidate, given the recent news stories, but others may disagree on that. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may indeed be a WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME situation if the only significant RS coverage about him is related to the crime he is accused of. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lex Fridman[edit]

The section titled "Reception" should be removed. The content is not useful information but controversial political opinion and gossip. The sources cited saying Lex Fridman was born in Tajikstan do not refer to his birth in Tajikstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonsaiBonzai123 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss it on the article's talk page first, @BonsaiBonzai123. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The birth location was fixed by @Hemiauchenia. The Tajikstan edit was made by a Lex listener who presumably got that from a podcast episode.
The reception section is fine per WP:BLPBALANCE "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources", and the sources have already been discussed and agreed reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Business Insider on Lex Fridman. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the rest of the paragraph you quoted:
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."
And here is a paragraph prohibiting tabloid journalism regardless of whether it is positive negative or neutral:
"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except none of that applies here. The source is already deemed reliable per the noticeboard discussion linked. There is no debate. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title of the Business Insider article is:
"Peace, love, and Hitler: How Lex Fridman's podcast became a safe space for the anti-woke tech elite"
I think that speaks for itself. BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not describe the comments of experts in scientific fields as "controversial political opinion and gossip" either. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Experts in scientific fields are human and are not above controversy and gossip! BonsaiBonzai123 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kalki Bhagawan[edit]

I requested help for improving the BLP of Kalki Bhagawan in September 2023 for long standing problems with this BLP [4], [5]. Also sought third opinion but was rejected because more than 3 editors involved.

The serious, long term issues on this page including biased editing opposed specifically to WP:BLPCOI, WP:BLPTALK, WP:NPOVFACT among other violations are detailed here on the article’s talk page, especially serious violations of BLP rules.

In response to initial complaint received support from NatGertler, following which the 'NPOV' and 'unreliable' templates were added to the page.

All editors who have commented, agree regardless of opinion, that there are issues on the page. However, what is disappointing is that there has been no action by editors to improve this article.

I have familiarized myself with WP:BLP rules and now will start removing contentious BLP text from the article and replacing it with balanced content that meets the WP standards for reliable, published sources. I understand BLP rules require consensus on talk page on contentious contents, but allows contentious content to be first removed. I will specify the clear BLP reason for the contention and create a section where the community can comment.

Therefore, I request other editors to not revert any contentious content that I reasonably remove and instead engage on the talk page for discussion first. After the discussion, whatever content is most in accordance with Wikipedia rules - let it prevail.

I look forward to discussions to engage with the Wikipedia community to help fix the long standing issues with this BLP.

Hibiscus192255 (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this article needs substantial cleanup, focusing particularly on resolving the issue of duplicated references used in multiple instances. Need to verify the reliability of the cited references. I would move the criticism and negative press into one section to adhere to WP:BLPBALANCE and maintain an overall neutral tone. Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Jai White[edit]

I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I was wondering if it was okay to leave a footnote at the bottom of his page like I did here[6] as it mentions conflicting sources about his birth year. Many claim 1967. However there's a newspaper from Rome News which was published in 2007 stating that he turned 43 that year. And there's also archived links from the webpage of his old school that have him listed as having graduated in 1982. Which imply a 1964 birth year. I'm asking because I even thought I put in a hidden note saying to read the footnote below before putting down a DOB, editors seem to be ignoring it. From my understanding, references can't just simply be removed or ignored so I put down the references in the footnote next to the birth years that they're claiming. Kcj5062 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The newspaper has a footnote stating that while they strive for accuracy, they can be contacted regarding mistakes. I wouldn't count a 'Todays Birthday' in a local newspaper as reliable, considering most just draw their data from birthday websites and the like (which also aren't always accurate.)
Regarding the alumni of a certain year, that also isn't a reliable source for a birth year for multiple reasons. First, you can graduate early with extra schoolwork, or alternatively can start school late if your parents choose to keep you home an extra year. As a parent, it happens.
A reliable source would be something like this, a magazine interview staying he was 55 in 2023. Per WP:CALC, "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible."
Awshort (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awshort
It's true that some celebs do graduate early. However if they do, they'll actually say they did and articles will mention so. Especially if they were under the age of 15 as that's usually the oldest some people are when they start high school. And I can't find anything that says MJW was 14 when he finished high school nor even something saying that he finished school a few years early. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kcj5062
I disagree that actors tend to mention what age they were when they graduated unless asked, at least in the articles I've seen, but I suppose that is a fair statement. With that being said, this article states he graduated in 1987.
Considering the writer of said article, Linda Conner Lambeck, seems to have a solid career in journalism going back to the 80's and is known for covering education for her articles, I think it is a fair assumption that she would follow basic fact checking for her article and can be considered a valid source for his graduation year. If born in November 1967, this would put him around 19 when he graduated, which seems accurate.

