Jump to content

Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Beall4 (talk | contribs)
38 edits
No edit summary
Line 143: Line 143:


This clearly refutes even the possibility or reduced caloric intake. [[User:Beall4|Beall4]] ([[User talk:Beall4|talk]]) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This clearly refutes even the possibility or reduced caloric intake. [[User:Beall4|Beall4]] ([[User talk:Beall4|talk]]) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
:That newer source you mention - PMID 28825603 - is a primary source so [[WP:MEDRS|not reliable for asserting biomedical facts]]. The source that {{u|RexxS}} quotes does indeed invoke malnutrition (the source also mentions Vitamin D deficiency), and the material about the diet being costly is in the source too - so your edit summary would appear to be inaccurate. The edit was also marked as a minor edit - please see [[WP:MINOR]] for the limited circumstances when this should be done. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
:That newer source you mention - PMID 28825603 - is a primary source so [[WP:MEDRS|not reliable for asserting biomedical facts]]. The source that {{u|RexxS}} quotes does indeed invoke malnutrition (the source also mentions Vitamin D deficiency), and the material about the diet being costly is in the source too - so your edit summary would appear to be inaccurate. The edit was also marked as a minor edit - please see [[WP:MINOR]] for the limited circumstances when this should be done. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
:: The 2017 reference is not any more primary than the 2014 reference [[User:Beall4|Beall4]] ([[User talk:Beall4|talk]]) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:50, 11 December 2018

November 2018 edit and revert

Please see discussion at User_talk:Jytdog#Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet, which had been inappropiately pasted here in this diff, and which I removed and replaced with this note, in this same diff being signed now. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: The 3O request asks about the reversions (two total), which I see were made by two different editors (only one of whom posted to this discussion). That is a perfectly normal practice on Wikipedia, called Bold-Revert-Discuss (BRD). Editors are encouraged to be bold in editing; if someone opposes the edit, they are free to revert it to the earlier version. The two editors can then discuss the edit, along with any other editors who are watching the article, and try to find a consensus (agreement) on what is the best way to present the article. Reinstating the edit (reverting the revert) or BRR without consensus is generally frowned upon and may be considered disruptive editing.
Discussion requires good faith efforts from all parties, hearing each other out and considering the merits of different approaches. Editors often cite various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which represent the collective wisdom of the community. One should make an effort to understand these when they are brought up in a discussion; becoming aware of the issues helps move the discussion forward.
Wikipedia's policies for sources are a bit more restrictive when concerning biographies of living persons (BLP) and medicine, which can be difficult subjects for a new editor. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles identify some of the issues. Based on those guidelines, I generally support the reversion (I have not examined every detail.
@Beall4: I notice that you only have 9 edits on your account; a major rewrite to a medical article may present a very steep learning curve for you. I would advise that you instead propose smaller edits, or try editing less-difficult topics to learn the process. Alternatively, you can experiment with editing in your sandbox. You can ask for further assistance at The Teahouse, a user group which specializes in helping new users. There's a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works, and I hope this does not discourage you from editing. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to give a third party opinion. I am confused about the process, as I understand wikipedia is designed to have discussion on the content to achieve the most accurate representation of the data. We have not had any discussion on the content to resolve the matter, and it is described above that the revision is not reviewed in detail. The reason to support the reversion it seems is based on the experience of editing rather than the content. Yet, in my initial discussion with jytdog as posted above, I am told that experience or credentials do not matter in this space. Although I am not "experienced" with wikipedia, I have a great deal of experience with the subject matter of this article, as a speaker on the topic. I would like to have a discussion about the content please. The revision is a more in depth and accurate representation of the science. If there are specific references that would be advised to change if the ones listed are felt to be too primary, I can provide alternate secondary sources. In order for wikipedia to be the described venue for constant improvement, the discussion of the science is most pertinenet. I agree discussion is paramount to resolving an issue, so it is disappointing that the revision was reverted back so quickly that it would not have been possible to even have read it, and furthermore discussion upon the detail was not welcome nor continued.01:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs)
What Reidgreg is talking about, is understanding the policies and guidelines here in Wikipedia. That does matter. You are completely ignoring WP:MEDRS. If you do have "alternate secondary sources" as you say, please post the citations here so we can discuss them. Ideally you will have read MEDRS before posting, and only post ones that you believe satisfy the criteria there (which are not at all hard to understand for someone in the field of medicine). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beall4: Please don't copy and paste conversations from other pages here, as it makes a mess and doesn't properly provide context for the discussion. Instead, propose specific changes to the article, with reliable sources, and gain consensus here. You are unlikely to ever get consensus for replacing the entire content wholesale, but proposals for incremental changes are welcome. Bradv 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia encourages content discussion and all article discussion belongs here. Beall4 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)beall4 26 November 2018[reply]

