Talk:The Game Changers/Archive 1

Criticism section

There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth (but not quite edit warring) on the Criticism section. As the creator of this page and a vegan who has yet to watch the film, I've been trying to take a back seat to this, other than removing Category:Pseudoscience documentary films just now, as that seemed WP:UNDUE. But I'm starting this talk page section for discussion on that and other criticism of the film. Funcrunch (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Joe Rogan taking the original podcast ... offline

I can't find any evidence that supports the statement, "Joe Rogan put out a statement stating that he has considered taking the original podcast of Kresser's attempt to discredit the film offline." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.101 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the evidence:

Vegans, you’re gonna LOVE this one! (...) [James Wilks] came on to challenge some of the criticism that Chris Kresser presented about the movie, (...). James knocked it our of the park, and defended himself and the film quite spectacularly. So much so that I’m actually considering taking the original breakdown of the film offline. (...)

— Joe Rogan, [Instagram post on 5th December, 2019]

ClaasA (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms section is misleading.

Just a disclaimer I'm not a vegan but I think this part should be taken down. I followed the reference link to the statement of "but also comparing that, conversely, all the experts and medical professionals partaking in the documentary were also sellers of vegan products". These "products" are books written by doctors. If you follow that link it's very questionable, intimating that these people have something extra to gain as if they are in charge of a large soybean corporation. Here is the section that is linked from https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/ :

James Cameron, Executive Producer – award winning film maker (Titanic, Avatar), story teller, and founder and CEO of Verdiant Foods, an organic pea protein company with the goal of becoming “the largest pea protein fractionation facility in North America.”*

Suzy Amis Cameron, Executive Producer – Founder, Verdiant Foods

Jackie Chan, Passionate Vegan Famous Person

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ex-Meat Eater, Governator, Passionate Vegan Famous Person

Almost all of the medical professionals interviewed in the documentary also sell vegan products.

Dr. Dean Ornish – Author, “Undo-it!”, leads vegan retreats and sells online programs.

Dr. Aaron Spitz – Author, “The Penis Book”, plant based book on penile function.

Dr. Robert Vogel – Author, “The Pritikin Edge”, plant based book.

Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn – Author, “Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease”, “Cookbook”, plant based lifestyle and cookbook as well as accompanying DVDs.

Dr. James Loomis – Contributor, “Forks over Knives”, plant based meal planning service and publication company.

Dr. Scott Stoll – Author, “Alive” and “Kristin’s Healthy Kitchen Recipes”.

Dr. Kim Williams – Vegan Cardiologist

Dr. Columbus Batiste – Contributor, “Forks over Knives”

02/02/2020

Let me get this right, Kieranmon, you want us to take down an entire section full of sourced, valid information only because you disagree with a single point, said point being that you don't think sellers of vegan books, verdiant foods, planning service and online programs (it seems dubious that you have read your own info there) have anything to gain from promoting a pro-vegan documentary? Moreover, there are three sources on that point, not one, and all seem perfectly valid to me. Creador de Mundos (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this was my first contribution to wiki and I feel I was not clear in my intentions. My main issue is with this: "all the experts and medical professionals partaking in the documentary were also sellers of vegan products", is that not misleading? Jackie Chan and Arnold Schwarzenegger labeled as "passionate vegan famous person", that is valid enough for you? Are they part of the "all of the experts..."? In fact, did YOU actually check the sources? There are two not three I'll link them: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/

https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/

I'm familiar with the Layne Norton review, it's at least more reliable but it's not the one quoted. The second source is the one quoted but it isn't even quoted correctly and I would argue a terrible RS.

Thanks for the feedback but I take issue with your statement, "it seems dubious that you have read your own info there". Fitness is a hobby of mine and these sources seemed "dubious" at first glance so I checked. Anyways I'm not too concerned as long as the disputed banner stays up, although I'd be happier if the second source was discarded and the criticism section re-written to reflect that. Kieranmon (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the sources, and I don't think my synthesis of them is inaccurate, nor that there's anything wrong about the second source. In fact, I still don't get you about them. About that point, I said "all the experts and medical professionals partaking in the documentary were also sellers of vegan products", which the list you brought above proves. True, the list also includes non-experts like Chan and Arnold who aren't sellers of vegan products either, but if I didn't mention them it's precisely because they weren't among the medical experts. After all, as the text says, this is about criticism come from nutrition and science, not ideology. I'm sorry too if you took issue, as it was not my intention to sound anything but explanatory, but what I said is exactly what your message suggested to me. You said those people don't sell vegan products, yet the list you brought here shows them selling exactly that (books are products as well, and some of them sell more than books). Disputed banners, by the way, are meant to be temporary, to be removed once the problem is either solved... or disproven. Creador de Mundos (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly the current version seems a way to find sources that are annoyed at the documentary rather than trying to find a balanced presentation of the discussion around the documentary. For example, Joe Rogan gave a lot of popularity to the documentary, with an actual debate and some admission from Rogan (as above pointed) of how the documentary was well defended. It's a bit sad to see it treated like pseudoscience - it's a documentary, not a scientific paper. The science is probably similar to a lot of other documentaries around any sort of topic that are meant to be for popular consumption. You don't see such aggressions there, because people are extremely touchy feely when it comes to eating meat or not - which is exactly one of the points made in the documentary. People feel that they need to defend the carnivore approach. I hope you all can take a step back and balance this page a bit more. Thanks 73.93.154.247 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it is a subsection named "Criticisms" - of course it contain reviews that are critical towards the documentary, which as it can be seen, are many and quite complete. Other kind of reviews are free to be incorporated, but they must be put in other places of the "Reception" section. Now that you mention it, wasn't there an entire subsection about the Rogan debate which got deleted by someone? Maybe that subsection should return.

About the documentary, I'm not a reviewer and this is definitely not the place to do it, so I should not opine about it at all, but I will do it for the sake of clarity. I think a documentary that contains a lot of scientific sources which are used to establish conclusions qualifies as a scientific documentary (which TGC actually tries to present itself as, by the way), and as such, it should attempt to give objective information and not to twist all its sources to perform what I believe there are a lot of arguments to call dishonest propaganda. I have no interest in either vegan or carnivore diets, nor I follow any of them; I'm only preoccupied with scientific objectivity, and this is a documentary that has received a lot of flake for its scientific dishonesty. Creador de Mundos (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again thanks for the feedback. I have to re-iterate my problem is with the word "all". If the word used was "most", I probably wouldn't have looked into it. Secondly, you wrote in the criticism section: "all the experts and medical professionals partaking in the documentary were also sellers of vegan products". That is misquoted, the actual quote is: "Almost all of the medical professionals interviewed in the documentary also sell vegan products." That's why I said it's misleading (I would also argue that Arnold is an expert). Thirdly the source I have problems with is a blog post that has inaccuracies in it, the most glaring and easily identifiable being: "Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ex-Meat Eater, Governator, Passionate Vegan Famous Person". He is not vegan or even vegetarian. There are other mistakes but I will leave that unless you would like me to point out more.

Layne Norton himself is heavily criticized for his takes on this documentary (amongst other things), but I agree that could be put in the reception part of the article. If I'm being honest I think the entire section should be merged into reception, as it would be easier for the reader to track the discussion on this very debatable nutrition science. Sorry for being a stickler and I appreciate your contribution to wiki. Kieranmon (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. About that sentence, it is not a direct quote. In fact, I could have quoted from the first source, and it would have given out the same ("Virtually all of the ‘experts’ interviewed in the film sell vegan products, books, or profit from veganism"), but I didn't because there were already several direct quotes in the subsection and I figured they would be more useful about the reviewers's general thoughts and not little details. I concede that it could be maybe better phrased in the article, but that's a minor thing.

Calling Arnold an expert in that source might be a general term - not a medical expert, but maybe knowledgeable enough. Also, I don't know about him being a vegan, but a quicksearch tells me that he is "99% vegan" and "full of praise for vegan diet", so it looks more like a textual generality than a true inaccuracy. Now, even if you could pick out many failures in those articles, keep in mind that a non-obviously-unreliable source can only be countered in the article by another source addressing it directly. If there is enough backlash against those criticisms (criticism about the criticisms, essentially) for it to have generated reliable sources about it, they could be incorporated to the text. If there isn't, this is for now what we can put in the article.

"Criticisms" only seems mergeable with "Reception" now because it is the only subsection, given that someone took down the Rogan subsection and there's not much about popular reviews. With more info put about those topics, "Reception" would definitely need to be divided in subsections in order to be managed. I actually intended to revise the Rogan debate and maybe expand on it this week, as you can see I just recalled it was removed (also because I think it was not very well written or researched back when it was in the article, which I remember was one of the claimed reasons for its deletion). With at least a second subsection, it will look less ugly again.

EDIT: Done. Much better, no doubt. Creador de Mundos (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think your edit explains the details very clearly now.

I just want to explain what prompted me to voice my objections originally. When it comes to nutrition, especially on the internet, confirmation bias is very prevalent (obviously). A reader might scroll immediately down to the criticism section and then come to the conclusion that this is just a money grab for the people involved (I'm not ruling that out as I don't know for sure).

As the other user 73.93.154.247 pointed out, people are very touchy about being told what they can and can't eat. A person might draw false equivalencies between something that has only anecdotal evidence, such as the carnivore diet, and a well studied one like a plant-based/vegan diet; i.e someone might think: "I've been lied to and eating plants is actually unhealthy" or "the vegan industry is the same as the meat/dairy industry". In my opinion this could create a health risk for a person that has, for example, heart disease or is morbidly obese and wants to lose weight fast. Listen to Shawn Baker on the Joe Rogan podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_Bc9hdHa0&t=240s (bookmarked from 4 minutes in) and then read the comments for an example why this could be problematic. Here is Jordan Peterson on the subject as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLF29w6YqXs&t=10s (I'm aware he states clearly that he isn't an expert).

If I were to internalize this, I imagine 17 year old me reading the original criticism section after watching Baker or Peterson to justify why I need to eat meat everyday; even if I had a negative attitude towards factory farming and believed farming animals had a negative environmental impact. A deciding factor could be that I do not want to sacrifice my own health even if I believe eating meat is detrimental to our planet.

This is a critique of Layne Norton's original critique: http://proteinaholic.com/response-to-layne-nortons-review-of-the-game-changers/?fbclid=IwAR3CN27NFkiy7f0-eaY7QyUm-stHM3d4Au47-H-_9-0Qdh76VRptS_X746I. I don't know if it should be added or not but it's some context.

Once again thank you. I think the updated criticism section and your explanation is very fair. By the way, do I need to remove the dispute or can anyone do it? Kieranmon (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome again. I have my own opinion about the topic, of course, but as I said, this is a place for sources and not opinions, and I understand your concern too. (By the way, this seems to be providential - I was precisely talking to a friend about Peterson right now.) I think the critique about Norton seems good and brings its own story, therefore I have added it. About the dispute banner, it can be removed by anybody if it is agreed and/or solved, so I did it myself. Creador de Mundos (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Added unbalanced tag

I just added the unbalanced tag, as the article is heavily tilted in favor of implying that the movie is "pseudo-scientific". For example, saying "several experts accused it of misinformation and pseudoscience" may in fact be true, but this statement can be applied to any and all scientific documentaries.

Similarly, the section "The Joe Rogan Experience" is relatively neutral until the last paragraph, ending with the sentence "Norton admitted that Wilks excelled at preparing for the debate, but argued that he 'seemed focused on destroying Chris rather than defending the film’s claims' and 'committed an atrocity of logical fallacies and misrepresented key pieces of research to suit his bias.'" This closing sentence makes it sound like Wilks's arguments were ultimately deeply flawed. However, this would be a seriously biased conclusion to draw from the debate, where Wilks often gets Kresser to agree with his arguments and backs his statements up with a plethora of scientific papers.

While a number of critiques of the movie are cited, the article fails to mention support for the movie, including endorsements by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Special Operations Medical Association, the Defense Health Agency, and the Green Sports Alliance. --Mirek2 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not all documentaries at all, that's baseless. About the last paragraph, they are literal quotes of Norton's response in that particular debate, and it is a closing sentence because I couldn't find any more replies to the matter by Wilks or Norton himself. Now about the endorsement, you are free to add it to the article if it's sourced info; a "Endorsements" subsection for the "Reception" section would be good. It's just that the accusations and controversies are heavy and prolific enough to deserve their own sections too. Creador de Mundos (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

2nd paragraph at the beginning:

In an attempt to make it fair and unbiased, I petition to add this line with a reference to Dr. Garth Davis that critiqued the analysis of one of the experts:

"However, there have also been rebuts to some of those criticisms."

I don't not see how these following references can be justified if the one above is not, and classified as verifiable but Dr. Garth as not:

"but also received criticism for scientific inaccuracies and a perceived unbalanced support for plant-based nutrition,[5][6] with several experts accusing it of misinformation[7][8] and pseudoscience.[8]"

5: https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a29067926/the-game-changers-movie-fact-check/ 6: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/ 7: https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/ 8: https://www.mysportscience.com/post/2019/11/06/is-game-changers-game-changing-or-is-it-sensationalism

You cannot present one side as verifiable and unbiased. All of the sources above are biased towards meat eating and have many articles/books on it between them so how do they fall under verifiable, unbiased sources? but Dr. Garth does not? RBut (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen biolayne.com is also an advocacy website and should be removed, problem is it is used many times on the article. Layne Norton does have a phd in nutrition but his own website is a primary source, is filled with training advertisements and membership requests. Not the sort of source we should be using for biomedical claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

tacticmethod.com does not look like a reliable source either. The article was written by Meredith Root [2] who "has a background" in engineering. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Biolayne has also been heavily funded by the animal agriculture industry. If you look at some of his research they were funded by the egg and dairy boards, and the training facility he used was also funded by them. Nearly all of the references in the debunk article link straight to animal agriculture industry funded studies. Funnily enough, biolayne criticized the documentary and James Wilks for bias.

The menshealth article is also by an author that has several books on cooking mostly meat and is part of the "The Kansas City Barbeque Society" and lacks scientific credentials.

While the mysportsscience article is by somebody that is global senior director at a PepsiCo research facility. Another conflict of interest.

In my opinion conflicts of interest and bias are not an issue here as long as both sides of the argument are represented. In science it is the data that matters, not source of funding or who represents which side. Having a bias does not make your argument incorrect.