Edit The article listed above seems to be from 'Actor has encore, with a message, at Central' from the May 28, 2009 Connecticut Post paper. I can't access it since it's behind a paywall, but maybe a user who has access to the Wiki library can.

Awshort (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awshort
I've seen that article you posted before and I'm dubious to it's accuracy regarding him graduating in 1987. Because he did the Shot Put while in high school and had set a school record. According to Central High School's track records, it was in 1982. Either that year or the year he was expected to graduate.[7] If he graduated in 1987, that would mean he had to had started high school in 1983.
There's also this article that was published by the Connecticut Post.[8]. It says he was born in 1967, however it also says he graduated in 1982. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cannon_(writer)[edit]

The early life section is given without citation and halfway through changes it's prose style from the Wikipedia bibliography one. No citation given either, seems copy and pasted from someplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.5.134 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor (this was their only edit to the project) added 4k+ unsourced content. I've restored the "early life" to what it was before that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexsandr Dyachenko[edit]

I made a trout-slap worthy mistake a while back and wrote that Alexsandr Dyachenko engaged in bad behaviour (not detailing the specific claim due to BLP violations), because an individual with the same name did it. Can we remove a few revisions of the page from visibility (from [9] to [10])? Bremps... 00:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Nikki Romney[edit]

I'm wondering what y'all think of this--it's so odd. It looks like a kind of a COI contribution, but on the whole one can read it as a purely negative BLP as well, with just a single event and maybe a half. I don't know what to make of it. I'm not inclined to accept it because all the coverage is negative too and I don't see the subject being discussed outside of the controversy, as an artist. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article's creator demonstrates noticeable COI. I was unable to find reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per WP:BLP, except the controversy. Think this can be sent to AFD. Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joanne Harris[edit]

Requesting some other eyes on the Joanne Harris article. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores, an ex-student of Kate Clanchy is showing an ongoing interest in documenting negative coverage of writers who have criticised Clanchy (eg. Talk:Joanne Harris#Controversies!), misquoting some sources and applying synthesis when combining others. The current version of the article is using a lot of paywalled Times sources that I'm unable to verify. Belbury (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rachel Zegler page is devoid of anything regarding recent controversies, why?[edit]

Just curious why there is nothing regarding the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.246.216 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, for one, have no clue to what controversies you refer, but be bold and add them in as you can find support for them in reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dumuzid: Apparently, the controversy is a bunch of loons not liking the fact that she isn't caucasian [11]. So, nothing to see here. Watchlisted. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found that too. I'll suggest to anyone interested to also watchlist Snow White (2025 film), where there is already an extensive Controversies section. Generalrelative (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not a good idea to have, per WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While WP:NOCRIT is just an essay, and in cases where backlash is substantial enough to be notable that should be included, potentially in its own section, in this case the text does seem to be laying it on a bit thick, e.g. with language like The decision to reimagine the characters as such was criticised by mainstream and social media sources as being overly politically correct when the cited sources don't really seem to support that. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll also underscore a comment I saw on the talk page: for an actress of this high a profile, we should really be able to find a better free-use photo. Generalrelative (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neri Oxman plagiarism thing in the WP:LEAD[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Neri_Oxman#Plagiarism_controversy, your opinion is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments appreciated here[edit]

Because the discussion appears to be spread over multiple sections on the article talk page, I'll just leave this here.

