Talk:Alkaline diet

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleAlkaline diet was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2014Good article nomineeListed
April 10, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Community Reassessment

Alkaline diet

DELIST
*Summary: Consensus exists to Delist this article.
  • Reason A strong consensus developed throughout the discussion to Delist this article. I have therefore returned it to its B-class rating. It is important to point out that this closure does not set any sort of precedent - it applies solely to this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Due to ongoing content disputes and edit warring for the last month, the article clearly fails GA criteria 5 and is not stable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. The article is incoherent: it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity. Needs a complete re-write (as discussed in Talk). The edit-warring is a symptom of this I think. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Agree needs significant work. Needs further organizations. The medical aspects section contains lots of non medical aspects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Agree with my colleagues above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm in lockstep agreement with all the above. It's going to end up being a good article, but for now it's not something we want to highlight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to content disputes concerning NPOV. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain G article status - This means any article that generates new editing should be delisted. If the article was stable when it was reviewed, then it was stable. There is no condition of a continuous state of stability to retain its status or we would be doing massive reevaluations of all G articles. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why not? Besides, if you would have a look at the talk page and edit history, you would see that it's not simply a case of "new editing", but rather an ongoing dispute regarding neutral POV, with accompanying edit-warring. I'm guessing that such problems are why WP:GAR exists in the first place. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Barbara (WVS) The reassessment page says that you should use the process "when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria". The criteria linked does include 'stable'. This indicates to me that GA's should at the very least not have ongoing content disputes, even if the dispute happens after the review. While I agree that simple content changes should not generate a review (which would at the very least be highly impractical), edit warring and long term content disputes violate Criteria 5. If what you say is common practice, perhaps we should discuss updating Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-8. In any case, other users have raised other issues with retaining it as a GA. InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist.
There are a few issues with this article that indicate it might not fulfill the GA Criteria 2B (reliable sources), :
  1. Ref 15 is dead and cannot be verified.
  2. External link to an anonymous blog.
  3. Ref #17 is to a charity that has a a 1-star rating from Charity Navigator and is not very highly-regarded (see Chicago Tribune, Charity Watch - which gives the American Institute for Cancer Research a grade of F - I am not sure that this organizations' publications should be regarded as reliable sources or that the group itself should be cited within the article's text as an expert-organization.
Fails GA Criteria 1A & 1B regarding prose & MOS guidelines.
  1. There is a POV-statement in the lead section that "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals,[1][2] though several have noted that eating unprocessed foods as this diet recommends may have health benefits.[2][3] [<-bolding mine] Several? Which "several", how many "several"?...apparently 2. And is this statement supported within the main text? Sure doesn't seem so, Ref #3 is repeated but I fail to see this "several" that the lead mentions.
  2. There is a single section called "Adverse effects" which implies by omission that the rest of the article is about the good effects but reading through the rest of the article the claimed good effects are just that - unsupported assertions, seems to me the adverse effects section could almost be the entire article.
  3. Agree with the statement by Alexbrn about how the article mixes up fad diet claims in with legitimate research - the article needs to undergo a somewhat-ruthless re-write to deal with these issues.
The "Historical uses" section fails or, at least gives the appearance of failing 1A, 1B and 2B.
  1. It makes several vague statements about the usage of this diet in the past using words like "historically" and "years ago" but the word-choices are somewhat vague and the sourcing for these statements is also somewhat lacking - it is possible that the information is contained in Ref #20 & #21 back these statements up. If this is so, including refquotes from the sources that are within the paragraph would go a long way towards assuaging any doubts. Shearonink (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

World Health Organizaton is unreliable?

The following are reliable sources. But, All of my edits will be revert.