See also: User_talk:Jytdog#Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you have copied conversations from one page to another. You must stop this. Bradv 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the request for another third opinion in this discussion because I do not think it has progressed since the last one. @Beall4:, I would strongly encourage you to listen to what Jytdog has written. They're an experienced editor, and they're also very experienced in dealing with the complex rules for writing about medical topics. I think it would be helpful for you to make your changes one at a time. What do you think is the single most important problem in this article, and how do you think it should be fixed? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that it is not possible to have an academic discussion in this venue, as one editor can simply delete or re-arrange the comments of another, as my response has been deleted 3 x by jytdog. Wikipedia is certainly not interested in providing accurate up to date references so we will simply let it stay outdated and incorrect. I understand now why teachers discourage students from even going to this source. Beall4 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beall4:, to your points:
  • I can see that it is not possible to have an academic discussion in this venue...
Talk pages are about discussing how to improve the article. Academic discussions that don't forward this goal are off-topic.
  • ...as one editor can simply delete or re-arrange the comments of another
That is correct; Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You must be prepared to have your edits vetted by other users to ensure they adhere to policy.
  • my response has been deleted 3 x by jytdog
That's because you have been editing against policy.
  • Wikipedia is certainly not interested in providing accurate up to date references
It is a core principle of Wikipedia (WP:V) that content be verifiable via reliable, independent, secondary sources. For medical content, the WP:MEDRS is even stricter.
  • ...so we will simply let it stay outdated and incorrect.
Or reading between the lines, "It's not the way I want to do it".
There are certain policies and guidelines that have evolved over time to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia; in the area of articles on medical topics, even more so. There are various approaches to dispute resolution, and if you want to take it to the DR noticeboard, nothing is stopping you, but it would help if you try to understand the basic principles first before going there. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to edit an article, not a conversation. The question posted here as to what the article needs the most and my response, remain missing. If this group is sincere to have meaningful discussions to improve articles, this reply will be sustained, unaltered. As described in earlier talk sessions on this page, the article has point of view concerns and requires balance as well as content updates to include microbiome and clinical trials information. I realize it is preferred/required by WP:MEDRS to use secondary references such as review articles and not direct references to clinical trials. All of this information is reviewed extensively in review articles, two of which are listed under further reading in the revision, and should be included in the article.Beall4 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)beall4[reply]

