Jump to content

Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beall4 (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 3 December 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Specific Carbohydrate Diet

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]

Content copy-pasted from user talk page discussion

Hello,

I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD. I have provided 23 references with gives greater depth and understanding to the reader. I do not seek medical advice on the internet but as some patients do, it is important for the information to be as accurate and up to date as possible. I will seek discussions with the dispute resolution board to have a fair and accurate evaluation of the information.

I have shared my credentials for evaluating medical literature. Please provide yours.Beall4 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your note! Your credentials (whatever they may be) are not relevant in Wikipedia. Would you please review the orientation material I placed on your talk page? It is here: User talk:Beall4. Please let me know if you have any questions after reading that material, and reviewing the version you generated (which you can see here). There are many, many problems with it, based on how we do things here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we go through it line by line, as I do not see problems with it given your guidelines of process? Every line is well referenced and it is far more thorough than what is presently there. If there are specific changes to meet your guidelines, please edit them accordingly or educate me on the process, but do not deny the public to the most accurate and up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If you see no problem at all then you have not made a good faith effort to understand MEDRS and MEDMOS. I will be happy to discuss your edits after you do so. We cannot have a rational conversation if we are not following the same guidance. The simplest place to start is MEDRS - the sources cited should be recent (within the last 5 years or so) secondary sources (like literature reviews in high quality journals). No research papers describing labwork or clinical trials. Look at the sources you used, for a start. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. Let's put the references side by side from the original versus the updated version. Far more articles are listed the majority of which have been published in the last 2-3 years in peer reviewed medical journals. Please list the sources that you feel do not meet this criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Please indent your replies by putting one or more colons in front. You can see this in the edit window. Indenting is basic etiquette here, like "please" and "thank you". I have fixed each of your replies above; I will not fix future ones. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC) 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. These citations have nothing to do with the criteria described in MEDRS. If you write here again without reading MEDRS and engaging with the edit you actually made, i will close this discussion and will ask you not to post here again. This is not a matter of "feeling" - MEDRS offers objective criteria and you need to actually engage with it. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The first reference is actually the same that is currently used on the existing page, 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 and the fifth links to the author. Are these the only references that you have concern with as to not meeting the criteria of MEDRS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
— Jytdog and Beall4 at User talk:Jytdog 02:08, 19 November 2018
:@Beall4:

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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Specific_carbohydrate_diet&oldid=871720417"