  • joint FAO/WHO expert consultation (2002). "Chapter 11 Calcium". Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements. p. 80.
  • joint FAO/WHO expert consultation (2004). "4.10.2 Protein". Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements Second edition. p. 80. ISBN 92-4-154612-3.
  • joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation (2007). "Chapter 13 Protein intake and health". Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition. p. 223-233. ISBN 92-4-120935-6.
  • "Dietary, metabolic, physiologic, and disease-related aspects of acid-base balance: foreword to the contributions of the second International Acid-Base Symposium". J Nutr. 138 (2): 413S–414S. February 2008. doi:10.1093/jn/138.2.413S. PMID 18203912. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  • Vormann, Jürgen; Werner, Tanja (August 2020). "Foreword to the contributions of the 3rd International Acid-Base Symposium, Smolenice Castle, Slovakia, 2018". European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 74 (S1): 1–2. doi:10.1038/s41430-020-0682-8. eISSN 1476-5640. ISSN 0954-3007.

--Maffty (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not about the "alkaline diet" are not reliable for content about the alkaline diet. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This topic already included these: "Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease", "Influence of diet on acid-base balance"
Please read the Krause's Food & the Nutrition Care Process. These are alkaline diet. --Maffty (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is another irrelevant source. Just because the words "alkaline" and "diet" appear in a source, does not mean it's about the specific nonsense that is THE alkaline diet as described in this article. This diet here is not a topic within legitimate science. Are you a native English speaker? Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are all negative sources only included in this article? So do we separate legitimate scientific articles? The following references are legitimate science and therefore not appropriate for this article. "Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease" Please explain the separation criteria. --Maffty (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both will be written in the milk article: A clinical trial that milk is not good. Opinions that milk is poison. --Maffty (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a health scam. Legitimate science goes elsewhere. The fact these two things got mixed up was the reason why this article was de-listed from GA. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is your claim about GA. Are they separate? The current source also refers to scientific research. #OR
Anachronist and Sangdeboeuf mentions NPOV. It means writing everything.
The topic of acid-alkaline in foods is a mainstream topic in the nutrition. But mass magazines say it makes the body acidic, but that is wrong. Meats are acidic, vegetables are alkaline. It refers to the same foods.
Among experts, there are both positive and negative opinions. Studies have shown positive or negative results. Maffty (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no credible scientific support for the diet that this article describes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of English

I have just made two reversions of edits by User:Maffty as the intent of the edits is unclear, Diff1 and Diff2, as the language is obfuscatory. This is not a criticism of the user, but the language employed, which was not an improvement to the article. If changes can be sufficiently explained, then I'll have no problems. -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please fix the problematic part. You have reverted to original research. I have explained fully. Please revise to no original research. --Maffty (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to explanations in the sections above on this page, then no, you have not explained fully. I personally do not understand what the problematic part is, and hence how to fix it. I dont understand how what I have restored is WP:OR either?. -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you have not read the editorial summary.--Maffty (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be silly. How do you know what I have and have not done? -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff note that I have restored the WEBMD citation to the lead. Acceptable use in context on an ALT-MED topic. -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was WebMD a negative source? There is no explanation from you.--Maffty (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained in the post above yours. The WEBMD source is actually a good lay summary of the pros and cons of "alkaline diets" -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WebMD is a false source for that sentense. WebMD is not opposed. Quackwatch also. WebMD wrote: "But the foods you're supposed to eat on the alkaline diet are good for you and will support a healthy weight loss: lots of fruits and vegetables, and lots of water. " --Maffty (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is English your mother tongue? The answer to this question may help me understand the disconnect between what you are writing and your editing of the article. From everything I have read on this page, a lack of comprehension of english may explain. - Roxy the English speaking dog 14:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not silently revert to false sources. WebMD is a positive source.--Maffty (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my highlighted question above. I shall not respond further until I have received an answer, Thanks. - Roxy the English speaking dog 14:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting an edit that uses only line breaks. No explanation of the false source.--Maffty (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above suggest that the only acceptable sources are those that directly oppose the topic. That isn't how Wikipedia works. If that isn't what you meant, then your use of English certainly comes across that way. Your comments and your writing also suggests that English is not your native language. You have not responded to that point. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline diet (alternative medicine) → Alkaline diet – No disambugation, alkaline diet currently just redirects here Bremps... 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed in 2006, but no one responded and nothing happened. It's about time. Will do it now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks! Bremps... 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a very uncomplicated request, so an easy job. Thanks for pointing out this problem. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Alkaline_diet"