So in my opinion these references should be left up, while Dr. Garth's rebuttal added. Both sides can be happy. What do you think? RBut (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not convinced any of these sources are reliable (excluding Asker Jeukendrup who would be considered a reliable source for this) but it will be too controversial to remove them all because not much will be left on the article. I agree that as these sources are included on the article criticizing the Game Changers we may as well include the response from Garth Davis but it would have to be done correctly and not undue weight. I don't think we should cite it in the lead but it could be used on the article. I would be interested in knowing what other users think. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the other sources are actually poor. For example Tom Mitchelhill [3] is used on the article as a source of criticism but he is described on his website as a "business builder" and the website is his own. This obviously fails WP:RS. Truth is, this Game Changers is basically a fringe documentary and many people criticizing it are just as fringe as the people promoting it. There are only a handful of reviews from nutrition experts. I see that a registered dietitian has also reviewed it (Abby Langer) [4]. I would support to add the review by Abby Langer. We can use some primary sources if the person is considered an expert. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Another review from a registered dietitian [5] (who actually promotes a plant-based diet). Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason why it needs to added in the lead is because currently it sends the message that the documentary is inaccurate and has been debunked by experts. If some push back is provided it will send the message that there are experts and arguments from both sides, which you should review yourself to come to a conclusion.

The Abby Langer review contains no references. For example she made an argument by saying "Physiologically, having fat in our blood after a fatty meal is completely normal: how do you think it gets to our organs?" but she did not mention that avocado was also used in the 3 person experiment several times and cloudy blood did not appear. She provides no explanation for this. How did the fat from the avocado not change the blood that significantly? following her argument does the fat from the avocado not go to our blood and organs? avocados also contain a lot of fat, but that fat is not dominated by saturated fat, rather monounsaturated fat which also includes fiber and more. There are more errors that were made. I don't mind if it is used though, as long as both sides are represented.

What do you think about using this source? the documentary has been endorsed by more governmental bodies than are listed in the 2nd paragraph (only two are mentioned): https://www.nutritionalphysicaltherapy.com/blog/gamechangers

"The movie has been currently endorsed by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Special Operations Medical Association (SOMA), the Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Green Sports Alliance" RBut (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the Game Changers they did not measure or test endothelial function. The blood test was explainable by postprandial lipemia. Basically when you eat a large amount of dietary fat after a meal there is a raise of triglycerides in the blood. There was more dietary fat in the beef and chicken burrito that the black bean one because they also included cheese which is high in saturated fat. If you add beef and cheese well that is a lot of fat. Black beans contain hardly any fat so about the only fat source was coming from the avocado and as you say it is monounsaturated but the methodology of the experiment was not detailed because it did not list the micro/macro ratio, we don't even know the full ingredient list or how much avocado was used on the burrito. From the documentary it looked about half an avocado, no that is not a lot of fat. Cloudy blood is caused by chylomicrons. This is explained here [6] "The size of chylomicrons varies depending on the amount of fat ingested. A high fat meal leads to the formation of large chylomicron particles due to the increased amount of triglyceride being transported whereas in the fasting state the chylomicron particles are small carrying decreased quantities of triglyceride." It's completely normal to absorb chylomicrons from the diet into the blood, it happens everyday in healthy people (excluding those with diabetes or hyperlipidemia) but nobody recommends to eat high-fat meals all day (apart from low-carb quacks). The issue is balance. Obviously a diet high in saturated fat will increase the risk of atherogenesis. All health agencies around the world recommend limiting saturated fat and eating more plants. The problem with the Game Changers is that they exaggerated their findings and used scare mongering tactics to mislead people. Abby Langer is a reliable source because she is qualified in this area, it doesn't matter if it did not contain references, another review I found highly critical of the Game Changers is here [7]. In conclusion there does appear to be more criticism than praise for the documentary.

I searched online and could not find any other source that mentions the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Defense Health Agency etc support for the Game Changers. I think we need better sourcing for such a claim. If the claim is true then why is that information not anywhere else? Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What if I provided you an article that contradicted everything that she said that had the same or superior credentials? how would you differentiate between who is truthful? References matter because otherwise it is an appeal to authority. It would be considered as a primary source via Wikipedia's guidelines (sources that should be avoided). Having credentials does not mean you are correct, and neither does lacking credentials mean you are incorrect.

The documentary also referenced a study (funded by the Haas board) and such an effect was not there after adding the avocado which further increased the fat content of the meal by around 33% (and of course calories) compared to a meal without the avocado (and had more benefits such as lowering inflammatory responses to meat). Despite the source of funding it is the data and the design of the study that matters, which apart from being a small sample was a good design (which is why it was referenced). You would not expect somebody else to study your product as there is no gain for them. So while source of funding is important and signals to potential bias, it is also not a brick wall argument.

But that is not even my argument. My argument is that you cannot justify providing only the criticisms of this documentary without allowing criticisms of those criticisms by people that are just as qualified to also be referenced.

Having more criticism against a plant based diet is a simple game of numbers. There are multiples more, magnitudes more people that aren't plant based. And it is also not a good argument to use to prevent one side from also being represented. Right now only the critiques are represented, which doesn't make sense to me at all with one of Wikipedia's guidelines to be neutral.

And the endorsement/accreditation is a claim by the Game Changers team. These organizations have not released such statements which is to be expected. But I find no reason to not believe the Game Changers team. They use the organizations logos and marketed it as such, which would be a lawsuit if it were a lie. RBut (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you are saying, I do agree but they must be reliable sources. What are these articles that debunk the critics of the Game Changers? I would be interested in seeing them if they are written by qualified dietitians or medical experts. You mentioned Dr Garth Davis but are there any others qualified in this area? Please compile a list here if possible and we need to look at them. I think we need to entirely re-write this Wikipedia article with more references. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Garth is the only one that made a reply to one article, to the biolayne article. If you read his review he just criticized some of the arguments and studies from the article, and referenced mostly secondary sources but also primary sources. Other than that James Willks defended some of the criticisms himself: https://www.totallyveganbuzz.com/news/the-game-changers-filmmakers-defend-criticisms/ - You will not find non plant based sources reporting on this.

If you want to re write the article then I would suggest using sources that give criticism where criticism is due, and credit where credit is due. Because usually the critiques are one sided. Many times even hypocritical. And the critiques should be referenced. Otherwise you're allowing people to claim whatever they want. There are YT videos that do so, this video is a decent example but there are more areas to critique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB0aieRNJs0 RBut (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So, are you done and do not care anymore about this article? because it's time to add Dr. Garths article in the introduction as a rebuttal to one of the articles to make it less biased, or to rewrite the article with sources that contain references for their claims and give credit where credit is due, and criticize where criticism is due. RBut (talk)

References

Negative versus positive wording

There is a claim that the following word changes are somehow disparaging:

"2018 documentary film about the effects of plant-based eating for athletes" --> "2018 documentary film touting what the filmmakers consider to be the positive outcomes of plant-based eating for athletes."

First of all, I don't see what is negative about identifying that the film is "touting" an agenda by the filmmakers. All of our sources, including the flattering ones, indicate that. I also think that we need to attribute the claims of outcomes to the opinion of the filmmaker. This isn't an objective study, after all, nor is it intended to be. Is the wording I used negative? If so, I don't understand how.

"It covers multiple success stories of plant-based athletes, references scientific studies, and touches on other arguments for plant-based diets that extend to non-athletes." --> "It offers multiple success stories, references favorable scientific studies, and refers to other arguments for plant-based diets, arguing that the benefits can extend to non-athletes."

The words "covers" and "touches on" are ones that are hardly descriptive and I fail to see how replacing those with "offers" and "refers to" are negative. Saying that an athlete is "plant-based" is a bit weird too. In any case, we can just say "success stories" without any qualifiers as the reader by now knows what we're talking about. The idea that the film only references favorable scientific studies, I think, is unarguable. This is also, however, not a negative point. The film does this because it has an agenda. There isn't anything negative about being honest. It's not as though the filmmakers set out to get "all sides" of a story or something, and that's perfectly fine. But we should be clear that the scientific studies they reference are are all favorable. That is just being honest. Finally, I fail to understand why identifying the argument that the benefits can extend to non-athletes as an argument is a "negative" point. It is simply another argument made in the film.

In short, I do not understand the complaint. Please advise.

jps (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Your edit has a clear agenda, which is to discredit the documentary within the first sentence. Which is in no way an attempt at staying neutral, a guideline for Wikipedia editors. The original description was neutral, after your edit it is no longer neutral. The referenced articles already provide the required criticism. I would recommend reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch - If you do not agree with my reversal then hopefully we can find an experienced Wikipedia editor to help sort it out. RBut (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit has a clear agenda, which is to discredit the documentary within the first sentence. How do you see the documentary as being discredited? How is it not neutral? What word are you objecting to? jps (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: 1. "highlights favorable scientific studies". Why are you defining what sort of studies were referenced? There is no need for you to insert your point of view. It can easily stay neutral as it was: "highlights scientific studies". 2. "and promotes what the filmmakers argue are benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes". Your definition adds no significance. People know the filmmakers made the film. It can easily stay short: "and promotes the benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes". Your editorial labeling of what it is and isn't is not a requirement. In the next sentence it includes the rebuts of experts, not Wikipedia editors.

1. We should define the sort of study because the film intentionally does not include unfavorable scientific studies. There is no POV about this, it's just what the film does. The choice to only include certain studies and not others is a choice the filmmaker makes. It is one the filmmaker admits to making. I don't see why that's objectionable. It is, after all, a perfectly legitimate approach to filmmaking when talking about scientific studies in a documentary. It's only fair for us to let the reader know that's what the film does. 2. What "definition" are you talking about? Do you mean "wording"? We cannot say in WP-voice that there are benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes that the film promotes. See WP:ASF. The film makes some claims that certain benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes exist. The choice of which benefits those are and that they qualify as benefits or actually exist is an opinion of the filmmaker. They are not objective facts. At WP, we attribute opinions, so we can't just say "and promotes the benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes". We could say, "and promotes the claimed benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes", but I rather think it is better to attribute directly to the filmmakers. This is absolutely the opposite of editorial labeling, here. What we are doing is describing what the filmmakers are doing and attributing to them what they've done. jps (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So in this instance you're defining what the film does, "highlights favorable scientific studies", in the next sentence, you no longer want to define what the film does? "and promotes the benefits of plant-based diets for non-athletes", now it's "it promotes what it thinks are the benefits for plant based non athletes". RBut (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you would prefer in the first instance that the text read, "highlights what the filmmakers believe are favorable scientific studies", that's cool. I kinda figured since no one argued against these scientific studies being favorable to the film's thesis, that we could assume that this was a pretty clear case of us being able to WP:ASSERT that was the case. But if you think it is arguable, I'm okay with the alternative. On the other hand, we have a clear indication that some sources disagree with the particular benefits of a plant-based diet the film claims exist. jps (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should define the movie a bit more to make sure it is as neutral as possible. "highlights what the filmmakers are attempting to mislead people to believe are favorable scientific studies". So who gets to decide if a plant based diet might have favorable effects? Is the largest dietetics organization allowed to also highlight what they consider are favorable scientific studies to mislead people? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements." RBut (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sure some athletes have not succeeded as far as the elite athletes have, so to keep it neutral maybe the quote "The film showcases success stories of athletes that have adopted plant-based diets" should be changed to: "The film showcases cherry picked success stories of athletes that have adopted plant-based diets" RBut (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, even if some of it is uncontroversial and mainstream, that doesn't mean the mainstream part can be cited as if it supports all the claims being made including the fringy part. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We are supposed to assume good faith. I think we've been clear what sort of wording is good and what sort of wording is problematic. Setting up strawmen arguments that you aren't being serious about does not help matters. jps (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We already went over it, the wording you used goes against neutral guidelines. If you are going to use the world "favorable" (which is your POV) then provide the unfavorable studies on the positions they have taken in the movie (such as inflammation, inflammatory molecules in animal products and etc that they are deliberately not referencing that contradict their studies). I would legitimately suggest reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch RBut (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not how this works. In the film, the filmmakers are not trying to identify the full scope of the scientific literature. They are instead highlighting favorable studies. That is the premise of that aspect of the film. jps (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You're labeling it as referencing favorable studies, which implies there are contradictory studies to the positions they have taken. Therefore, to justify your label, you must provide some evidence that proves they have ignored contradictory evidence, otherwise it could not be labeled favorable. So go look at the references the documentary cited, and provide the evidence contrary to their position that they are purposefully ignoring. Otherwise your label is POV, which I will continue disputing as you are not attempting to credibly justify your position. And BTW, James Willks did not present these positions himself. He had a team around him including a registered dietitian. So 1. you cannot justify providing critiques with no credentials based on the argument that James Willks has no credentials because the actual scientists behind the documentary have credentials and 2. critiques with credentials but no references because that is considered a primary source (against Wiki's guidelines, as I have pointed out for the gazillionth time but for some reason keeps going over your head). Dear I say, it's almost as if you're not as neutral as you have convinced yourself you are. RBut (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You're labeling it as referencing favorable studies, which implies there are contradictory studies to the positions they have taken. If you think that there is an implication here that the filmmakers ignored contradictory evidence, that's not the fault of the wording. It may be the fault of your own desire to promote the thesis of the film without admitting that it is taking a position about a controversial subject, however. jps (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you will not defend the word "favorable" I will have to edit the article. As mentioned above, currently this is your POV as you have not provided contradictory evidence on the positions taken by the Game Changers team that they were purposefully ignoring. RBut (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I just defended it. Do you think the studies were not favorable? Do you really think that they did a full accounting of the entirety of the scientific literature in the film? All of the sources and the film itself which I watched last night seem to indicate otherwise. So, as I see it, I have all the sources that discuss the scientific literature supporting the idea that they highlighted favorable scientific studies. You have some vague unease with the implications of that word choice. Maybe you have a source which indicates that they did a complete and thorough literature review for the film? If so, please let us know. jps (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Further critique about the film's lack of meaningful studies: [8] [9] - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's stay on this point just for a few questions. How are you assessing that they are only presenting favorable evidence if you are not aware of the unfavorable evidence? simply list a claim they have made, and then reference some contradictory evidence. Just one example that puts a hole into their argument. RBut (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to jump around as I want to understand "ජපස" right now. But in both sources there were no references (it was also the same article both times), so why should I believe a single thing he said? RBut (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you won't believe Joe Schwarcz is a legitimate source because "there were no references", then I think we're done here. Consensus is against you. WP:DROPTHESTICK. jps (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe he has the credentials. I do not believe in blindly buying into arguments just because somebody has credentials. You make a claim, you reference it. Now, let's get back on topic: Simply list a claim they have made, and then reference some contradictory evidence. Just one example that puts a hole into their argument. RBut (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. I'm not here to debate the arguments in the film with you. We have sources that support the wording and while you may not like that source, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a maligned position at this website. We're done. jps (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking you to justify your use of "favorable" which is currently POV. I'm not asking you to debate the whole documentary point by point. I asked you to point out a single hole in their argument and provide a scientific reference that is contradictory to their position. This will prove that favorable can be used, without a POV. RBut (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Still not how this works. We have sources which indicate that the film looked at favorable scientific studies. We have sources which indicated that the film did not include studies which may have been disconfirming. That's all. jps (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So you can claim anything as long as there is a source? Reference me this high quality, reliable source of yours. RBut (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

this is WP:CHEESE at this point. LuckyLouie offered it above. jps (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't. You're refusing to engage and defend your POV. You're simply flailing around your authority. The reason you won't engage is because you cannot defend your POV in a reliable and credible manner... RBut (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