@Beal4: It is equally inappropriate to copy someone else's comments from a different page to this one, thus falsifying their signature and misleading readers about the contribution. Don't do it again. If you want to to comment on improving this article, then this is the place to do so, nowhere else.
There is no value whatsoever in adding information from clinical trials. This is an encyclopedia, not a cutting-edge news source. I'm glad you've finally realised that it is required for all biomedical claims to be supported by the highest quality sources. I see one article Existing dietary guidelines for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in the Further reading section. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to suggest here what improvements to the current text could be made by using that source? --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting changes be proposed with references; one at a time; here: each with a new section header that reflects either the change proposed or the reason for such proposed change. MrBill3 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, MrBill3, that is a good way to go.
@RexxS: Your statement, "If you want to to comment on improving this article, then this is the place to do so, nowhere else" is probably confusing to a newcomer given that Beall4 was trying to move a conversation about improving this article to this page. It appears from this exchange that at least two of the references rejected when used by Beall4 are already in use on the page. From what I can tell, Beall4 was unable to get further clarification about why they were suddenly being rejected. (It's hard to blame them for wanting to have/move the conversation here where they have a better chance of receiving assistance.) petrarchan47คุก 23:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrarchan47: First of all, please consider WP:INDENTGAP, thanks.
Secondly, I don't agree that explaining to a newcomer that this talk page is the place to discuss improvements to this article is any way confusing. It will remove the misapprehension that Beal4 had that they could take up an argument on a user's talk page and then copy the other editor's comments here as if the other editor had made them here. It may also help Beal4 avoid stubbornly repeating the same mistake three times, which lead to their edit-warring block.
If you think that "at least two of the references rejected when used by Beall4 are already in use on the page", then please do other editors the courtesy of stating which ones. As far as I can see Beal4 was attempting to use five references. Jytdog's opinion was that "The first three references you cited were from 1951, 1955 and 1963. The 4th ref is to a book by a nonspecialist first printed in 2004, and the fifth was a spam link to the website of the author of that book." Do you accept that to be true?
You only have to look at the responses from multiple other editors on this page to see that your assumption "Beall4 was unable to get further clarification about why they were suddenly being rejected" is completely false.
Now if you have anything useful to add in way of improving this article, why not go ahead and raise it? Otherwise, I think you'll find your entire previous comment to be completely off-topic for this talk page. Do you you think you could get your next post back on-topic, please? --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the snark. It serves no purpose when building an encyclopedia. Beall4 was attempting to move a conversation discussing, among other things, this article's content and sources. If we're to talk about the article here and nowhere else, it makes sense to move the relevant bits here. Beall4 now knows to leave the rest behind. I came across the linked exchange only today and haven't yet taken a deep dive. I would support @Beall4: taking MrBill3's suggestion so that editors can see this all laid out. Addressing concerns/sources/content in individual sections is a good approach. petrarchan47คุก 02:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Petrarchan47. The biting of Beall4 going on here is unacceptable and needs to stop now. And the sanctimonious lecturing of regulars regarding talk page formatting is doing nothing to diffuse this situation. ♟♙ (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrarchan47: Quit the ad hominems. If you've nothing useful to add in improving this article, go and find somewhere else to whine. @EnPassant: Beall4 is an SPA whose contributions to the article were not an improvement and whose contributions to the talk page were disruptive. You really don't want to be defending those sort of actions or calling experienced editors "sanctimonious" - we do have an NPA policy. Do you support the copying of another editor's comments and signature onto a page where they did not make them? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS: 1) This is exactly what I'm talking about. I see ZERO evidence that Beall4 is an SPA, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality being displayed here is wrong. You're continuing to WP:BITE Beall4. Stop that. 2) I'll call a Spade a Spade when their behavior strikes me as such. And 3) your straw man argument is ridiculous and unworthy of response.
Jytdog has left Wikipedia under a cloud and is soon to be ArbCom blocked for intimidating and harassing Beall4, so his opinions carry no weight. His witch hunts are at an end, all the better for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Please stop carrying on his legacy or I'll start asking for someone to step in. ♟♙ (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EnPassant: Then stop talking about another editor and start trying to improve the article. At present, you're not showing any signs of doing that. It's not difficult to find Beal4's edit history: Special:Contributions/Beall4. Every single one of those 28 edits is about Specific Carbohydrate Diet or an editor they are in conflict with about SCD (with the possible exception of the reversion deleted edit, but that's not a good sign either). You do understand what an Single-Purpose Account is, don't you? There's all the evidence you need. It's time you stopped picking fights over issues where you're completely in the wrong, and it's a bit rich when you then accuse other editors of a battleground mentality. There's only one of us here to improve the article and it certainly isn't you. You feel free to ask someone to step in and I'll match my record of upholding the quality of medically related articles against your any day. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper dive:

  • Here is the explanation used for reverting Beall4's work:
"The first three references you cited were from 1951, 1955 and 1963. The 4th ref is to a book by a nonspecialist first printed in 2004"
  • Here Beall4 questions the reversion:
"The first reference is actually the same that is currently used on the existing page [Number 2 here: Haas, Sidney Valentine; Haas, Merrill Patterson (1951)], and the second two are from medical journals written by the founder of the diet."
"The fourth is the same reference currently used on the existing page" [Number 8 here: Gottschall, Elaine Gloria, 1921]
  • Haas and Gottschall were restored to the page twice after rejecting them when used by Beall4: [1] and [2]

It is a fact that Beall4 was unable to get further clarification about why they were suddenly being rejected. Beall4's questions about this were never answered: Specific Carbohydrate Diet. Instead Beall4 was lectured about the sanctity of WP:MEDRS. petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the four of the references Beal4 used to add content were over 50 years old. Those references may be suitable the History section, but only to straightforwardly report - as the original content removed by Beal4 did:

In 1924, the first Specific Carbohydrate Diet for the treatment of children with celiac disease was the banana diet. Haas described a trial with 10 children, and all 8 children treated with bananas went into remission, and the two control children died. The banana SCD was the cornerstone of celiac therapy for decades until bread shortages in the Netherlands caused by World War II caused children with celiac disease to improve, which led to the isolation of wheat proteins, not starches, as the cause of celiac disease. Before the banana SCD, one of four children with celiac died. After more research, he described the Specific Carbohydrate Diet as a treatment for celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease in his 1951 medical textbook The Management of Celiac Disease. Haas never accepted the finding that wheat gluten was the damaging part of wheat; he insisted it was starch and called the discovery about a gluten a "disservice".

Compare that with what Beal4 substituted allegedly from the same sources:

The Specific Carbohydrate Diet was developed by Sydney Haas, MD who along with John Howland, MD served as assistants at Vanderbilt Clinic to L. Emmett Holt, Sr, MD, a physician at the turn of the twentieth century taking a lead role in the US studying celiac disease. Holt, together with Christian Herter, MD, a physician and pathologist from Columbia University, reported that the condition is associated with abnormal forms of bacteria and “may confidently be ascribed to the action of putrefactive products”. Howland reports “that of all the elements of food, carbohydrates is the one which must be excluded rigorously”. Howland’s treatment was very successful, but the need for some tolerable carbohydrate remained. Haas discovered a paper on “The value of Banana in the Treatment of Celiac Disease” and began incorporating carefully specific carbohydrates into the diet to determine the tolerability. The SCD, also known at the time in the 1940s’ as the “banana diet”, was met with great success in treating patients with gastrointestinal conditions diagnosed at the time as celiac disease based on symptoms, as no laboratory tests specific to celiac disease existed.