I'd wager based on the media coverage by WP:RS that this is a significant controversy and thus worth a brief mention in the lead, per WP:MOS/LEAD [12]. Accuastions of plagirism also appear in Claudine Gay's lead, despite her being cleared by Harvard. Really, it could be shortened to note that Oxman faced criticism for accepting donations from Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations of plagiarism in her work including lifting paragraphs from Wikipedia. Both are covered in a volume of reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think mention in the lead would be justified if the section on the plagiarism event was further fleshed out using the many reliable sources that have reported on it thus far. Currently, I think the paragraph doesn’t demonstrate it meets mention according to WP:LEAD. Thriley (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Lead sections are meant to summarize the key points of an article. There really isn't much to summarize right now and recentism is also a concern. I have no prejudice against including a mention of plagiarism in the lead if further developments occur, especially if it becomes clear that this incident has a lasting impact on her career. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 20:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there enough material out there currently to build out a whole section on the event which would meet the requirements of mention in the lead. Thriley (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John A. McDougall[edit]

Article contains innacurate and one-sided citation, misrepresentation of source text, and is heavily biased against the author. Source textbook does not call author's a diet a "fad diet" and is not opposed to it but mentions possible outcomes for similar diets clustered in the same table (the only place where name John A. McDougall appears in the entire textbook). Source does not refer to McDougall diet in particular but clustered within a type of diets, some of which are criticized. Referencing done on the article in this form appears malicious and unfair. Choice in wording is also questionable (i.e. "...may lead to a feeling of deprivation.") and amounts to guesswork.

It has been categorized as a low-fat fad diet. The diet rejects all animal products as well as cooking oils, processed food, alcoholic beverages and caffeinated drinks. As with any restrictive high-fiber diet, it may lead to flatulence, possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber, and limited food choices that may lead to a feeling of deprivation.[2]