To come at it another way, we can't say "promotes the benefits of" about anything for which the benefits are contested (e.g. "LuckyLouie's new book promotes the benefits of ingesting lead flavored with Tabasco sauce"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Just want to pop in and say I believe these changes are an improvement. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Endorsements"

The film's "endorsements by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the Defense Health Agency" need clarification. That ACLM [10] and DHA [11] offer continuing education credits if you pay them a fee to watch the film online isn't an "endorsement". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would they offer a course on the science referenced in the movie if it were not endorsed or accredited? It was also moved down to the reception section which makes no sense. RBut (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think about it with a neutral point of view, it should be moved from the reception section down to the very very bottom, way past all the references and the weird reference laden purple box right down to the most bottom position, with the horizontal "privacy policy", "about Wikipedia" and etc section. RBut (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. ACLM, it seems, was directly involved in sponsoring the film, so perhaps that is a better wording to use. DHA has had some connection since people involved with the film were military, and there was at least a pre-screening at Wright-Patterson AFB [12]. Do we have a good handle on the situation here? jps (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Joe Rogan section

Rogan and a Paleo diet advocate reviewed the film on a November show. Then the Paleo diet advocate and the plant based film advocate debated on a December show. That's really all the detail we need to summarize (if anyone insists, the Layne Norton stuff can be added to the criticism section) and merits little more than a few lines in a "In popular culture" section. WP:NOTEVERYTHING that happens on Joe Rogan's podcast needs to be described with a fanboy level of detail. - LuckyLouie (talk)

+1. I think that's as good as we need to get here. jps (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Two issues need to be addressed

Here are two concerns: should references 4, 5, 6 and 7 be allowed but reference 8 as a response to ref 5 not? Ref 4 and 6 lack credentials (4 a journalist, 6 an engineer) and 6 is a blog, ref 5 is an advocacy blog but has credentials and references, ref 7 is a blog and has credentials but contains no references (primary source), ref 8 advocacy blog has credentials and references, is a response to ref 5. Ref 5 is currently in the intro, therefore ref 8 can be added with a general tone, e.g. "However, some of these criticisms have been challenged (or rebutted - insert ref 8).

And the second concern, is "The film viewing is an approved activity for continuing education credit by the Defense Health Agency[11] and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.[12][13]" has been moved down to the "reception" section. Does that make sense? Why can this not stay in the intro as it was (given as ref 4, 5, 6 and 7 reside there, it seems to be the most appropriate place for it). 1. It was marketed as being accredited/endorsed by those organizations, 2. It's in the intro of the documentary, 3. These organizations have accredited courses on the documentary that secure credits for CE/CME (continuing medical education) which includes: "Physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, pharmacists, registered dietitians, certified diabetes educators, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, and more!". Clearly it is accredited/endorsed otherwise those organizations would have sued the documentary into oblivion. So I propose changing it to "It received generally positive reviews by viewers and endorsement/accreditation by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the Defense Health Agency".

And Green Sports Alliance can also be added as another agency that endorsed it because it collaborates with them: https://greensportsalliance.org/greensportsalliancefoundation-gamechangersinstitute-partnership-pressrelease/

And The Game Changers official website can be used as a source, because as explained above they would be sued into oblivion by now, yet the same information still appears on their website: https://www.gamechangersinstitute.com/#about

the film’s scientific credibility has resulted in recognition from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and the Defense Health Agency, as well as an endorsement from the Special Operations Medical Association. RBut (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried to address your first concern. I don't know that continuing ed credit being granted for viewing the film belongs in the intro. It's a bit difficult to know exactly how that makes the film stand out beyond the promo materials that the film uses and the mention of this in the intro, for example. I cannot find third-party mention of this as being somehow a WP:PROMINENT feature of this film, so I think keeping this info in the reception area is appropriate. jps (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It points out that it has been accredited and recognized by the organization if it counts towards CME. So what is the argument here?

And how is it appropriate for the reception area? that makes no sense. It has nothing to do with reception. RBut (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Find an independent source which discusses this CME and we can see how to frame the discussion. As it is right now, to me it just looks like the way various organizations have received the film. jps (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Jesus christ dude, did you not even read the sources? https://www.lifestylemedicine.org/ACLM/Education/Game_Changers_Documentary/Game_Changers.aspx and https://www.dhaj7-cepo.com/content/game-changers-oct-18 and read my comment above for the "Green Sports Alliance" link. RBut (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed the word "independent". This is why LuckyLouie's example below is telling. We need to see how others view this CME offer... not the organizations nor the film. Third-party sourcing, please. jps (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You require a third party source to discuss the accreditation? seems worse than going to an organization such as the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. https://nutritionstudies.org/documentary-the-game-changers-makes-compelling-case-for-plant-based-nutrition-for-athletes/ "The film has been accredited by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, which means doctors and nurses in the United States can get credits by watching the film and taking a quiz about it.", and: https://www.nutritionalphysicaltherapy.com/blog/gamechangers RBut (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Anna Keeve doesn't strike me as a reliable source for the claim she (and you) are making. [13]

In contrast, the physical therapists Sean Wells and Anik Lauzon are somewhat better suited for our purposes as they are DPTs and are arguing as a matter of opinion that APTA, NATA, and ACSM should "endorse" the movie in a similar fashion to the groups already mentioned in the article. But aside from using the buzzword "endorsement" to describe the actions of listing the movie as use for CME, I don't see much in the way of arguing that this is a prominent feature of the film. This kind of opinion piece might serve as a good source for our reception section, but it still doesn't convince me that the CME listings are lede-worthy. jps (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Apart from mentioning that the film is endorsed or accredited by third party sources, there will be no in depth debate or review of the CME credits. https://www.alive.com/fitness/what-the-game-changers-changed/ - "The film has also been accredited or supported by the Defense Health Agency and the Special Operations Medical Association, two organizations Wilks says are not persuaded by “fairy tales,” but by optimal performance in combat and reducing military health-care costs.". However there is a tertiary source, the page on ACLM site that says the documentary is accredited by the ACLM (American College of Lifestyle Medicine). How is it not a good enough source? RBut (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Karli Petrovic is not a good source for anything, and we already use the ACLM source in the article. jps (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Just one example, The White Tiger (2021 film) viewing is offered for CE/CME credit [14]. It's not a distinction, isn't considered an endorsement, and it isn't even mentioned in their publicity or their Wikipedia article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The White Tiger can be viewed for CME credits followed up by a discussion for a psychoanalysis. Seems to fit perfectly well for the field... What is your argument even? Game Changers has clearly been accredited but you're dead set on hiding it.

Also how is Dr. Garth not allowed to be used as a reference but Joe Schwarcz can make claims with no evidence? RBut (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, you really need to review both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Things can simultaneously be true and not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. While small inferential leaps are certainly allowed, the sort of claims you are making should be backed by a reliable source, and I am not seeing that. Wikipedia, by design, is very epistemologically limited. You may well be right about this. It does not necessarily follow that it belongs in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, the purpose of the Dr. Garth's article is that it critiques one of the critiques of the documentary. It is not about synthesis of sources. And my Issue with WP:OR is that it goes both ways. So when you criticize Garth's article for it, it applies to the rest of them that are already published in the article. Unless you mean a pbd is not supported by any reliable, published sources which is not the case. I can reference a position paper by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (and 10 other dietetics organizations around the world), they support pbd and acknowledge that they have many benefits as well as some requirements, e.g. b12 supplementation. RBut (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, this is a great example. We're not discussing pbds in general, we're discussing a particular movie. Your strongest sources will be those talking about the movie. Things that speak about pbds in a broad way will not generally be usable for claims about this movie. Again, I am not debating the truth of what you say--I am pointing out that it is not in line with Wikipedia policies (which are, no doubt, restrictive). I think you'd do us all a favor if you could pare back your claims a bit to remove the synth and focus on media more directly about the movie at hand. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, does Dr. Garths article not fit in well though? since it is a critique of one of the referenced critiques. RBut (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It definitely fits well for content, yes. I'm a little more dubious of its standing vis-a-vis reliability (as it is on a blog) and notability (I'm not sure anyone really paid attention?) but I will confess that this is an area in which I am a dilettante at best and so will defer to the better informed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think for Wikipedia to call these "endorsements" we'd need more than an editor's speculation that it must be true because the claimants have not yet been sued for saying it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Speculating and hoping that "Joe Schwarcz" is telling the truth makes sense but not that the team of Game Changers is? Even though you are able to gain credits towards CME for watching it via several organizations.

It seems like basic logic to me. 1. They had teams of members from those organizations. They easily have the connections. 2. There are massive names attached to the documentary. Nobody is going to join up to defaming their name. 3. If those were claims they would have been forced to remove them by now. It makes no sense for them to claim this if it were not true, given the lawsuits.

I do not get denying it. Viewing of the documentary goes towards credits for CME, aka physicians and other medical professionals. So they clearly are not making these claims up. And I'm not arguing for endorsements (except for "Special Operations Medical Association"). The claim can stay accredited which it is. RBut (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think what you are missing is that this aspect of the movie is barely commented on in reliable sources. I'm fascinated, for example, that they set up a 501(c)(3) that in turn founded the GCI [15], but there doesn't seem to be any independent notice of this subject, either, so I don't think it belongs in our article as fascinating as this part of the story might be. We have a lot of promotional materials that say things like "recognition from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and the Defense Health Agency, as well as an endorsement from the Special Operations Medical Association." but this kind of self-aggrandizement is apparently unremarkable enough to end up ignored by the third-party sources we use in our article. To be clear, it is the third-party sources that are what establishes the film's worthiness for an article here. I am happy you are finding other third-party sources as you did above. It gets us closer to what we need. But logical arguments of the sort you are making are not really what we would normally use to base article content on. jps (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Which version?

I think there is a clear preference in terms of WP:MANDY, WP:WEIGHT, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Game_Changers&type=revision&diff=1030058687&oldid=1030058065&diffmode=source I would encourage others to support the reversion. jps (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I ask editors to review it with a WP:NPOV and only then base judgement. RBut (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That is absolutely not how this works. You are required to collaborate with us whether you like it or not. jps (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That is what I am doing. There are neutral editors here which we await for an assessment. RBut (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There are no such things as "neutral editors". See WP:NPOV. The goal of the article text is to be neutral. It's not the editors themselves that are neutral. jps (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that User:RBut has been blocked from editing this page for 24 hours. I think it would be good to rollback to my preferred version, but as it is my preferred version, I'll let someone else do it.

I am sympathetic to the concern that maybe a "right of reply" could somehow be incorporated into the intro, but the extensive quotes from medium articles and the rather WP:PUFFERY rejoinders that were added seem contrary to the best practices for article writing.

jps (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should allow other editors to analyze and have an opinion. You seem to have a nudge to heavily impose your view before anyone can get a word in. RBut (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see you defend your own edits which is concerning. To be clear, I am intrigued by some of the sources, but your edits were inartful at best, in my estimation. Still, if you'd like to explain why the quotes you chose and the sources you thought were worthy of inclusion are something we should consider, there is a talkpage here for you to contribute to. jps (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing to defend. You made some accusations and undid the edit. If you were to critiqued the edit point by point I would have paid attention. Instead you resorted to imposing your authority and attempted to get me banned. To be honest, there is no further conversation to be had between us as this conversation is completely pointless and nothing but time wasting. The edits I believe are fair and I am waiting for other editors to analyze. Maybe you could do the same for once... RBut (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You want me to analyze point-by-point? Fair enough:

"However, some of the criticisms have also been challenged." with a citation to Davis, Loomis, and Wilks. Now, we had been increasing the reliability of a lot of sources up until now. Davis and Loomis are both MDs who base their practices around promoting plant-based diets. Davis is already used in the article but Loomis is not. To start with Davis, his rejoinder is specifically to Norton and nothing else. That's a bit narrow... it would be nice to see a more general response to criticisms. I am a little worried about using Loomis because his defense is entirely personal since he apparently felt attacked by the Men's Health piece. Right now, we use the Men's Health piece to talk about things other than the stuff that Loomis is particularly upset about (it is a rather large piece, after all), so I was comfortable leaving that back-and-forth out of the article. Anyway, sniping on the internet in that fashion is rarely encyclopedic. Cool, cool. That's kinda a WP:MANDY position, but it may be worth discussing somewhere provided there are specific claims we are saying in our article that are contraindicated. I don't see those right now. The final source (to spotify) is utter garbage. It doesn't belong in our article.

You then included the following sentence:

Dr. James Loomis, featured in the film and former team physician for the St. Louis Rams/Cardinalsa and medical director at the Barnard Medical Center criticized this view

First, a style matter... we don't use pre-postnominals. See WP:CREDENTIAL. This is minor, but what we do use is a descriptor. What this descriptor lacks is an indication that Loomis was in the film. It also does not identify the medical center sufficiently enough for the reader. You go on to quote where Loomis takes particular issue with the criticism of the discussion of scientific research:

"the research featured and cited in The Game Changers includes cohort studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses with subject pools as large as 563,277 people, reflecting a body of evidence so well-established that the world’s leading health and nutrition organizations now confidently encourage a plant-centered diet" and quoted that The World Health Organization recommends eating “a nutritious diet based on a variety of foods originating mainly from plants, rather than animals" and that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations confidently recommends, “Households should select predominantly plant-based diets.”

But you left off the argument that Loomis says he is criticizing, a claim that "the dangers of an animal-based diet are not “well-established”, alleging that The Game Changers presents “only one side of the facts” from “controversial sources” and “small studies”."

Now, what is weird is that I cannot find the phrase "the dangers of an animal-based diet are not “well-established" in the Kita piece. It's possible it was edited out, but yikes! If the rejoinder is to something that Kita is not even saying, I don't know what to make of it. It is true that Kita uses the phrases “only one side of the facts” from “controversial sources” and “small studies”, but these are all backed up afterwards and Loomis goes on at the point to argue some other point about the size of some pools. Kita didn't say that all the studies the movie referenced were of this sort... only that some of the claims were of this type.

Nevertheless, I think that Loomis may deserve some sort of inclusion in here for his discussion of certain study sizes. After all, there really are some studies which are large and support certain health-outcomes for plant-based diets (none of our sources contradict that point). But is this lede-worthy? It's possible, but WP:SUMMARY says we should try to be a little more clear as to what may deserve inclusion from the source and what may need to be excluded. Right now, I'm not convinced your choice is up to snuff.