Can you see that statements like "Howland’s treatment was very successful" are flagrant breaches of MEDRS? A single trial on 10 children cannot be extrapolated to draw broad conclusions. The whole re-write blurred or omitted both detail and key facts, while subtly fostering the impression that there is only one 'Specific Carbohydrate Diet' - the one they are promoting. It seems that despite being referred to MEDRS multiple times, Beal4 has still not taken the time to read and understand it. Now are you interested in looking for improvements to the article, or just in criticising the editors who are trying to uphold the principles of MEDRS? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS’s interpretation is accurate and I feel Petrarchan47 is going down the wrong path. Not sure if this page can be substantially improved, as I am only vaguely familiar with the subject matter, but following MEDRS should help if improvements are to be made. Beall4’s initial edits were of poor standard and were correctly reverted, but this poor editing could likely be due to her being a newbie. Hopefully Beall4 can learn about MEDRS and make productive contributions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Beall4 edit was not good, and the mention of benefit to autism and cystic fibrosis (without source) concerning. Relatedly, the invocation of the GAPS diet also sounds a loud alarm bell, as with this we are into deep quackery.[3] Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My "path" was an attempt to begin unraveling the issues Beall4 encountered here as a newbie. I've made two edits: one to question whether Beall4 accurately described two of the sources s/he used as being already present. The second was to answer Rexx If you think that "at least two of the references rejected when used by Beall4 are already in use on the page", then please do other editors the courtesy of stating which ones. I have shown that Beall4 had good reason to question the total revert of their work, given that they would have assumed the present (at the time) page was an example of MEDRS used properly, and that sources there had already been vetted. I maintain that Beall4 received no helpful, direct answer to valid questions, and indeed their claim was accurate.
I reject the notion that Beall4's "single purpose" can be defined after only 3 weeks at Wikipedia. Additionally, if they are an expert in the field, it makes sense that their edits would cluster around that topic, at least initially, and it seems we should welcome any useful edits from them. As they claim, the entirety of their work was deleted without time for a thorough review. Given the fact that 2 sources now rejected were in fact re-added in the reverts lends credence to this claim - there was no proper review of their edit.
I highy doubt that all of their work merits rejection, and I am curious to see what sources they can offer once guided on the use of WP:RS policy and the WP:MEDRS guideline. Beall4 commented that if shown (one at a time) which sources were problematic, they could easily find replacements. If Beall4 returns to discuss potential improvements, I again support the path MrBill3 proposed: each source, related claim/text, and related discussion in separate talk page sections.
If SCD was first defined in the early '50's, then rejecting any source from that period doesn't immediately make sense to me, and I doubt it would to a newcomer. These are issues best dealt with one at a time. But without Beall4's return to this page to initiate this process, I have no intention of continuing given the present climate. petrarchan47คุก 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrarchan47: First, please review WP:INDENTGAP, as you were previously politely requested, and stop being a prat to screen-reader users.
Secondly, why are you questioning Beal4's description of the sources used? As has already been explained, using vintage reliable sources is fine for reporting plain facts. Why aren't you questioning the use they made of them to obfuscate facts and introduce unjustifiable medical claims? That's where MEDRS comes into it. Sources, per se, are not RS nor MEDRS: it all depends on the context in which they are being used.
If you think that Beal4 "had good reason to question the total revert of their work", then you really do need to re-read MEDRS, as does Beal4. The use of the old sources doesn't impinge on MEDRS until you start using them to support biomedical claims, as the article previously didn't, but Beal4 subsequently did, more than once.
I reaffirm my contention that Beal4 is a single-purpose account with an interest solely in SCD. Until I see evidence of them editing in other areas, I will stand by that observation, which is based in verifiable fact, unlike the unsubstantiated froth that you're peddling.
Beal4's repeated edit was reverted twice, by two separate, experienced editors: "essay like, chatty content, that includes WP:OR commentary"; and "WP:PROFRINGE / unreliable". If you're casting aspersions on whether Jytdog and Alexbrn did a thorough review, then you'd better have some good evidence. It certainly didn't take me more than 5 minutes to check Beal4's edits and spot the issues – as I've illustrated above. Are you going to claim now that Beal4's substantial re-write actually improved the article?
I'd be delighted if Beal4 were to offer some new, relevant, high-quality sources, and I'd be among the first to thank them, but you'd think that as a doctor of pharmacy with experience in analyzing and presenting medical data, and as an organizer of the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" exhibit, they would already know what the best sources were. Isn't that how we define expertise on Wikipedia?
