Talk:The Vegetarian Myth

Attribution

-- GreenC 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems

This article (actually a section of an article) has problems. As it is merely a copy of a section in the author's article, I am discussing those issues at Talk:Lierre_Keith. Changes I make in the main article will be reflected here based on the discussion there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Purported sources

Green Cardamom feels that the cites restored with this edit should remain as cites for -- apparently -- the fact that this book exists.

They are, I'm told, "reliable sources - these can be used to build out the article and establish notability".

No, they aren't. To establish notability and build an actual article here, we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.

The first three are essentially search results. While you've spelled out how the database identifies the purported source, I don't think you've actually looked at the articles identified. In any case, they are currently needlessly cited for an undisputed fact: The book exists. Otherwise, these cites firmly establish that someone wants to make sure that people get the idea that this book exists. I give: It exists.

Do they say anything of substance about the book, such that we might build a reasonably in-depth article about the book? I don't know. The talk page is the perfect place to work that out. The article, however, is for saying things about the subject, not a place for leaving stacks of notes that might or might not be of some use at some future date to say something about the subject. We do not need sources to show the book exists.

The final two would-be sources are press releases from the publisher. These are not independent reliable sources because they are not independent and do not tell us anything about the subject that we can use, other than the fact that the book exists. They are dependent, primary sources.

You want to keep the article and that's fine. Right now, this would-be article is a sentence saying it exists and two minor claims randomly drawn from the book. We can search for every article in every publication that mentions the book and stack several dozen "References" on that first sentence and we'll still have those same two sentences and no reason for the article to exist. (The reason to have an article is to say something about the subject, not to demonstrate that there are sources that mention it.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course these are excellent reliable independent sources discussing the book in-depth, and not press releases (they are all signed with journalist names). They are critical commentary and book reviews, exactly the type of sources used for book articles. Per WP:PRESERVE (policy) we don't delete sources just because an article is stub. Suggest if you think this article should be deleted take it to AfD. and let the community decide. Otherwise stop trying to delete it using backroom methods like redirects and endless talk page wear-you-down tactics. -- GreenC 14:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am not trying to delete this "article" (two sentences, repeated from the author's article).

At present, these are not independent reliable sources.

They are not independent. "Source: Flashpoint Press" is a press release. This one is on the publisher's website (with a link to a restricted-access blog), much like the previously removed jacket quote.

They are not sources. Sources are the origin of material. There is no material taken from any of these. Let's write an article about Kevin, the kid in your first grade class who ate paste. We'll cite his birth certificate, the phone book, his father's obituary, an article that mentions him as the assistant treasurer of the local detectorists club and a few dozen other articles that prove he exists, but have nothing substantial to say about him.

As of the rest, if you have read them, it would be a trivial matter at this point to add some kind of content from them. Until then, I'd suggest moving these non-source sources which might someday be sources to the talk page, where they belong. In the event someone says the book isn't notable, you can point to the non-source sources here. In any case, if you add a sourced, reasonably detailed article in place of the two sentences here, you'd be able to point to WP:PRESERVE to "Preserve appropriate content." rather than to keep links to search results that might or might not someday be used as sources for something. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There's one link to the publisher's website which is appropriate in an article about the book. The rest are independent. There is one cite with a "Source" at the bottom but that is the source for the book discussed, not the source of the news article itself. The article is signed at the top with a journalist's name and written from a POV of a journalist. If you don't like the sources being inline they can be moved to a References or Further Reading section, but there's no reason to delete. -- GreenC 16:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What, exactly, are those "sources" sources for? Nothing. References are works used as sources for information. What are they sources for -- what information came from them?

Other than your bad-faith assertion that I am "using backroom methods" to delete the article (by redirecting the two sentence "article" to the exact same sentences in the author's article) what do you feel these non-sources provide to the reader?

You are correct that "we don't delete sources just because an article is stub." These are not sources, they are links to search results.

Yes, WP:PRESERVE is policy. It says, "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." This is not "content", appropriate or otherwise. These links to search results are not "facts or ideas". Encyclopedia articles are composed of articles about topics. Articles are composed of information about subjects. Sources say where the information came from. Have you read the first three articles you provided database listings for? If so, why not add information to the article, rather than repeatedly arguing that we must keep this non-content content of non-source sources? If you haven't read them, what the hell do you think makes them appropriate "content"?

You seem to be of the opinion that anything anyone adds to Wikipedia is "appropriate content". Please explain what content was not preserved by having the information in one place rather than two. Please explain what readers will gain by reading two sentences in one article, then clicking a link that leads them to another page with exactly the same two sentences. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

ebscohost 1: Not an independent reliable source.

I have removed this link:Lane, Walker (Spring 2011). "The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice and Sustainability/Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World". Fifth Estate. 46 (1). Retrieved July 27, 2014..

This is not an independent reliable source for this article. This is a database search result. It is not currently used to support anything in the article.

If you examine the underlying article, can support a claim that it is a reliable source, find meaningful information about the subject and add that information to the article with a citation to the source, please do add it to the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Linking to ESBCO host is as acceptable as linking to JSTOR when the article is not available for free viewing there is no difference. Nor is it a search result it is a database record. Restoring the source and moving links to a non-inline format. -- GreenC

Two very simple questions:

1) Have you read the underlying article?

2) What information is it a source for? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Green Cardamom, I think we're getting somewhere. Based on moving the links to "Further reading", I'm guessing you are conceding that these are not sources. That means the answer to the second question is "Nothing". This leaves the first question:

Have you read the underlying articles? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, I take it from your silence that you have not read the underlying articles. Correct? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

ebscohost 2: Not an independent reliable source.