Your edits also violated WP:CREDENTIAL again with Garth Davis. You also change the description of his book from promoting a vegan diet to a plant-based one. This may be fair, but I actually read the part of his book that recommends the diet and his approach seems to me to be advocating for vegan as best. I may be wrong in that.

The modification of quotes from Garth Davis is a bit more troubling.

"he criticized the movie in a post before it was even released, and his bias shows." He later mentioned "Layne admits his biases and states that he was funded by egg and dairy. In fact, the lab he trained in was heavily funded by animal agriculture. His preceptor was a main consultant for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association and all the articles I have read from his lab have had an industry sponsor. As you will see, most of the articles he cites in his review are industry funded."

Character assassination of this sort is not addressing the actual points that Layne brought up in the film and is vaguely conspiratorial. That's fine for the source, but to include such content in articlespace here is entirely WP:REDFLAG, as far as I'm concerned. The actual rejoinder seems to me to be handled well by the quote we had previously: "Layne throws out accusations of cherry picking and bias, and yet exhibits unbelievable bias and cherry picking. His critique of the movie is more a critique of veganism." That's a substantive rejoinder to the quotes we include. You might argue that we should include some of Davis's mention of Norton's research having been funded as most nutrition research is funded at major universities. Except, Norton himself mentions this so it's a bit disingenuous for us to make it seem like this was the actual rejoinder. I am open to the idea that we might want to include this aspect of Norton's critique if that's something that editors think is worth discussing. "Follow the money" is not a very edifying editorial technique in these contexts, as I've intimated elsewhere.

So that's it. That's my trouble with your edits.

jps (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize for the edit war. I realize now I was in the wrong. The following edits have been more fair. But I have some justifications and concerns at the end.

1. "Now, we had been increasing the reliability of a lot of sources up until now." That's debatable in some parts. For example in the intro you added one source which contains no references and basically says "no that's not what the science shows, but I won't prove it. The doc is still wrong though, it's all pseudoscience!!". That source should not be allowed unless they back up their claims.

2. "I am a little worried about using Loomis because his defense is entirely personal since he apparently felt attacked by the Men's Health piece." You can use the same criticism against some of the critiques of the documentary (COD). Layne Norton critiqued the doc before it was even released. He was personally offended just by the premise. How was his defense not entirely personal? One of the references is by a journalist (Paul Kita) that has several books on purely meat cooking and is part of "The Kansas City Barbeque Society", so it can be attributed that he is also personally offended by the documentary. Plus isn't that imposing action on others, on Dr. Loomis? (something you just critiqued me for).

3. Mens Health still made a lot of critiques, which Loomis critiqued back point by point. From Men's Health all the buzz words were snipped and quoted, to which I quoted Dr. Loomis's response but it becomes WP:MANDY?

4. "what we do use is a descriptor. What this descriptor lacks is an indication that Loomis was in the film." how is the quote not descriptive that Loomis was in the doc in my edit: "Dr. James Loomis, featured in the film"?

5: "You also change the description of his book from promoting a vegan diet to a plant-based one." It is important to differentiate between veganism and plant based diets. Veganism is a philosophy. The book is about a plant based diet. Most plant based doctors do not associate with it. Dr. Garth began several years ago, but his book was still on a plant based diet (and released prior to doing so). It's still not about a philosophical concept.

6. "The modification of quotes from Garth Davis is a bit more troubling." I would disagree, I snipped quotes that were responding to the Layne snippets in the Wiki article. The current snippet makes no sense: "Layne throws out accusations of cherry picking and bias, and yet exhibits unbelievable bias and cherry picking. His critique of the movie is more a critique of veganism.". It's just baseless. It can be summed up to, "No you...". Is that the best snippet that can be used as a response to every snippet by Layne? There are far better responses in Dr. Garths article. For example in the wiki article: "Norton attacked the documentary's claims that "meat and dairy industry secretly fund all the studies that demonstrate any benefits to animal products" as a factually incorrect conspiracy theory.", then Dr. Garth pointed that out, that Layne references nearly all industry funded studies, proving the exact point he just critiqued and that he was funded by such industries to create such studies. It is the perfect snippet as a response. It proves Layne was unable to find non industry funded studies to prove his point, Dr. Garth referenced a study "industry funded research is around 8 times more likely to have favorable results". Seemed to be a perfect response to me.

7. "Character assassination of this sort is not addressing the actual points that Layne brought up". Wiki article: "Layne Norton, (deleted some intro) identified what he said were flawed arguments made against the consumption of meat and dairy in favor of pro-vegan interests promoted by the sellers of vegan products"? The quote from Garth responded to that, as listed above in 6. And how is that Layne snippet not WP:REDFLAG? Layne snippet = they sell vegan products and invested in plant companies = not red flag. Mentioning Layne funded by AG and references AG funded research = red flag. Plus most of them only sell books. Layne sells like 10 books that include prioritizing animal protein, industries he was funded and trained by.

My J/C: We're "disputing information" but at the end of the day, my criticism make little difference. Because you still pretty much do whatever you want. You'll find a way to be able to justify it, while I get banned if I disagree and take action. The Joe Schwarcz article should clearly not be referenced. They're baseless claims being introduced as fact. If it were critiques of the anecdotes and 3 person experiments, I would have absolutely no issue. They're not science. It's an objective critique. But when he says "no, that's not true" (but I won't prove why) to the referenced science I take complete issue with it. So how can I get that changed? Of course none of your friends here are going to ever side with me, no matter if I make sense or not. So the consensus is automatically against me. My concern is basically white noise.

There is harsh criticism for the critiques of the critiques, but why not for the critiques of the documentary? RBut (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. contains no references Whether a source has references or not is not really of concern to us. What is concern is what the source is and what editorial control there is. Debunking is often done under self-publishing and that is no different here. If you don't like sources that are primary in this fashion, we could remove all of them... but that is not typically done with films.

2. Loomis directly discusses the ideas in the Men's Health piece that were what he had mentioned in the film. It's not a vague unease... it's a direct riposte.

3. Mens Health still made a lot of critiques, which Loomis critiqued back point by point. Somewhat... but mostly it was focused on issues and topics he was most interested in.

4. Dr. James Loomis, featured in the film We shouldn't use "Dr." I think we agree we need to mention he was in the film.

5: I think we're okay on this right now, no?

6. It can be summed up to, "No you...". Is that the best snippet that can be used as a response to every snippet by Layne? I believe so. The rest of the argument is way in the weeds. This at least summarizes the main argument Davis has and points out the main summary of his work. proving the exact point he just critiqued but that's not true and, in fact, Norton mentions this explicitly. His critique is that the conflicted nature of the studies is not identified in the film and that it is identified in scientific papers. It proves Layne was unable to find non industry funded studies to prove his point if that's the rationale, it's fallacious. There was never any claim that one should be able to find such "non industry funded studies".

7. Layne snippet they sell vegan products and invested in plant companies. The point is that the film did not divulge this, not that the funding happened. Mentioning Layne funded by AG and references AG funded research But Norton did mention this.

jps (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes for 5, it was a justification. Vegan and plant based are not the same thing. A plant based book is a book on diet. A vegan book is a book on philosophy.

For 6, while Layne mentioned he had been funded, he did not mention majority of the studies he referenced were funded by the industry as well. in wiki article Layne said: "Norton attacked the documentary's claims that "meat and dairy industry secretly fund all the studies that demonstrate any benefits to animal products" as a factually incorrect conspiracy theory.", Garths response fits in well because it further proves the notion and is a direct response: "most of the articles he cites in his review are industry funded." RBut (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

6. Norton did obliquely in the sense that he identifies that the studies have the conflict notices up front... he just says that they're upfront about it. The conspiracy theory is that this is a "secret". At least that's how I read it. jps (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think about this quote: "Layne totally misrepresents the movie, cherry picks articles, misrepresents articles, and basically put together a story line that sounds credible to the lay person ear but truly misrepresents the movie and the science presented in the movie." This provides more substance. The current quote, "no you" is lacking a little as a critique. RBut (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The quote is mostly fine, but one issue I have is the use of adverbs. I'm cognizant of the fact that I am not Davis's editor, but one principle at WP is to avoid unneccessary editorializing. I wish we could remove those adverbs as it is so much less jarring to read "misrepresents the movie, cherry picks articles, misrepresents articles, and... put together a story line that sounds credible to the lay person ear but... misrepresents the movie and the science presented in the movie." That makes me uncomfortable, however, because it changes the tenor of Davis's jeremiad. Maybe paraphrasing could work? jps (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing "totally", "basically", "truly" wouldn't really affect the quote, so it's not a big deal if you wish to do so - though that last one "truly" might be useful as a descriptive. RBut (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That's my opinion too, but I'm still uncomfortable as it isn't really capturing the tone of Davis, in my estimation. I note also that "misrepresents the movie" is used twice. What about including the quote already in the article and then adding, "[Norton] put together a story line that sounds credible to the lay person ear but truly misrepresents the movie and the science presented in the movie." That seems like a good way of approaching this, perhaps. jps (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

And this reference? https://www.totallyveganbuzz.com/news/the-game-changers-filmmakers-defend-criticisms/ (Wilks defended a few critiques himself). I'm not saying quote the study, but maybe it could be added with the others in the intro. RBut (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked at this reference, but it just seems like a rehash of the opinions of the filmmaker and I don't see much more defense offered here than in the other rejoinders we already reference. Help me out, what do you think this source does well that other sources do not do? jps (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference is not important, but James Wilks just answered a few critiques himself. Do you know of the click through rate for sources compared to the amount of clicks on the wiki article? I would imagine the amount of people that further click on the sources is tiny. RBut (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I know you have no respect for the podcast, and even though some of the critiques were nonsense (e.g. b12 is not given to animals, I mean to dispute such a fact is nonsensical), James did address critiques that are provided by articles even though Chris Kresser presented them. One of the big ones was protein. Is referencing a youtube clips a no go? because a snippet of the debate when it came to the protein section could be referenced. Kresser presents the exact critiques from the articles (the total protein comparison of some common plantstuffs to eggs, beef was wrong, lysine, non complete amino acid profile, and bioavailability): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyGP5hCtBQ&t and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGXOrDxbX_w RBut (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what clickthrough rates to sources are. Presumably there is someone who can get that info through WMFLabs, for example.... I would prefer not to get into the weeds of a lot of this. We already link to the podcasts themselves so does that suffice? jps (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe it could have a section at the very bottom covering this section of the podcast since it would be covering mainstream media/view which I have been told is the goal of wiki articles. RBut (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (June 2021)

User:RBut is at least WP:SPA and may be conflicted. jps (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

More accusations. No member of the Game Changers team would waste their team on a Wiki site that they did not touch for years... Basic logic. I have no COI... RBut (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why you came to this website calling yourself "RBut" with the expressed intention of rebutting Layne Norton? And why you contribute to no other areas at all? jps (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page: "Or maybe I watched the documentary and read the Game Changers wiki page and saw that is was riddled with heavily flawed debunks some of which have had responses to which I added and quickly found out were being removed due to a heavy bias and POV in some editors. Actually, the budget of animal agriculture for marketing just in the US is in the billions per year, maybe you fall under the same criticism?" And now suddenly I must edit tons of articles before I can be considered a non COI... What is this logic? RBut (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Tons?! No. One additional article would be a nice gesture of good faith. In fact, there is only one article you cannot edit in article space right now. jps (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The administrator blocked me from editing because you asked first and determined your claim is credible without any analysis. Not because they evaluated anything. And what if I think the other articles which I have knowledge on are well done? what then? so I change a word here and there just so I can claim I have no COI which makes no logical sense? RBut (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect RBut, I don't think COI or SPA are really the issue. I can't say if you have a technical COI. I do know that you come at the topic from a strong position of advocacy, which is okay, but is something of which you must be cognizant. Again, I say, there are many true things which are nevertheless improper for inclusion on Wikipedia. It does feel more like you are trying to write a persuasive paper or article rather than something with an encyclopedic tone. I think you marshal your evidence well--just not for a Wikipedia entry. I hope that makes some sense. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do have a position. I do not believe this wiki article is currently represented accurately. Obviously there are more articles anti Game Changers, which is accurate, I would never dispute that. But nearly everything in the article is anti Game Changers, which I do dispute. This is not reality. The documentary included some major names, we are talking president of the American College of Cardiology and chair of nutrition at Harvard. Has been accredited by some major organizations and endorsed by several. In general plant based diets are supported by major organizations. This is my opinion is evidence that documentary could have a few sentences in defense of it, no? RBut (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If the coverage of something is largely negative, then the Wikipedia article should be as well. Again, Wikipedia is not after 'truth,' but rather an accurate canvassing of reliable sources. As I keep saying, I really don't have much of an issue with your substantive arguments. I tend to agree with most of them. But remember: NPOV doesn't mean some sort of philosophical balance, it means an accurate representation of how 'mainstream' (for lack of a better term) sources see the issue. I do think you have valuable contributions to make. But you need to realize that you're fighting an uphill battle, and in some ways, in the wrong venue. What it seems you're really after would require a bit of a sea change in the reliable sources. While I know that sounds impossible, it can happen over time. And I would recommend perhaps taking a look at a few other articles that might interest you. This is not because you have to, but because it can help to put things (like Wikipedia's strange policies) in perspective. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, noted. RBut (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In general plant based diets are supported by major organizations. I honestly wish you wouldn't indulge in the "but some of it is true" fallacy, i.e. citing uncontroversial health studies about the benefits of plant based eating in general, as if they totally support the film's premise that eating any animal products — including meat, fish, eggs, and dairy — can hinder athletic performance, wreak havoc on your heart, impair sexual function, and lead to an early death. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point. It is somewhat interesting to me that the more hyperbolic claims which are dispatched by many of our reliable sources are not the ones defended by the rejoinders written by Loomis and Davis. Instead, there are intense discussions of what gladiators were like and whether nutrition programs win industry-funded grants. jps (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but that is a misrepresentation of the documentary. They promote a predominantly pbd, not a solely pbd. One of their mottos is that the more plants the better, and any change is better than none. They featured Nate Diaz that consumes eggs, fish and etc in the doc and mostly only goes on a pbd when in training camps. While Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the same boat. He consumed a predominantly pbd, which is what the doc promotes. In many articles they say it is not expected for anyone to go fully plant based, but only that changes in a plant based direction follow. RBut (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not concerned what the filmmakers say in articles after the film's release. I am quoting reviewers comments regarding what is in the film. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Check above, they featured people that were predominantly pbd which is what they support and argue for: https://gamechangersmovie.com/food/core-principles/ (scroll down to "all or something")RBut (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

[16], [17], etc. The hyperbolic claims that were actually made in the film are well documented by reviewers. Reviewers review the film, they don't review what filmmakers post on their website after the film's release. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem willing to impugn motives on others very quickly. How can you possibly know what the admin did or did not do? You have been doing the same thing to me. The goal here is to work together, WP:Write for the enemy, etc... not fight each other at every possible moment. jps (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You asked the admin and I got blocked for 24 hours without a reason provided. Which means the administrator considered your claim credible on some level but did not have the confidence that it is the absolute truth (if it were assessed and considered true it would have caused a permanent ban, not a 24 hour ban). So to me that made it evident. I do not want it to be evidence that I were banned due to the claim being accurate, as that would be a smear campaign since it is has not been confirmed. RBut (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

if it were assessed and considered true it would have caused a permanent ban, not a 24 hour ban. No, that's not what this 24-hour block indicates. The first block of a user is always preferred to be short per WP:BLOCK policy guidelines. jps (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@RBut, the p-block (partial block, only preventing you from editing this one article) and my revert had nothing to do with what I believed was the truth. The block is for disruptive editing, the revert was for Sure, but it can stay up while we debate as there is no POV. In the edit summary to the revert, I said "That is not how this works." The Wikipedia:ONUS is on the editor seeking to add content. We do not leave disputed information in articles while we discuss. We discuss, then when we gain consensus, we add information.