Finally, let me make clear my complete agreement with MrBill3's proposal: first find the high-quality references; then propose text additions or changes based on them, one at a time, here. Then let's discus them. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wish people would desist when it comes to commenting on the perceived deficiencies of Beal4. This woman was barely here for very long before she got blocked, and then wound up subjected to the kind of drama that probably has her thinking Wikipedia is an absolute loony bin. Before she could get up a head of steam here she's being batted around in an "arbitration" case that she probably found to be demented. And it hasn't stopped---she's still fair game. On top of everything, I get the impression that she has the medical issue that is treated by this diet, and apparently it is no fun at all. Why not let up. All accounts are SPAs at first because editors are interested in specific stuff. She had a terrible start. Let's not put too fine a point on it. Please knock if off. Coretheapple (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coretheapple: On the other hand, you could simply not jump on the bandwagon of knocking other editors who are simply trying to uphold the quality of medical articles. What has your contribution here done to improve the article? Nothing.
      What is it you want? Do you want to give new editors the right to edit as they see fit? to ignore consensus, WP:MEDRS, WP:OR, to edit war, and so on? If a new editor breaches our accepted policies and guidelines, you want us to keep quiet and not explain to them? You want us to accept a new editor's edits that make an article worse, because they are new? or that we sympathise with their presumed disabilities?
      Personally, I know people with IBS and CD, and I do sympathise quite strongly with them, but I wouldn't expect them to want special treatment if they edited Wikipedia, just because of that. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I'm suggesting is that this editor Beal4 has been bitten worse than any new editor in history, worse than Robert Shaw in the teeth of that shark in Jaws, that we set down the whip and show some sympathy, that's all. This is not a radical concept. This article is now under intense scrutiny from people who don't know Crohn's Disease from syphilis, so I really don't think there is any danger that it will be swamped with POV editing. Coretheapple (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been watching this page after seeing how poorly Beall4 was treated. I agree with Petrarchan47 and Coretheapple that this user was unfairly bitten, and that allegations of WP:SPA to a new editor with less than 20 edits is quite unreasonable and harsh--even if the edits can be proven to show a strong bias. (Note: I am not giving an opinion that they are biased or strongly biased--I have not dug deep enough in to the WP:RS to know.)
We need to welcome new editors--especially with the kind of expertise this editor clearly has--rather than have them blocked for simply trying to discuss sources here on the article page, where that discussion belongs. A meaningful discussion about their edits and sources should take place. Beall4 added about 16 or 17 sources to the page, some of which look to be worth adding. (I will mention below.) Beall4 was not even edit-warring on the article page, and yet blocked for trying to discuss the sources??? Beall4 deserves an apology from the community for this treatment I will give mine. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: So you think Beall4 was unfairly bitten? Then you shouldn't have any difficulty in giving the diffs of where this biting took place, should you? Was it when their substantial re-write that worsened the article was reverted? Or was it when they edit-warred the same content back in and that was reverted as well? Or perhaps it was when Reidgreg responded to a 3O request and explained BRD? Or when Jytdog tried to draw their attention to our policies and guidelines, especially, MEDRS? Maybe you are referring to when Bradv told Beall4 not to copy and paste conversations from other pages here? - which they did six times. So much for that crap about "not edit-warring". If you tried to force your own way that many times after being told that it breaches our conventions, would you really be surprised if you were blocked?
If you want to talk about the sources they used, fine. Beall4 added some 17 primary sources to the article and removed 3 secondary sources. That is not an improvement. We do not write (and especially not re-write) articles, removing the highest quality review articles and replacing them with a mish-mash of case studies, trials, and speculations. Nor do we use those sources to remove plain summaries like "Haas described a trial with 10 children, and all 8 children treated with bananas went into remission, and the two control children died" with fanciful speculation like "The SCD, also known at the time in the 1940s’ as the “banana diet”, was met with great success in treating patients with gastrointestinal conditions... ".
Now, if you'd like to present your case for WP:BITE along with proper diffs, instead of making unsupported accusations against other editors, I'd be happy to listen, and help resolve the issues. Or if you want to try to defend Beall4's edit-warring, use of primary sources, original research, and editorialising, then make a good case for it – and I'm sure the offenders who took issue with that behaviour will be only too willing to make the apologies you demand. --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I am getting ready to hat this whole section. Please as per the guidelines in a new section begin a discussion about improving Specific carbohydrate diet. Any other discussion on Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet is not appropriate, there are numerous other venues on WP for discussions on other topics. If someone feels there is a proposal for a change to this article in the above. I suggest proposing it again in a new section. MrBill3 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the page to help avoid further confusion; there were two old books cited as primary sources (for "X wrote a book", not to generate any actual content), as these seem to be causing confusion. I've also removed the other spammy Foundation refs, which are not MEDRS and we should not have been using. What is left has solid sourcing. The NYT ref and the University of Chicago refs are used for history, not for medical content. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference quality and proposed deletions

