Talk:Cabbage soup diet/Archive 1

Regarding references, etc. on this article

Yes, this article is a spam magnet. No, the references from faddiet.com et al are not meant as spam. It's all horribly complicated and there is a long history of negotiating over these references -- these seem to be some of the more reliable ones out there. Please do not delete them without making a case here on the talk page. Haikupoet (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s>I didn't remove references - I removed external links. If these are the sources for the information in the article a ) They really need to be labeled as such and b) I'm a little concerned about reliability - if these are the best available that would perhaps indicate that we shouldn't be so specific. Best available != good enough. If this isn't reported by a source we can have confidence has applied rigor to their research we're just propagating particular POVs and not, by any indication in the article, particularly significant ones.

It would be helpful for me and possibly future editors if a link to the "negotiations" you mention could be made available on this talk page. That might provide answers to some of the concerns I have. Thanks./s> -- SiobhanHansa 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the above. I've just found the "negotiations" on User_talk:Gustaeffle, an editor whose only contribution is to add links to various sites which are all connected. Trading off links with a spammer so you can have your favorite page listed is not the way to develop content on an article. Please provide an explanation here on the article's talk page of how one or more of these links actually meets our external links guidelines before restoring. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first, drop the wikicop approach. You're being entirely too confrontational about it. Second, I don't have much to say about the recipe link as it wasn't mine, but the faddiets.com link offers an actual example of the diet, which none of the links left in the article seem to. Sort of like having an article on communism without a link to the Manifesto, no? Unless you can find a better source for an actual copy of the diet, that would be a good source, I think. Haikupoet (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about communism without a link to the manifesto wouldn't be good. But talking about communism and linking to individual editors' favorite self-published manifestos by other authors would be inappropriate. The faddiet site appears to be a self-published site with no particular reputation for authority run by someone trying to draw in customers to his "private" shopping sites (ads for which plaster the pages). None of which makes it suitable as an external link. -- SiobhanHansa 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point on the link to other shopping sites. However, it is also (or at least was at the time I added the link) one of the few sites I could find that had a decent amount of information on the subject of faxlore diets. If you can find a site that includes at least one of the variants of the CSD that you think makes a better source, by all means add it. Otherwise, until such a site appears, I would invoke WP:IAR and add the faddiets.com link back in, at least provisionally. Sometimes you have to dig information out of the gutter. And sometimes you need to do a little horse-trading to make a better article. Haikupoet (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdon (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense

This article says that most of the weight lost will be water. On a soup diet? That makes no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.163.175 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, eating soup (or anything) will cause very short term weight gain (you weight + the weight of whatever you ate). This is very short term, though. The soup is a diuretic (it increases how much you urinate). You pee more water away then the soup contains, resulting in a lower weight while on the diet (through dehydration) that easily returns when you end the diet. Not a healthy way to go. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bland?

On a practical level, the most common forms of the soup recipe have been criticized as being bland

While this diet may quite possibly be complete nonsense, I have never ever had a cabbage soup that can be described as "bland". This sounds like BS. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]