Administrators don't deal with content. We deal with behavior. You were partially blocked (from editing this article) for your behavior. It was a very short, very limited block. It's intended to get your attention and encourage you to learn our policies, as continuing to edit disruptively will result in longer and more comprehensive blocks.

As JPS says, blocks aren't used to punish someone for inserting bad information. Blocks are used for preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. Edit-warring is disruptive. It's the job of editors at each article to decide what goes into that article, not administrators. I barely am aware what this article is about. Haven't read it. —valereee (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow the money

The argument between Norton and Davis over funding may deserve a bit more fleshing out. Norton writes:

Now I have no issues with people having conflicts of interests or bias. I have my own biases and I make money in the fitness industry. The difference here is that I am honest about my biases and COIs. There was absolutely no disclosure of the conflicts of interest in this film. We talk about this more in depth later when they criticize the meat and dairy industry for their funding of research, more on that later. With all of that out of the way, let’s get to the main claims of the film.

Davis takes him to task for this nonetheless. I don't think that's entirely fair since the complaint is exactly with non-disclosure. On the other hand, Davis's discussion of this is more or less of the "there is no Big Kale" sort with the implication that there is "Big Ag". Ugh. It's kinda just weird mudslinging.

My inclination is to include a mention about Norton describing the difference in disclosure between scientific papers and the film. I think that should do it, but want to see what others think.

jps (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

For discussion of the filmmakers COI issues, a sports journalist would make a much better and more straightforward source than trying to parse arguments between bloggers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Even more suitable, a critique published in the professional journal of the Hungarian Dietetic Association (MDOSZ). - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me! jps (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Accreditation in the lead

From WP:SUMMARY: Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article.

In the section "levels of detail" in the article it states: "Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section)."

I would argue that the accreditation by several agencies is one of the most important points for the documentary. And it is a short paragraph so it fits in well in the lead.

As for the requirement of a 3rd party source, I do not see how it would improve the situation. There are many sources that mention this, that the film has been accredited. But I would consider the agencies their selves a sufficient source. RBut (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, RBut, you are bypassing the requirement of WP:NOTABILITY. If a movie gets accredited, but nobody notices, we really don't care all that much. I don't see this as belonging in the lead as things currently stand. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ETA--sorry for my sloppiness. The wikilink above is misplaced. But the overall point still stands: we would want to see some kind of coverage of these things, especially if they're important enough for the lead. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is a wiki page about the documentary. The accreditation is the opening shot. And as you mentioned this WP is a little misplaced but even so, from my analysis, WP:NOTABILITY moreso supports my point: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article."

and "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

Well, this already is a separate article with many independent sources. I would also consider ACLM and the DHA reliable sources.

"Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."

Right?

and "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list," RBut (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Right; you've pinpointed why I spoke too quickly. But again, you have to remember that we're reflecting what is in the reliable sources about the documentary. The accreditations you mention don't seem to have garnered much attention, and therefore don't deserve a whole lot of attention in our article--to me, certainly not the lead. But reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe there are sufficient sources. Plus just because many of the critics ignored it doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated as an important point for the documentary.

https://www.alive.com/fitness/what-the-game-changers-changed/

"The film has also been accredited or supported by the Defense Health Agency and the Special Operations Medical Association, two organizations Wilks says are not persuaded by “fairy tales,” but by optimal performance in combat and reducing military health-care costs."

https://plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/doctors-game-changers-dvd/

“The film’s been accredited by the American College Of Lifestyle Medicine,” said Wilks

https://www.totallyveganbuzz.com/news/doctors-plan-to-show-patients-vegan-documentary-the-game-changers/

"In a video interview, Wilks said: “The film’s been accredited by the American College Of Lifestyle Medicine."

https://nutritionstudies.org/documentary-the-game-changers-makes-compelling-case-for-plant-based-nutrition-for-athletes/

"The film has been accredited by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, which means doctors and nurses in the United States can get credits by watching the film and taking a quiz about it. And according to the filmmakers, doctors have been asking for DVDs and Blu-rays to hand out to their patients."

https://www.ryanandalex.com/game-changers-film/

"Some of the data is light, but the film has been endorsed by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Special Operations Medical Association (SOMA), the Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Green Sports Alliance."

https://mediaimpactfunders.org/the-game-changers-planting-the-seeds-of-veganism-one-meat-eating-dude-at-a-time/

"The Game Changers has already been recognized by several health organizations as an outstanding resource. For example, the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) — whose 3000-plus professional medical members care for more than 10 million patients in the U.S. alone— approved the film as an accredited education resource, allowing every doctor, nurse and dietitian in the United States to fulfill ongoing professional education requirements by viewing the film and passing a related test."

While this is a questionable source, it is part of the conversation: https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-watch-the-vegan-documentary-The-Game-Changers

Beth Love: "It has been accredited by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine"

Even BioLayne himself has mentioned it: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-debate-james-wilks-vs-chris-kresser-on-the-joe-rogan-experience/

“The film has been accredited by the defense health agency!”

Again, while a questionable source, it is part of the conversation: https://podcastnotes.org/joe-rogan-experience/joe-rogan-chris-kresser-james-wilks-the-game-changers-vegan/

"The Game Changers is the first documentary that’s ever been accredited by the defense health agency of the Department of Defense"

Plus I can list many YT videos to support this point more. YT is part of media and the conversation as well. RBut (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There are more sources BTW, I just don't know how many you need me to list: https://www.nutritionalphysicaltherapy.com/blog/gamechangers

"The movie has been currently endorsed by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Special Operations Medical Association (SOMA), the Defense Health Agency (DHA), and the Green Sports Alliance." RBut (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Another topic: "Dumuzid talk contribs‎ 15,381 bytes −29‎ Undid revision 1030486257 by RBut (talk) the program is accredited; we don't quite know what it means that the film is included. A little humility is a good thing." (aka removed the "accreditted by the ACLM and DHA" part of the quote).

Sorry but I do not get this argument. The documentary itself is accreditted. To earn CME credits you watch the documentary and then are challenged with a quiz. How are you seperating this from the documentary and concluding that the documentary is not accredtted? RBut (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an obsessional argument from authority. We already have the Defense Health Agency and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine mentioned on the article. You linked to the Game Changers website earlier which says "the film’s scientific credibility has resulted in recognition from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and the Defense Health Agency, as well as an endorsement from the Special Operations Medical Association" [18]. Notice the word "recognition", which is not the same as "endorsement". The only endorsement is from the Special Operations Medical Association but we have no other reliable sources that verify this. There is no coverage of this from reliable sources so it does not need to be mentioned in the lead - it is of minor importance due to the lack of coverage. Also all those links you put in above are unreliable for the Wikipedia article but thanks for citing them it was an interesting read. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think what Dumuzid was getting at is the issue of due and undue weight, relative to the amount of coverage by independent sources, i.e. sources not simply repeating PR blurbs. BTW, awarding students credit for watching a film as part of their classwork does not mean the institution vouches for "the film’s scientific credibility". Also I think the sentence "Doctors of physical therapy Sean M. Wells and Anik Lauzon argued that more professional societies should similarly endorse the film" was an incredibly generous concession by jps, seeing as how the sole source that has seen fit to publish this is a website selling nutritional courses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There are two arguments I'm making. One I'm arguing for accreditation not endorsement. Which it clearly is. It's accredited by several agencies that their selves have claimed so, e.g. on DHA and ACLM sites: From the DHA: "This continuing education activity is managed and accredited by the Defense Health Agency J-7 Continuing Education Program Office". The con argument is that you can gain CME credits for watching the doc and completing a quiz but somehow the science in the movie is not accredited. This argument makes no logical sense. You would not gain CME credits for non science... Two, I'm arguing to move that line from the reception to the lead. It was said there are not enough sources covering the accreditation of the doc, but if you look above I believe it was proved wrong. Relative to the coverage the documentary achieved there are sufficient sources to justify moving the accreditation to the lead.

Is no one willing to concede.... RBut (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your last question, I have to say it strikes me as deeply ironic. It often behooves the lone voice arguing against multiple other people to consider conceding. And no, inclusion in a program does not necessarily mean a blanket endorsement. Such programs will often have "watch and discuss" content. All we can fairly deduce is that the decision makers deemed the movie worth watching. Cheers, and have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This continuing education activity is managed and accredited by the Defense Health Agency J-7 Continuing Education Program Office". This means the DHACEP accredits the student credit for film and quiz activity. It’s not an accolade for the film. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I believe I have a point. I do not understand why accreditation of the documentary makes you that upset. I am not arguing for endorsement, but accreditation. And this program has a watch and quiz, not watch and discuss. So medical professionals are quizzed on a documentary for continuing medical education credits that has not been accredited?

The quote says the activity (documentary + quiz) has been accredited by the DHA. I legitimately do not understand your argument. It's saying that you can watch the documentary and pass a quiz to gain CME credits on something that has not been accredited. RBut (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that giving CME for watching films seems to be pretty standard for a lot of different groups. After all, essentially every licensed (and many unlicensed) professional needs to complete professional development hours for maintaining good standing and so a lot of these groups have to cast a wide net to give their members enough chances to complete their requirements. This is why 3rd party recognition is so important.

Also, for issues relating to notability and prominence, I wrote an essay many years ago to help out: WP:Notability vs. prominence. In wikispeak, "notability" is the term we use when we are asking about for article topics. "Prominence" or "weight" is the term we use when asking about what content to include in the article. It is not clear to me that the accreditation of the film by various agencies is prominent enough in our sources to warrant inclusion in the lede. I think there are enough 3rd party sources (of middling quality, however) to make it reasonable to talk about it in the body, but it is simply not a major aspect of this film yet.

jps (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the determining factor that does not give it enough weight? From my analysis it is mostly the critics that ignored the point, while regular reporting did not. Is the weight determined by critics? RBut (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The determining factor is the lack of reliable sources that mention it. There is no in depth coverage about it either. If it was mentioned in many references then we would cite it in the lead but it is not an important factor regarding the documentary itself. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

They're all low quality, including the ones currently in the lead. Pretty sure that is the consensus even. Since that cannot be used as a determining factor in this article (as it affects all sources), I believe there are sufficient sources to justify moving it to the lead. However if you consider the critics, then I would agree that relatively few mention it. I would still argue that it is an important factor for the documentary, and that it does not really make sense for it to be in the receptions section and that it could be moved there without compromising the article. RBut (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the main points in the article. Right now there is barely two sentences about this. Meanwhile, we summarize the voluminous reactions to the film including debunkings and two replies. As I intimated above, if there were more notice of these CMEs, then we could start out with a paragraph or two about them perhaps leading to a section. But we just don't have good notice of this. I'm fine mentioning it in the article as it is now, but I am opposed to expanding it or promoting it to the lede. Sorry. WP:PROMINENCE seems clear to me on this one right now unless new sources are forthcoming. jps (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, can I revert it to the line that mentions it was accreditated by those agencies without moving it to the intro? RBut (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What verbiage are you proposing? jps (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I changed the words themselves to better reflect our sources. According to their website DHA no longer gives CME for viewing the film (it was a special event -- a prescreening, I believe). ACLM only gives credit through Dec. 2022, so I put an asof template in. jps (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I would only ask why is the amount of credits mentioned, and the activity required to earn credits (watch the documentary and quiz). Why not keep it simple and say it has been accredited by the ACLM? RBut (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Accreditation can mean a lot of things. In the context of our article it simply means that there has been a certain number of credits offered for either watching a film in a seminar-type environment (as in the DHA CME) or, for example, also taking a quiz (as in the ACLM CME). We could make it a bit more succinct. The reader probably doesn't need to know the number of credits since that is likely only interesting to the people who actually participate in CME work. However, I don't think we can just say "was accredited" unadorned as it is too ambiguous and liable to cause confusion. We need wording that explains that watching the film/taking a quiz based on the film is accredited to receive CME credits. I think we need to go that far, but that's probably as far as we should go. jps (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The article just explained what accreditation is, versus point to any sort of spectrum of interpretations (that it can mean many things): "Accreditation is evaluation against recognised standards" (with oversight by an authoritative body). I don't think "accredited" causes confusion. If you told me the documentary was accredited I wouldn't think "what does that mean?", I would think the science presented in the documentary has been evaluated by the listed agencies and considered valid.

This is another reason why I cannot support "favorable" because to the positions they have taken there are no unfavorable studies that contradict the claims made. For example the "gladiators were predominantly vegetarian" have no studies claiming the complete opposite (which would create a contradiction). At best critics can argue that it wasn't by choice, they were poor and etc (still not a contradiction). Or postprandial lipemia causing endothelial dysfunction, this is an accepted scientific fact. Yeah, you can find the leanest of meats that do not cause endothelial dysfunction, which further proves the point rather than creating a contradiction. Endothelial dysfunction couldn't happen in this circumstance because postprandial lipemia could not be induced as the required macronutrient is not present. At best you can find studies on chicken that conclude "chicken does not or reduces cancer risk", but then if you look at the design you will see that they did not control for red meat or total meat intake. So it becomes a question of, "compared to what?". You could claim smoking reduces cancer risk (if you compare filtered cigarettes to non filtered cigarettes). So in those studies if they do not control for red meat intake or total meat intake, chicken becomes a marker of replacing your red meat intake with less carcinogenic meats. While if they did a control for total meat intake, then chicken intake could be compared to plant sources of protein (there are such studies), which again would show "chicken increases risk of cancer (compared to plant sources of protein)". So sure, you could argue that is techinally a contradiction, but not if you use any sort of analysis. But of course I am aware none of this is going to change anyone's mind.