Textbook referenced: 'Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol; Moe, Gaile; Beshgetoor, Donna; Berning, Jacqueline. (2012). Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition, Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill. pages 338-339. ISBN 978-0-07-352272-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teleoid (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been discussed in the archives of the talk-page. What Teleoid is claiming is false. I actually ordered a copy of this exact same textbook a few years ago. The source checks out. The McDougall diet is listed as a fad diet. On page 338 is a title that says "10.7 Fad diets", on the next page is table 10.7 listing various fad diets including the McDougall diet. It says in the "outcomes" section for this diet, "Flatulence, possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber, limited food choices sometimes lead to deprivation". The McDougall diet is a well known pseudoscientific fad diet. Let's not pretend this is mainstream science. Dietitians do not promote the diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition, a well-established nutrition textbook[13] and one of the strongest sources in that article. If it says something (the OP finds) unpalatable about a particular diet, that's not something Wikipedia can fix. Also, not sure why a diet description is being raised at WP:BLP/N. Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bon courage, few problems here:
1. Despite being a well-established nutrition textbook it does not discuss the issue (this particular diet), therefore does not merit citation in this context - it fails to engage except by weak implication.
2. We're discussing McDougall's work, which is part of his biography. If you're going to negatively assess his person then do it with suffient and explicit evidence. As of now, it is not evident that his diet qualifies as a fad. Teleoid (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you have an old edition of the textbook because it's take out of context - this is what entire table paragraphs actually states:
Flatulence; possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber; limited food choices sometimes lead to deprivation; not necessarily to be avoided, but certain aspects of many of the plans possibly unacceptable.
No inaccuracies here. This diet has been mentioned once, as I said, and McDougall is clustered with other similar but not identical diets. The diet is furthermore not categorically defined as you might like it to. Teleoid (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact of the matter is, this McDougall diet is listed under "10.7 Fad diets", read over the other diets included on this list, Atkins diet, Protein Power, Macrobiotic, blood type diet etc. These are all popular fad diets known for making pseudoscientific claims, the McDougall diet is no different. The textbook is not endorsing these fad diets. It doesn't matter if the diets are clustered on the list or not. It is clear these are fad diets. I am not sure what the issue here is. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong again. Despite being mentioned in the chapter Fad Diets, the textbook only contains a single mention: in the table called A Summary of Popular Diet Approaches to Weight Control where contended source is located.
It is not explicitly called a fad diet anywhere, nor is it examined in any shape or form in this particular book. This makes it a a very poor source and not worthy of citing in this context, despite being a reputable textbook. To make it worse, the authors, as I mentioned above, potentially allow some of those diets (including McDougall's). The way it is sourced in the article - it's obviously cherry-picking facts in order to label the diet as fad.
The truth of the matter is - there is not enough evidence to call McDougall's diet a fad diet, mainly due to the fact there are no negative health consequences. And again, this source is too weak. Teleoid (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It is not explicitly called a fad diet anywhere", let's not be dishonest. It is in the very title "10.7 Fad diets". Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see [14] article in Science-Based Medicine to why McDougall's diet is not supported by science. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and the article also fails to prove that his diet doesn't work. So there you go - you need evidence either way. Just because there is no overwhelming acceptance does not make it into a fad, the label is unjustified. Teleoid (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point but even a textbook owes the subject matter a minimum justification before we can take it seriously. Again, it's by implication. Teleoid (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are other sources that list it as a fad diet, this college textbook [15] has a list of fad diets under Table 10-3 "some fad diets" which also includes the McDougall Plan. We do not need to cite this source, but you get the idea. McDougall has no acceptance in the medical community. Nobody takes him seriously apart from religious "whole-food plant-based diet" evangelists. If his diet had any validity it would have been promoted by health agencies and medical organizations by now. He's been promoting fringe content for 30+years without any acceptance. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hardly a medical textbook. And a lot of people take him very seriously, especially the one's who's lives he saved. You can see them often on Chef AJ, numerous documentaries and abundance of mail he receives personally. My point is - the evidence against this diet is far too weak. Teleoid (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And with that rejection of a textbook in favour of "Chef AJ" I think this thread has culminated. As this has nothing to do with biographical content, perhaps someone could close? Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a side point and counter to your shameful anti-vegan "evangelism". Your textbook reference is too weak so you resort to this level of personal attack. Teleoid (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:Strikethough Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is discrimination. Teleoid (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not discrimination,personal attack blanked Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling people trash, weeding out, shutting down... Your words says a lot about yourself Hemiauchenia. How does this aggressive and intolerant language mean to support pluralism and healthy discussion? Teleoid (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the point of respectfully discussing with people like you who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"? You're arguing that a well-respected medical textbook is not a reliable source. personal attack blanked Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not at all what I said. Your aggression confirms that you don't understand what's being discussed. Teleoid (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mods... Teleoid lost this discussion and is misbehaving, nothing productive here, I think it is time to close this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this is going nowhere, I'm in the minority. Teleoid (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blanked several personal attacks on an editor that were against policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michele Evans[edit]

This article and its talk page would benefit from additional eyes. 05:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)

I've watchlisted the article and removed some of the overquoting and BLP violations, although it could probably use some more work and I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. The IP 69.117.93.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring to restore the BLP violations (although they haven't broken 3RR) and accusing Nikkimaria of vandalism. A block would probably be within admin discretion based on my quick reading of the situation, although there are some signs of forward progress on the talk page. It's pretty late in my time zone and I'm about to go to bed, so more eyes would be appreciated. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 06:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now at AN3 after continued edit warring by the IP. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 07:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking over this ... is Evans notable at all? The article is sourced to articles written by Evans and primary sources. Searching for reliable sources is just turning up obituaries of a different Michele Evans, who worked at Lockheed Martin. Given the commonness of the name, I'm prepared to believe that sources might exist that are being crowded out by those about other Michele Evanses, but I cannot find them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've continued to find nothing, so following another editor's prod/deprod, I have nominated for deletion. Discussion is here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1194719176"