I have removed Fitzpatrick, Ian (May 2010). "The Vegetarian Myth". New Internationalist. Issue 432. Retrieved July 27, 2014. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help) It is not a source and you can't say if it qualifies as additional reading if you haven't read it. If you restore it, please explain. If you feel it is a source, please say what information it is a source for. If you feel it is "further reading", please state how it qualifies as a further reading entry. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

ebscohost 3: Not an independent reliable source.

I have removed McBay, Aric (January 2009). "The Herbivore's Dilemma". Briarpatch. Retrieved April 20, 2017. It is not a source and you can't say if it qualifies as additional reading if you haven't read it. If you restore it, please explain. If you feel it is a source, please say what information it is a source for. If you feel it is "further reading", please state how it qualifies as a further reading entry. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Vegetarian Myth in Feminist Review: not an independent reliable source

I have removed "Vegetarian Myth in Feminist Review" as it is not an independent reliable source. The page is found only on the publisher's website (thus, is not independent) and does not support any information in the article (thus, is not a source). - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Utne Reader

I have removed the Utne Reader "source", Keith Goetzman (May 22, 2009). "Are Vegetarians Living a Lie?". Utne Reader. Retrieved April 20, 2017.. Apparently, it was being used to demonstrate that the book exists, which we do not need a source for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice

The recent removal confuses what "Wikipedia's voice" means. It is the difference between saying "The book was a takedown of nutritional myths" vs. "Schenck said the book was a takedown of nutritional myths". It is the voice of Schenck speaking (direct quote not required). We summarize sources and attribute directly when there might be concern about stating something as factual vs. someone's opinion. As for MED:RS, that document was not meant to eliminate critical discussions about a book, it is clearly framed as an opinion in the context of what the book contains and the debates over it, but is not making any claims to something being factually true. -- GreenC 21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The net change here is problematic though the prior version had problems as well.

Previously, the text was unclear. It was good that we had included that "she says" soy causes all of this (i.e., it is her claim); we needed similar language for her claim the "cholesterol myth" is, in fact, a myth. Without a verb specific to the "impacts of soy" bit, it's uncertain whether she is praising the book for a "takedown" of that or for covering it.

The article now has her saying the "takedown of nutritional myths ... are causing a number of common diseases". She certainly doesn't say that either the takedown or the myths are causing disease.

Here's my proposed text: "Susan Schenck, herself a vegetarian, said the book was 'full of hard core indisputable research'. She agrees with the book's discounting of the scientific consensus on the [[Lipid hypothesis|effects of cholesterol on coronary heart disease]]. She further agrees with the book's claims linking [[Soybean#Health|soy]] with several ailments."

This give us: a direct quote and Schenck agreeing with the book's claims (with a link discussing one of those claims). (I was unable to find a Wikipedia article discussing claims that soy causes a laundry list of ailments. The link I added discusses recognized health effects of soy.)

Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion, I have made my proposed change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation and NPOV

I have read Keith's book, and although I do find some of her arguments regarding ethics to be interesting, the rest of the book relies heavily on highly questinable sources. Her nutritional claims are in particular far from correct. Of course, she claims that scientists are "bought" by the imperialistic, domination-hungry, earth-destroying agricultural companies... I'm not even exaggerating, this is the kind of rhethoric she uses. On page 243 she even implies that veganism leads to violence and suicide, a far-fetched claim to say the least.

For example, she claims soy causes gases, stomach ache, diarrhea, testosterone-loss, libido-loss, blockage of estrogen, infertility, endometritis, memory loss, neurological degeneration, birth defects... and the list goes on... However, Duncan, A. (2018) Soy and Human Health: Benefits and Controversies. In Vegetarian Nutrition and Wellness (pp. 173-190), discredits many of Keiths claims. The enwp-article on Soybeans is far more extensive than Duncan's chapter, though (and, in contrast to Keith's book, the Wikipedia article actually has decent sources).

I'd much like to write an extensive WP-article on this book, in order to "fact-check" her claims... But that would probably be (or border to) original research. I do however not think we should spread misinformation as if it was "equal" to facts. For example, the sentence giving credit to Keiths book as being filled with "undisputable hard core research" is... problematic, to say the least. By all means, Wikipedia should be neutral, but being neutral shouldn't mean that we give equal space to misinformation and actual research. Skottniss (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about a book. It is not an article about the topics the book discusses, there are other articles for that. Book articles are typically sourced to book reviews and other sources that discuss the book. If you have additional reliable sources that discuss the book, please add them. Do not make the article into a battle ground to dispute what the book says, unless the sources are specific to the book. Ginny Messina, Registered Dietician[1] is a self-published blog post not a reliable source. -- GreenC 18:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Although I believe there are numerous risks about keeping a strict line such as this (promotion of false news and misinformation, because there are no "reputable sources" that directly discusses and discredits the source?), perhaps it does not matter in this case, and perhaps it is is only a problem in theory... Nontheless, I dug up what I could find on the internet... I refer to the following, non-self-published sources:

• TreeHugger
• Peace News
• Z Communications
• Fifth Estate (periodical) (this periodical was already referenced to earlier, though)
• Upping the Anti. Although ideological, like most sources used by myself and earlier contributors (which is not surprising, considering Keiths book was published by a publisher that specializes in "radical, marxist and anarchist literature"), it seems legit. They have an editorial committee, advisory board, they offer subscriptions of the journal (in print) ... Skottniss (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

TreeHugger and Z Communications are short blog posts not reliable. The Upping the Anti is fine but you made it nearly 33% of the article length which is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Also a separate section for "Criticism" is inherently POV and not needed. We have a paragraph (now section) how people have responded. -- GreenC 16:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)