I'll concede. And you're against a short summary of the JRE podcast debate? JRE gets more attention than all the sources in the intro combined. RBut (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your efforts in being less POV. RBut (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you told me the documentary was accredited I wouldn't think "what does that mean?", I would think the science presented in the documentary has been evaluated by the listed agencies and considered valid. I think you proved my point here. When I examined the sources, the only ones who declared that this was the case were the ones promoting the film. The actual organizations offering the credit said nothing about "evaluating" the "science", in fact. What our current wording indicates is what I see as the most neutral explanation available. Until we have a spokesperson from DHA or ACLM saying that they offer the CME because they "evaluated the science", we should not be including wording that claims this is the case either implicitly or explicitly. Our current wording is clear as to what we actually know accreditation means to those groups. That's as far as I think we need to go.

In terms of the JRE podcast, if you can find some high-minded journalism that discusses the debate, we could expand a bit. Right now, I don't see much in the way of third-party sources.

jps (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's common sense to infer that an accredited activity you know, has been accredited. Your argument is saying that you can earn CME credits for non science which I cannot rationalize. What do you think the documentary + quiz being accredited means? that the science was not evaluated?

There is an article from Biolayne, there is an article from Garth. If Biolayne and Garth went on JRE we would require "high minded jounralism" that discusses the debate before we can list out some key points? what are these nonsensical rules?... RBut (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's common sense to infer that an accredited activity you know, has been accredited. Your argument is saying that you can earn CME credits for non science which I cannot rationalize. Well before I was ever active at this article, I spent some time with what various agencies have offered for CME in the past, and I can assure you that the vetting is not done solely on the basis of "based on science". You can even read about some of the issues at the continuing medical education article at this site.

We already lean rather heavily on Norton and Davis for their work with the film. Since this is not an article about the JRE podcast, I am hesitant to use them as a further case for increasing the WP:PROMINENCE of the podcast relative to our article. After all, there is a bit of personalization that went on that is rather removed from the film itself in those sources. The non-sensical rules you're referring to are really just the ones we've been harping on all along. WP:PSTS is probably the most succinct way to put it. JRE podcast is fraught and subject to such problems as WP:SOAP and WP:FANCRUFT. To avoid this sort of thing, we prefer sources that can discuss the podcast in a way that contextualizes it decently for us. Right now we have the Norton-Davis fight and that's about it which is a rather secondary discussion to the subject of our article.

jps (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The COI issues that were brought up in the wiki article were from pharmaceutical companies. They are in the multiples of billion dollar businesses. To say Game Changers has that kind of influence over accreditation is unrealistic. The agencies that were listed to have approved the activity for CME credits would have to be incluenced by the Game Changers team. Do you legitimately believe they have that kind of influence? to influence "The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences" and "Educational Review Systems" and "The GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences" and "The National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching"? If you told me it were Johnson and Johnson I would not doubt that they had that sort of reach, but the Game Changers?

There is nothing that is marketed in the Game Changers compared to what the CME critique in the wiki article is about. The critique of pharma companies biasing CMEs is to promote their products. How does this critique apply to the Game Changers? They promoted not a single product.

Even if a spokesperson from the ACLM said the film was accredited I believe you would still find an excuse to not say so in the wiki article. Because it already says this in the ACLM article. Yet it's still being displayed in a very technical tone and does not even mention the word accreditation when it gets to the ACLM. RBut (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You are falling back into trying to argue about what is or is not plausible when the point is we don't have the sources that make the conclusions you think are obvious. We have sources that indicate that two groups give CMEs for activities related to the film. That's all we've got. jps (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And you are saying an activity that grants CME credits is not accredited... how is that possible? RBut (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said, Accreditation can mean a lot of things. In the context of our article it simply means that there has been a certain number of credits offered.... jps (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from in the article? according to the article "Accreditation is evaluation against recognised standards" (with oversight by an authoritative body). It doesn't state that it can mean a lot of things. It states that it can only mean one thing. An evaluation agaisnt recognized standards with oversight by an authoritative body.

You're against saying the documentary has been accredited by the ACLM, but how is offering CME credits for the documentary not accreditation? RBut (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, you still really need to review WP:SYNTH. There is a good reason for this policy--logical leaps can lead to poor results. One can imagine a continuing education program offering credits on a "watch and critique" basis. I am NOT saying that's what's happening here, but that sort of possibility is why we generally need a third party to tell us anything beyond "these credits are offered." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's straight forward and that there is no jump in logic, or infering what it is and isn't. If it were a critique it would be listed as such, versus a quiz. Consider the other example, The White Tiger, it said to gain CME you would watch this and a psychoanalysis would ensue. The methodology to gain the CME were listed. Just as it is in our case:

Learning Objectives

Compare protein requirements and intakes, and review the scientific consensus to evaluate protein quantity and quality.

Identify dietary constituents and patterns that affect blood flow and inflammatory markers; apply findings to both athletic performance and health.

Contrast the effects of well-known dietary compounds and eating styles on morbidity and mortality risk.

valuate the effects of nutrition on the endocrine system.

Details

Video and Online Quiz Questions RBut (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it seems you are creating a jump in logic by infering that to gain the CME there could be some unlisted process and that we don't really know how it is you gain the CME from the film. RBut (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I must have missed it; where in your text does it say "we officially endorse everything in this movie"? Dumuzid (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

We are on the topic of accreditation. RBut (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Where does your source say "we accredit this movie"? Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

To earn CME credits accreditation of the material is a requirement. RBut (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay; where does your source say that? Dumuzid (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In the accreditation section:

The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences designates this enduring material for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s) ™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Educational Review Systems is an approved approver of continuing nursing education by the Alabama State Nursing Association, an accredited approver by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation. Provider # 5-115. This program is approved for 1.5 hours of continuing nursing education.

Educational Review Systems is also approved for nursing continuing education by the state of California, the state of Florida and the District of Columbia.

The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) as a Provider of pharmacy education.

This knowledge-based course is approved for 1.5 CE hours for pharmacists. CE credits will be transmitted electronically to NABP within 30 days.

The GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences is a Continuing Professional Education (CPE) Accredited Provider with the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR). CDR Credentialed Practitioners will receive Continuing Professional Education Units (CPEUs) for completion of these activities/materials.

The National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching (NBHWC) has approved this enduring material for 1.5 continuing education credits for NBC-HWCs. RBut (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It says the program is accredited. It says the movie is "approved" unless I am missing something? Dumuzid (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The program is the film + quiz. In the objective it states what you will learn, which is the science presented in the film, and then you complete a quiz to determine whether you watched it or learned anything. The reward of 1.5 credits is a reference to the 1.5 hours of learning material in the film. RBut (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The linked WP article is offering you some examples of the vast and varied way the word "accreditation" is used. In the context of this article and in the sources we use from the institutions offering CME, their use of the word "accreditation" means "offering CME credits". jps (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you quote the article where it offers the other examples of how accreditation differs? How does this not allow for the Game Changers wiki article to claim the documentary has been accredited by the ACLM? RBut (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Until you can show me a source that says the film is "accredited," I will oppose any change along these lines. If you can convince enough others to gain consensus, then so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The content has to be accredited to offer CME. Your argument makes no sense. RBut (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's essentially saying it is not enough to be accredited. RBut (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia relies on sources and not synthesis by editors. It's so we don't have to get into an argument about the possible range of meanings of "accreditation." My argument is simple: you can't support your proposed change. Therefore I oppose it. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why I provided a source (ACLM site). And my argument is simple too. The documentary has been accreditted, it should be allowed to be stated. The DHA article said it was accredited by the DHA, the ACLM article (in the accreditation section) shows it has been accreditted and authorized by 4 or 5 agencies. RBut (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The ACLM site lists several accredited institutions, but nowhere does it say the movie is "accredited." Dumuzid (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Accredited institutions that authorized the material for CME. Aka, the material is accredited. RBut (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And there's the logical and lexical leap that I'm talking about. Hard no. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. There is no leap. CME credits are not granted for unaccredited material. Your argument is saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is a leap. 2 + 2 cannot infer 4? RBut (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Words are not integers. Words are susceptible to more than one meaning. Phrases cannot be proven like mathematical propositions. This is why we require sticking closely to our sources. If you and I differ on the range of meanings we ascribe to either "2" or "4," then indeed, 2+2 might not equal 4 for one of us. Stick to sources. Dumuzid (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about words, but CME credits. Your argument is that you can earn CME credits on material that has not been accredited. RBut (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

We are very much talking about words, like the word "accredited," which I would never personally use in the way you describe. It doesn't work like that in my idiolect. Again, this is why we stick to the sources. If you want to say "authorized for credit by...." that's fine. I still don't think it belongs in the lead, but that is at least true to the source. Dumuzid (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Ty for addressing my concerns everyone. RBut (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

ACLM addendum

The activity was authorized by 5 accredited institutions until Dec 1, 2022.

I'm not even sure what this statement is supposed to mean. This actually probably downplays the CME situation here as any certification that accepts ACLM CME would accept this activity. Again, the word "accredited" here is ambiguous. Just about the only thing that is properly sourced is the listed end-date for the CME award, but I don't think we need to say that.

jps (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Intro critique

This is a critique, no?:

"with several accusing the film of promoting misinformation and pseudoscience.[4][5][6][7]"

The rebuttal:

"doctors that support pbd defended the film"

There's no explanation there. RBut (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I like LuckLouie's edit. jps (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"have supported predominantly plant based diets in general.["

They currently do. If you look at the sources they are recent.

And I would argue it is a good idea to inform people that a lot of the cited research that disagrees is industry funded. RBut (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if the lead could somehow indicate that the critiques are targeted to the films extraordinary claims, i.e. stronger erections, superior athletic performance based on a tiny sample, and meat=death. I don't think any of the critics oppose plant based eating in general or the WHO's dietary advice. But perhaps this would be way too much detail for the lead summary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends which critiquers you are refering to. Some of them say animal products have no risk at all while claiming film is pseudoscience and bias. Tertiary sources disagree.

"a number of public health organizations support predominantly plant based diets in general."

What is the purpose of the "in general"? predominantly plant based means mostly plant based. Right now it's saying they support mostly plant based in general. RBut (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And if "arguing that a number of public health organizations support predominantly plant based diets in general." were changed to "arguing that some sections of the critiques rely on industry commisioned reports and that a number of public health organizations support predominantly plant based diets in general." Or maybe section could to be changed to a portion, or some? RBut (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Plus international is a good definer, as domestic organizations do not always operate purely on science due to financial interests, particularly countries with strong agricultural sectors. RBut (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

that some sections of the critiques rely on industry commissioned reports since we don't discuss the undisclosed funding of the film in the lede, we should not discuss the funding of reports that critiques are relied upon.

and that a number of international public health organizations the international nature of these organizations is not attested to as a point of emphasis in the sources. By emphasizing that in the lede we are running afoul of WP:SUMMARY at least.

Thus reverted.

jps (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, do you know who funded the film? I have not found this information.

The source does talk about the FAO and WHO, which are internationl organizations. International is an objective term and summary, versus "public health organization". The term should be included as it has a purpose. RBut (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Im fine with adding “international”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit of a semantics dispute, but I am not so sure that public health organizations are endorsing plant-based diets (as of 2021), they may do one day but that is not happening now. A plant-based diet is a diet that is built around mostly plants, by "mostly" we mean 80% or more of the diet. This is why famous people on a plant-based diet like Luke Hines have done an 80/20 approach [19]. Most people on a plant-based diet will eat about 80% or 90% plants - a diet 65% or 70% plants is not plant-based it might be considered semi-vegetarian. If I can remember correctly Mark Hyman put his "pegan diet" at 75% plants and he has rejected the term "plant-based" because he also advocates a lot of animal source foods so even a diet 75% of plants in the total diet will not be considered "plant-based".

These might sound like stupid figures but plant-based really does need to be 80% or more of the diet, a good majority. The public health organizations are not recommending 80% plant based diets or more. They seem to be recommending something close to a semi-vegetarian diet. By this they often refer to the Mediterranean diet which is not plant-based but could be made that way. These health organizations are definitely telling people to eat more grains, legumes and vegetables but they are also telling people to consume white meat, fish 2 or 3 times a week, eggs 6 to 7 times a week and low-fat dairy everyday whilst cutting back on junk food, processed meats and red meat. This is basically very close to the Mediterranean diet. The categories and terminology all gets a bit silly because we have "semi-vegetarianism" but that is not quite the same as plant-based but I agree with the statement that these organizations have supported the limiting of meat. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I wanted to specify which international organizations mentioned by the source, WHO and FAO. But they also definitely do not recommend eggs 6 - 7 times a week. Eggs cannot even be legally advertised as healthy, nutritious or safe. At least in the US. I've basically never seen eggs be promoted in nutritional guidelines. From the source:

The World Health Organization “a nutritious diet based on a variety of foods originating mainly from plants, rather than animals.”

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations “Households should select predominantly plant-based diets.” RBut (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like that first quote comes from the World Health Organization regional office for Europe [20]. Whilst that quote is accurate also look at points 6 and 7 - "Replace fatty meat and meat products with beans, legumes, lentils, fish, poultry or lean meat", "Use milk and dairy products (kefir, sour milk, yoghurt and cheese) that are low in both fat and salt". It is telling people to stay away from fatty meat and full-fat dairy but it is actually telling people to eat low-fat dairy and advising people to eat lean meat rather than fatty meat. This again is a classification issue but this would not fit the definition of a plant-based diet. It seems that vegan organizations like to quote-mine public health organizations on this subject, a list here [21] as supporting "veganism" but that is not quite accurate. Some of them have said a well-planned vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate but this is only a tiny part of what they have said, when you look at their guidelines and recommendations as a whole they are still telling people to eat animal foods in moderation, just avoiding and limiting the amount of red meat or full-fat dairy.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2020-2025) does not mention plant-based but it is telling people to eat more vegetables, grains and legumes and cut down on processed meats but not avoid all animal products [22] It does not mention veganism apart from "Women following a vegetarian or vegan dietary pattern should consult with a healthcare provider to determine whether supplementation of iron, vitamin B12, and/or other nutrients such as choline, zinc, iodine , or EPA/DHA is necessary and if so, the appropriate levels to meet their unique needs." Nor does it mention "plant-based". The guidelines repeat a quote that a nutrient dense diet should be based on "vegetables, fruits, whole grains, seafood, eggs, beans, peas, and lentils, unsalted nuts and seeds, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and lean meats and poultry." This is not plant based it is similar to a Mediterranean diet. They are not telling people not to consume dairy or eggs, search for "eggs" they are mentioned 57 times. They also are telling people to consume more seafood "seafood, a protein subgroup that can support intakes of beneficial fatty acids, is consumed at levels far below the lower end of the recommended intakes range".

