Category talk:Diet food advocates
"The Earth Diet"
[edit]The Earth Diet was not a creator of a dietary fad, but the name of one, and so should be removed from here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Senator2029║talk 10:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
weird title
[edit]not sure how we got to "diet food advocates" but it is clunky. why "food"? Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- See here. Note that "diet" has other meanings: it is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see no real support for the unwieldy/nonsense "diet food advocates". I saw one mention of "diet" as a governmental body which was quickly addressed by noting the wider category this is part of. Diet food is not a Diet (nutrition) and what this category is about, is people who come up with or promote entire diets, not people who come up with some single item of diet food. the move a) does not reflect the discussion and b) makes no sense. oy. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was part of that discussion, and in retrospect I'm having some regrets about not having objected to the addition of the word "food". But as of now, it strikes me too as rather clumsy. I understand that the Diet of Worms wasn't about eating worms, but I'm having trouble imagining what an "advocate" of that kind of "diet" would be. There was a rather fraught content dispute that led to me opening the CfD that led to this category name, so I'm reluctant to reopen it this soon. My preference would be to let things be for a few months, and maybe then reopen a discussion to shorten the name. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see no real support for the unwieldy/nonsense "diet food advocates". I saw one mention of "diet" as a governmental body which was quickly addressed by noting the wider category this is part of. Diet food is not a Diet (nutrition) and what this category is about, is people who come up with or promote entire diets, not people who come up with some single item of diet food. the move a) does not reflect the discussion and b) makes no sense. oy. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Help in moving some names to a sub-category
[edit]Some of the people on this list are not proper diet food advocates, they are either quacks or promoting pseudoscientific diets. Not all fad-diets are pseudoscientific but many are. Please see the category [1], if you can help with this - @Tryptofish:, @Jytdog:, @Rathfelder: Skeptic from Britain (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not an area in which I have ant expertise I am afraid. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. There was a history of arguing about how to name this and related categories. See in part the CfD discussion that is linked in the talk section just above this one. The intention has been to use the category here for people who advocated for diets that are/were scientifically reasonable (not necessarily scientifically precise) as of the time that they lived, and to use the pseudoscientific category for the charlatans and quacks. One issue is describing living persons as pseudoscientific in the context of WP:BLP. So: that leaves a gray area of advocates who weren't blatant quacks but whose diets are sort-of dodgy. I'd say you should basically WP:BEBOLD and categorize persons as you see fit, and be prepared to discuss any individual cases at the talk page of the article if anyone objects (but you may find that no one objects, which of course is fine). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)