I notice that there are more footnotes to Hou, Lee and Lewis than any other reference. I propose to remove any material from the article sourced solely to this article, because imho it cannot be considered a reliable source. Quote from the article: We review patient-targeted dietary information for IBD from structured Internet searches and popular defined diets. This does not meet the requirements of peer-review, and should be rejected. Mathglot (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable approach for finding "patient targeted recommendations". The review counterpoints these against published literature, which seems fine. I'm not sure how peer review comes into it? It's not as if we have much RS in this area so this looks like a useful source surely. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends how the source is being used. If it’s being used to support an assertion like, “Here’s what shows up on the internet about topic X when people searched for it during period Y”, then it could be okay. But I don’t see how you can make any credible claim about the topic itself based on “structured internet searches”, otherwise we are all potential reliable sources ourselves. If by “patient-targeted recommendations” they mean “unvetted stuff you can find on the internet about the topic” then I don’t disagree. Mathglot (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning deletion of content

In this edit, Beall4 removed the following text:

  • It also said that the diet risks imposition of an undue financial burden and potentially causes malnutrition.

with an edit summary:

  • remove line that is false and not supported by reference cited

This was sourced to:

  • Hou JK, Lee D, Lewis J (October 2014). "Diet and inflammatory bowel disease: review of patient-targeted recommendations". Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. (Review). 12 (10): 1592–600. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2013.09.063. PMC 4021001. PMID 24107394..

The source states:

  • "Even less evidence exists for the efficacy of the SCD, FODMAP, or Paleo diets... adherence to defined diets may result in an unnecessary financial burden or reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition."

This blatantly inappropriate edit is not the action of an expert editor concerned with the accuracy of the article, but the action of someone deceptively attempting to remove negative information about SCD. --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference above in no manner describes the diet to "cause malnutrition" as above only describes "may result in overall caloric intake..."

A more current reference 1 including some of these same authors in the above reference concludes “…on the SCD, nutrient intake is comparable to that of similarly aged healthy children in the United States. ““..our data show nutritional adequacy and safety of the diet in general.”“..future studies need to assess whether gradual liberalization of the SCD can make it easier for patients to consume a nutritionally adequate diet while maintaining similar outcomes in the treatment of their IBD.” 1. Braly, et al. Nutritional Adequacy of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease. JPGN 2017;65: 533–538) 

This clearly refutes even the possibility or reduced caloric intake. Beall4 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That newer source you mention - PMID 28825603 - is a primary source so not reliable for asserting biomedical facts. The source that RexxS quotes does indeed invoke malnutrition (the source also mentions Vitamin D deficiency), and the material about the diet being costly is in the source too - so your edit summary would appear to be inaccurate. The edit was also marked as a minor edit - please see WP:MINOR for the limited circumstances when this should be done. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)2018[reply]
The 2017 reference is not any more primary than the 2014 reference Beall4 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Specific_carbohydrate_diet&oldid=873184472"