As for this quote “Households should select predominantly plant-based diets", this is a dirty little quote-mine found on selected vegan websites we get less than a sentence but at least the Game Changers website actually sourced it [23]. The quote is from 2004 (!) and the reference is listed as "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization Vitamin and mineral requirements in human nutrition. Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements, FAO/WHO, Geneva, 2004", it is not possible to access this reference anywhere. It is not possible to verify if the quote is true or not but this is bad quote-mining it reminds me of the quote-mining that creationists do, see (Quoting out of context). Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is accessible, just open the pdf from the WHO site. Here is the full paragraph: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42716/9241546123.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

"Populations shouldconsume nutritionally adequate and varied diets, based primarily on foods ofplant origin with small amounts of added flesh foods. Households across allregions should select predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, pulses or legumes, and minimally processed starchystaple foods. The evidence that such diets will prevent or delay a significantproportion of noncommunicable chronic diseases is consistent. A predomi-nantly plant-based diet has a low energy density, which may protect againstobesity. This should not exclude small amounts of animal foods, which make an important nutritional contribution to plant-food-based diets, as illustrated in the examples presented earlier."

Plus I never said they promote plant exclusive diets. But most agencies/institutions want the majority of your diet to be plants. Simply look at the plates they recommend and what they consist of. Usually around 75% plants, whilst in Canada, they switched it to around 90 - 95% plants. To me the trend is obvious. It's only going to become more plant based.

Plus IDK why you would follow USDA guidelines. It's going to be more politics than science. The USDA itself is responsible for telling people what to eat, as well as increasing profits for their agricultural sector. This is one of the most illogical ideas I have ever heard in my life. RBut (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it was written in 1998 and last published in 2004. This is very old. On pages pp. 268-271 is a section on iron deficiency. They say what I told you elsewhere that vegans and vegetarians are deficient in iron because of phytates in grains and legumes. They are actually telling people to consume meat and fish to get more absorbed iron in the diet and they list a bunch of studies from the late 90s where this was done. Do you have a link to the 90 or 95% plants diet in Canada? I am not convinced that these health agencies or organizations are supporting plant-based. That word has many different meanings it appears. From what I have read a 70% or 75% diet based on plants is not enough to be plant-based. All these health organizations are still telling people to eat poultry, fish, eggs, low-fat dairy. This doesn't fit the criteria of "plant-based". As for USDA I do not follow their guidelines, I do not even live in their country I am just quoting what they recommend. It is not plant-based or vegan and neither are the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Here is the website for the World Health Organization updated in 2020, it says "WHO recommends that people eat a combination of different foods, including staple foods (e.g. cereals such as wheat, barley, rye, maize or rice, or starchy tubers or roots such as potato, yam, taro or cassava), legumes (e.g. lentils, beans), vegetables, fruit and foods from animals sources (e.g. meat, fish, eggs and milk). [24]. This is just a standard balanced omnivorous diet or what might be close to "semi-vegetarian". You cannot eat meat, fish, eggs and milk (all 4) on a "plant-based diet". In conclusion no health organization in the world is actually promoting plant-based diets but I agree they are shifting in that direction very slowly so it may be there in the future. They are telling people to eat more plants definitely but it is not at a plant-based position yet. The dairy, eggs and poultry is still being recommended by these organizations in higher amounts than any plant-based diet would tolerate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Which is why we can't have "health organizations support a predominantly plant-based diet" shoehorned into the lead without clarification. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it can be called a plant centered diet then. Centering your diet around plants. I do not want to reference sources, but simply look up "nutritional plate" and all of the organizations will pop up. The plate consists usually of 75% plants, and then 25% protein which can either be meats or plant sources. And depending on politics, dairy as a drink, or water. For example Harvard's plate does not recommend dairy, while the USDA's does. Canada's doesn't, while Academy on Nutrition and Dietetics does (they call it MyPlate), and etc. RBut (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Garth quote

Norton calls it a conspiracy, that most studies showing benefit for AG are funded by AG. He then attempts to criticize the film, and in doing so, mostly cites studies funded by AG. Being upfront about your previous funding has nothing to do with this point. He has just proved the point himself.

Garth points out most studies Norton cited were funded by AG. This should be included, it is a direct response to Norton. Norton was not upfront about that part. RBut (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why we are using selfpub blogs with no editorial oversight when we have better quality sources like [25] and [26]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be onto something. I basically object entirely to RBut's desires to reargue the description of the argument between Norton and Davis. jps (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? Garths quote is a direct response to Nortons assertion. RBut (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to our previous discussion on the matter. jps (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your argument was that Norton was upfront about it, that he was funded by AG. But he wasn't in this case. He didn't mention "oh, and also most of the studies I cite were funded by AG, but I'll also claim that if you say most studies showing benefit for AG are funded by AG then you're a conspiracy nut". So, why not include Garths response? RBut (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That was not my argument. Please try again. jps (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Then reiterate your argment please. How can Nortons quote be justified but Garths quote that is a direct response, not? RBut (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It has become clear to me that either (1) you cannot/will not try to understand what I have spend considerable time writing on this page or (2) you just want to harp on these discussions in an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT fashion hoping to wear down the opposition. Either way, I'm at the end of WP:AGF here and really am in no mood to reopen the discussion for endless back-and-forth. If you make an actual effort to summarize my points about this matter, then I'll be happy to continue discussing. Until then, I'm afraid my message stays the same: try again. jps (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In the time it took you to display your outrage you could've answered. Doesn't take more than a couple sentences. The addition of the quote can easily be implemented as it does no harm to the article and is a direct response. Remember your own quote about favorable?

"The idea that the film only references favorable scientific studies, I think, is unarguable. This is also, however, not a negative point. The film does this because it has an agenda. There isn't anything negative about being honest"

• Norton references mainly AG studies* Garth mentions this, which I quote, then you:

"This is character assasination! This is WP RED FLAG!!"

Sorry but I'm having trouble following your logic. Later you used the argument that Norton was honest and mentioned it, but he didn't in this case. This is a different argument. RBut (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't come to terms with the main point I made. We have enough text on Norton and Davis. We don't need any more. jps (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing one of his quotes, the last one, while including this one as it's an actual response to a point Norton made. RBut (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss where I noted that it is actually not a response to the point Norton made? jps (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely is. Norton claimed that is a conspiracy, Garth pointed out he referenced mostly AG studies. How is that not a response? RBut (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not a secret. jps (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a secret to be pointed out. If "it's not a secret" justifies not adding this quote, then "it's not a secret" can justify removing "favorable", right? It's not a secret that the film references favorable studies, it is clearly evident that it only presents one side, therefore it can be removed? RBut (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you changing the subject? This conversation was already had above. I thought you understood. Clearly you didn't, but it seems like you perhaps still don't understand. There's nothing more that I can do here.

The situation is simple. Right now, we're at the high-water mark for narrative about this film. You want to add more rejoinders, but they are WP:SOAPy and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy and all sorts of things that we don't normally tolerate. So, let me just offer an idea to you: if you want to start culling stuff out of the article, that would be a better way forward perhaps. Maybe there is a better way to summarize Norton's critiques so you won't feel compelled to include this haphazard tu quoque argument of Davis. Fair enough. Propose that. But let's move on from the shoehorning. jps (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not changing the subject. I provided your argument as an example in a previous case. Pretty sure you no longer agreed with it?

Garths reply to one of the points provided by Norton is not WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:SOAP, I checked both articles, they do not apply. If you believe so, I would appreciate quotes from the articles. Even so, to use your argment, how is Garths reply "Norton complains of cherry picking but exhibits incredible cherry picking" not WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:SOAP? I don't think you legitimately care, I think you just do not like that exact point, that Garth pointed out the industry funding of majority Nortons referenced studies. I do not see why it has to be silenced and hidden. RBut (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You're falling back into old habits and even as I offered you a way forward, you seem to only want to argue. We're in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory, here. Time to move on. jps (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to get the quote included, and the only reaon there is an argument is because you won't allow it. The arguments you have used do not actually apply. There doesn't seem to be any guideline preventing it, so why do so? RBut (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We are at the point where taking things out versus putting things in is what we need to do. We're already stretched too thin in terms of WP:PROMINENCE of many of these arguments. jps (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Intro quote

@LuckyLouie: Are you arguing that organizations do not recommend centering your diet around plants? RBut (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Organizations recommend eating more plants in addition to eating other foods such as meat, fish, and dairy. You can't just pick out one phrase you like from a source and totally ignore its surrounding context. If you are having trouble understanding this, read the discussion above by Psychologist Guy and my response to him. BTW, there's no need to ping me. I do my best to check in on ongoing discussions, but I'm not on call for immediate response. - LuckyLouie (talk)

In other words, they recommend centering your diet around plants. How does that phrase not capture their advice? And I would also suggest looking at my response up there. RBut (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that your strategy of trying to wear editors down with WP:IDHT is going to backfire. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How does that phrase not capture their advice? Look at the plates they provide with the nutritional guidelines. Plus nobody is trying to wear anyone down, we are arguing about different sections of the article, this is a baseless claim. RBut (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, all claims other than your own are baseless, and all arguments other than your own make no sense, and must be reiterated dozens of times. This has become quite clear. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We are arguing about different sections of the article than previously. So how am I trying to wear anyone down?... And I don't see how Garths response to Norton calling it a conspiracy cannot be added. It does absolutely no harm to the article. The previous arguments with this quote do not apply, "This is character assassination, this is RED FLAG, Norton was honest about his funding (but not the funding of most of his sources), it is not a response to Norton" How does that make sense to you? I think you're starting to reply with unrelated arguments because there is no argument you can provide to justify allowing Norton to say it is a conspiracy but not Garth pointing out he references AG funded studies, completely contradicting his own claim. Or that plant centered diets are not recommended, look at any of the plates they provide with their recommendation majority of it is plants, aka a plant centered diet. As mentioned above we are not claiming plant based, since that implies mostly plants. While plant centered means you center your diet around plants, just as the recommendations are. How am I wrong here? RBut (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully refer you to my previous comment. Dumuzid (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don' think I'm that unreasonable to the point of endlessly arguing a point. Once it makes sense to me I move on. Can you just please look at the comment above and tell me where I am wrong or unreasonable? RBut (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple people are complaining about your tendencies in these discussions. It's time to consider that it may be you who has the problem and not everyone else. jps (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple people are complaining with unrelated arguments... I'm trying to stay on topic. Plant centered is a good term. A mediterranean diet is plant centered. Institutions recommend such diets. Why not use it? RBut (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead

Why remove this from the intro?

"Medical doctors who promote plant-based diets defended the film, arguing that a number of public health organizations who advise limiting the eating of meat in conjunction with more plant based nutrition "support a plant centered diet"

Doesn't seem to do any harm to the article... RBut (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Not doing harm" is not a basis for inclusion in the article, and even less so the lead. I simply think, while appropriate for the body of the article, it's not the type of information we would normally include in a short precis as the lead is supposed to be. If consensus is against me, then so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead summarizes that pb doctors have also defended the film. RBut (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. If you can convince a consensus (which on an article like this would likely be only a few people), then I will not complain. Good luck, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok but can you tell me why it is inapproriate or unsuitable for the lead? RBut (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the lead is a summary, and a back-and-forth is generally not the sort of brevity one associates with a summary. Having said that, feel free to change if you see a consensus, but with all due respect, I'll not discuss this particular change any further. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, the summary summarizes that some pb doctors have also criticized the critiques (including Wilks which is not in the article I might add). It's not a back-forth. I wanted to summarize a quote by Loomis that plant centered diets are recommended by governments, which they are, aka the mediterranean diet, the DASH diet (this is exactly what the institutions recommend), but you changed it to lowering meat intake and increasing plant nutrition which you dislike and now oppose.

If I got 5 of my friends to come to this article and support the consensus, that would make it credible? I think our positions should be based on logic instead. I don't see why the summary shouldn't include that some pd doctors have critiqued the critiques. It is what happened. It accurately represents the exchange that happened. RBut (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS and my previous reply. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess I can round up 10 people or so... RBut (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Because it is not due for the lead, which is a summary of the body of the article. The body clearly says that while eating a more plant based diet is beneficial to many people, this documentary is promoting psudoscientific claims to advance this position. Having that sentence in an already short lead is providing false balance of the article and lacks the necessary context. Aircorn (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess I can round up 10 people or so. See WP:MEAT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if I get these changers somebody will come along and change them, and I'm not planning to defend this article for life... At least can I add back in the lead that "plant based doctors defended the film" without additional info? RBut (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be better than the additional info. I don't object to adding that plant-based doctors did defend the film. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I would still oppose this in the lead as a sort of variation on the WP:MANDY principle, but if consensus is against me I won't complain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie and ජපස: Can you state your decision on this? RBut (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, no need to ping. Agree with Dumuzid that WP:MANDY applies. It's unremarkable that supporters disagree with critics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to support Dumuzid and AirCorn in this matter per WP:MANDY... however, LuckyLouie's idea of revamping the sources and the content entirely may be a better way forward. jps (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY seems to be for things that have been undoubetdly proven to which are being denied. For example X shows Y about Z, classifying them as R, Z denies being R. That's WP:MANDY. "Well, he would now, wouldn't he?". X has been proven of Y, making them Z. X denies Z. "Well, he would now, wouldn't he?"

But a whole documentary with doctors that were included and not included in the documentary responding to critiques of the documentary, that's not WP:MANDY, it doesn't come down to "Well, he would now, wouldn't he?". Will this change anything or are you set on your stance? RBut (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I read WP:MANDY as being about the inevitability, and therefore non-remarkability, of certain denials. In essence, what you are asking us to include in the lead, is "people who support the claims in the film disagree with critics of the film." That strikes me as neither notable nor remarkable, and thus, not fit for the lead. Reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this would fit better: "people that support many of the claims in the film disagree with many of the critiques of the film". I wouldn't classify critiques of critiques as denials. Denial would moreso be denying something proven. RBut (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If the film were to deny that they ended up promoting a plant based diet, that would be WP MANDY. RBut (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so we disagree both on the lead and our interpretation of WP:MANDY. So it goes! Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Better sources

LuckyLouie's idea of revamping the sources and the content entirely may be a better way forward. I think so. Why are we using bloggers and selfpub Medium pages when we have much higher quality sources that make the same point? If you like this summary of two sources I located, feel free to plug it into the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The journal of the Hungarian Dietetic Association Új DIÉTA (New Diet) criticized the film, calling it "pseudoscience rather than real science" and "propaganda for veganism". The journal criticized the film for "one-sided research" and claims lacking in scientific basis, saying "The Game Changers only includes research that is conducive to the message they want to convey, that a vegan (plant based) diet is better in all respects than a diet containing animal-derived foods". The journal opined that it is "of paramount importance" that a documentary of this type approach the topic with scientific rigor, but "instead, the filmmakers placed more emphasis (on) eliciting emotional impact than the proper scientific background". According to the journal, the filmmakers have numerous conflicts of interest, noting that "the speaking doctors, celebrities and professionals are all dedicated vegan activists, vegan distributors, and famous vegan fanatics like Jackie Chan or Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Mail and Guardian writer Luke Feltham criticized Wilks claim that "we are presenting the facts and letting people make their own decisions". According to Feltham, "But that's not quite true. At every turn The Game Changers does it’s best to instil horror at even the thought of drinking a glass of milk. The claim is that not only is all meat — not just red meat — unhealthy for you, it will also hinder your athletic performance dramatically. There’s even a neat animation of your capillaries collapsing in on themselves". Feltham also perceived a number of conflict of interests among the filmmakers, saying, "it’s hard to shake the sense that there is a strong agenda here." Feltham called the film "an hour-and-a-half advertisement for vegan living" and concluded that "instead of inspiring a balanced diet, The Game Changers happily goes to the other extreme".

References

You're proposing removing all the other sources?

For me the google translated article is hard to follow with many points: "optimal diet to prevent ag ors recovery and a it can also help with regeneration. It was then that he that ancient Roman gladiators mainly grew food they ate, that made them ol an excellent warriors. To the filmmakers The aim is to show that a vegan diet that supports cardiovascular health. reduces the risk of inflammatory fol tions and cancer disease risk and improves sports performance." I get the gist of what they are saying, and I'm not against including it, but it is hard to follow. You have also only summarized the negative critiques. From the source: "There is a need for an astonishing amount of water and from a sustainability standpoint, a vegan diet is the most ideal. The fact that average greenhouse gas emissions and as well as foodstuffs of animal origin its negative impact is greater for those who eat and eat, and this is the real reason why it is worth reducing the flesh tooth stepping."

Plus just because there's editorial oversight does not make a source high quality, imo. To me the article by Luke Feltham is of a far lower quality than the one by Norton. The article by Luke Feltham (mg.co.za) is a misrepresentation (strawmanning) and mockery in most areas: "After having eaten his vegetables he woke up feeling great so he decided to do research about a plant-based diet and tell everybody about it." and "Oh, you thought meat was important to getting enough protein and stuff? What an idiot." and "All participating athletes seem quite happy to give broccoli all the credit for their success." and etc. Do you qualify this as a high quality source? RBut (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Re Új DIÉTA: almost every critical source cited allows that eating more plants and less meat has health benefits. See Fallacy of composition for why we're not highlighting that in every critical source as if it is an expression of support for the film. Re Luke Feltham: Mail and Guardian is a high quality source given their numerous awards for journalism, and sarcastic film reviews by a film reviewer are not an aberration or a disqualifying factor for a WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing with a section of the film doesn't mean support for the whole film. By your logic, only critiques or support for the film are allowed, there can't be some agreement/disagreement within the same review? and if there can, only the disagreement can be summarized and quoted?

Let me guess, they didn't win any awards for the game changers review? and it wasn't sarcasm, it was misrepresenting and straw manning the film. If it were a reputable and high quality source, it should've done a reputable and high quality review. RBut (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Plus the hypocrisy is staggering to me how everyone is eager to quote the COI with a few game changers team members but when I point out COI with other sources I get shut down immediately, it gets removed, I have to debate for a week and still get told to fuck off and that I am pissing everyone off. Yet there's a common belief here that I'm the only one with a bias. (thumbs up) RBut (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:MASTADON editing like you did today will result in you having absolutely zero say in the editorial decisions we're making. If you think the funding and BBQ interests of sources are interesting, the place to publish about that is outside of WP and get it noticed as a reliable source. jps (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a need for an astonishing amount of water and from a sustainability standpoint…etc. A careful reading of the source shows that they are stating the claims made by the film (and they proceed from there to a refutation of that particular claim regarding sustainability). The translation isn’t perfect, it was an easy mistake for you to make, but I managed to repair it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you are correct. Now that it supports your position, do you no longer feel the need to reference unrelated WP's and logical fallacies?

The journal says about GC: "it is "of paramount importance" that a documentary of this type approach the topic with scientific rigor" and etc, then when it came to sustainability, they chose one study that they believed supported their view. I actually opened the study up, "Relative to exclusively plant-based (vegan) diets, diets comprised of plant foods with modest amounts of low-food chain animals (i.e., forage fish, bivalve mollusks, insects) had comparably small GHG and water footprints."

Yeah, so you must eat a plant based diet with a "modest amount" of insects, bilvalves and forage fish to have as low of an environmental impact, bon apetit. Which I can guarantee almost nobody does, meaning it doesn't apply to most of the population.

They complain of cherry picking yet cherry picked a study and ignored the consensus released by IPCC and the UN in 2019: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ - that plant based diets are more environmentally fiendly than "environmentally friendly" omnivorous diets. This review is over a thousand pages, here is a summary article if anyone is interested: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7 - I'm not trying to get any changes. Just pointing the hypocrisy out. RBut (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying is true. Vegan diets are more environmental friendly than plant-base diets with some animal protein thrown in (bivalves, small fish) etc or "environmentally friendly" omnivorous diets which still include land and sea based animal foods but we cannot question studies cited in reliable sources or add our own commentary into articles if they are flawed or contain hypocrisy. It is not in our policies to question studies cited in reliable sources on Wikipedia, of course this does happen on talk-pages sometimes but we must not insert our own comments or research onto the article about the source. We just cite what the reliable sources say at the end of the day. You do not have to agree with the source but it is considered a reliable source by our policies (see WP:RS), so it will be used on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The key here is that objecting to the factual basis of a source needs to be done outside of Wikipedia. There are plenty of venues where this can be done and if you succeed in getting noticed and causing reliable sources to be created that correct the record, Wikipedia can follow suit. jps (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Promoters

1. Plant based physicians/promoters have mentioning of bias: "In defense of the film, Garth Davis, a vegan medical doctor and best-selling author of a book promoting the health benefits of a plant-based diet"

Promoters of AG have no mention of bias, e.g. Layne Norton: "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company"

Layne Norton has been funded by AG (he mentions it himself): You can see it for yourself, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3488566/ - a study he authored: "We would like to thank our funding sources: The National Dairy Council/DMI and Egg Nutrition Center."

I attempted to add Layne's previous funding by these two checkoff programs (DMI and Egg), it was removed. Picking and choosing whos biases are mentioned is inconsistent and therefore illogical, and most importantly, not WP:NPOV. Taking money from an industry and being trained by an industry is a more relevant bias. RBut (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

2. "Paul Kita, food and nutrition editor for Men's Health"

Paul Kita's twitter: https://twitter.com/paul_kita?lang=en - "KCBS judge" - KCBS = "The Kansas City Barbeque Society". He also sells several cookbooks on mostly cooking meat.

If a plant based chef and judge for a plant based cooking event that also sells several plant based cookbooks were referenced, it would immediately be mentioned. Paul Kita qualifies for the same treatment. Label that fit include meat promoter, meat advocate, meat enthusiast and etc. "Meat enthusiast" would be a term he would agree with. RBut (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem again here for me is notability. Mr. Davis is notable for his stance on plant-based diets. Mr. Kita is not. It's not about bias, it's about what they're known for. Mr. Norton is not known because he is funded by such sources. Moreover, the Kansas City Barbecue Society judgeship seems like a sort of nonsense accolade for which an applicant pays? All that said, things look fine to me, but if you can convince a consensus that they are not, then more power to you. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. jps (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Kita is a chef and an editor for MensHealth. Every second article or more by Kita includes some form of meat dish. Many of his articles are diet and cooking advice. He is well known for this. Notability checked for Kita.

Norton has authored 12 studies or so, around 10 of which are funded by AG. Just because tis is not advertised by him and he's not an official spokesperson, doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up when it is relevant. Such as in this article. Notability checked for Norton. RBut (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

RBut, with all due respect, what you find notable and what is notable from a Wikipedia perspective may not always be the same thing. Still a no for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I can agree about Kita, even though he is also known for his chef books just as Garth for his book on protein, but Norton definitely needs a disclaimer. RBut (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Well here we can find at least some minor agreement: I definitely think you have a better case for Norton, but it still falls short for me. If you can find some third-party sources which make this more notable, I might well agree with you. Also, feel free to disregard this, as it might just be my personal preference--but when you make conclusory statements like "notability checked" I think you actually weaken your argument. You go from presenting evidence to seeming ipse dixit. Again, that is just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Garth has mentioned this in his critique of Nortons critique. He is a third party source. Garths critique of Nortons critique is referenced in this article (and Garths potential biases are disclaimed, even though third party sources were not used to justify this). RBut (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

For me it is still a no, but as ever, if and when you can convince enough people to form a consensus, then by all means make your change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I just want to notify you and jps that I began a dispute resolution thread - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_Game_Changers_discussion RBut (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No original research

I looked for secondary sources, there are NONE, showing that Garth is vegan or has a best selling book promoting a plant based diet. Therefore I removed it.

I will begin another dispute thread if you will not remove it. You are blatantly violating WP guidelines and policies, and you only apply them when it comes to whatever doesn't suit your position. You cannot have it both ways... RBut (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:BLP RBut (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:POINT violation to me. I strongly suggest you do not pursue this approach. jps (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just explained that there are no secondary sources. It's violating original research and WP:BLP. And you respond by stating what this looks like to you? what? RBut (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We do not need secondary sources for uncontentious biographical details. It is an almost absurd stretch of WP:AGF for me to believe that you think that including biographical details that Davis is vegan or has a best selling book promoting a plant based diet is contentious. Nevertheless, I will try my best here and offer you a chance to explain what you find so contentious about this. jps (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Do you know what a vegan is? it's an ethic. At best you can claim one uncontentious detail which is that Davis follows a plant based diet because he talks about it and uses versions of it to prescribe to his patients in his practice. By claiming he follows an ethic for animal rights you are breaking WP:BLP.

2. How do you know his book promotes a plant based diet? there are no secondary sources claiming as such, therefore your claims of what the book is doing breaks original research policy. RBut (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

He says he is a vegan and also says his book promotes a plant-based diet. That's usually good enough for us to go on when the details are not contentious. If you think that either of those facts are contentious, you need to explain why. Simply saying something is an ethic doesn't explain why it's contentious, especially in this context. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

How can something be uncontentious if you haven't proven he has said either of these things? RBut (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's in the source itself: I am vegan because after years of studying the research, going to scientific meetings, and treating patients, I believe a vegan diet is excellent for preventing, and in many cases, treating disease. I am also vegan because, as I will discuss, I believe it is the best diet for preventing pollution and climate change. Finally, I am vegan because I do not want to contribute a penny to an industry that flat out tortures animals to provide readily accessible meat when it is simply not necessary.

and Dr. Davis distills these findings into a straightforward, plant-based solution that combines what we know about our own biology, the evidence from our world’s healthiest cultures, and an insider’s knowledge of the health media and its flawed messaging. A two-week plan will get you started with a diet composed of fresh, whole fruits and vegetables, along with nuts, seeds, beans, and grains. jps (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Layne has stated himself he has a COI. Why was that debated and not in the article? Yet when I proposed it, you mentioned a secondary source was required. But now Garth is claiming he is a vegan and his book is on the research of a plant based diet, which is not a secondary source and yet, it's added. How is this in any way consistent? RBut (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I and others explained in depth why isolating the funding for certain things Norton did in his graduate program was contentious in this instance. jps (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

How can it possibly be contentious if Layne himself has stated this about himself? "I have been funded by AG", that's contentious? It's the exact same scenario as Garth stating being a vegan or what his book is. And how is stating that Garth is a vegan notable or due weight? what does an ethic have to do with Game Changers? RBut (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. You were claiming the article is already too long and adding the COI is just completely going overboard that limit. But you found a critique to add, and it's no longer too long. There's space for more critiques? this is another instance of insane bias from you... RBut (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

RBut, the only point you're proving at the moment is that engaging with you is a waste of time. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

To me it seems like you just cannot stay consistent with your arguments, which is why you're having this trouble. I'll reiterate what I said above: Layne stating something about himself = contentious, Garth stating something about himself = noncontentious. And tell me, what does veganism have to do with GC? why is Garth labled vegan, you used notability and due weight, yet you are not explaining how this is the case with this label for Garth. RBut (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And tell me, what does veganism have to do with GC? At least this is an argument finally. The suggestion that the film is not explicitly advocating for veganism is one you have argued before, but I see far more reliable sources saying that it is pushing veganism (e.g., [27]). While it would not be right necessarily for us to imply that the film is pushing veganism, I do not see how identifying Davis as a vegan does that. Nevertheless, if you can explain how you see this happening, I'm happy to consider possible alternative wordings. jps (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to have the conversation we had at WP:DRN over again with you. I'm happy to read when you're ready to explain what you may find contentious about identifying Davis as a vegan with a best selling book promoting a plant-based diet. If you think that the bias you think I have is disconfirming, you are welcome to escalate this to the appropriate venues.

Re:length: WP:NOTPAPER is relevant. When I was concerned about prose being overlong, it was because there was a risk that we were focusing a bit too much on particular sources. The Norton/Davis argument takes up a lot more space than I think it deserves when looking at the various sources produced about this film. In contrast, the single sentence I just added is supported by three independent sources. That seems much better balanced to me. There is room for adding additional sources provided they rise to the standards of WP:RS. I judge the ones I added to do so. If you have some more sources you would like to see in the article, please feel free to propose them. I note that in the past you have found some sources I had not seen that I thought were at a level that warranted inclusion, so it's fine with me if you would like to continue in that spirit of collaboration. That's not to say that I won't find every source you propose to be worthy of inclusion, necessarily, but it strikes me as likely that a conversation along those lines will be a lot more productive than this one turned out to be. jps (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to have the same conversation. I do not get how Layne stating something about himself = contentious, Garth stating something about himself = noncontentious. They're simply stating facts about their selves, they're not making any claims about anything, just their selves, but one is not okay.

1. Veganism or being labeled a vegan I do not see how is relevant to Game Changers. So how is it notable and due weight? 2. Being labeled a vegan comes with negative connotations, many people take it as a personal attack, kind of like pacifism, therefore if it is not relevant it shouldn't be used.

And okay, your latter explanation is sensible. I will add more to this article in the upcoming days. Plus I didn't realize the CEO of Greggs was the same guy, nice catch. RBut (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I was abundantly clear in the dispute resolution discussion why the particular prose you wanted to include for Norton was contentious. I understand that you might disagree with my reasoning, but so far you haven't even acknowledged what it is. I addressed your concern about vegan labels above which I think it worthy of consideration but do not find disconfirming for the biographical information for Davis. Nevertheless, I want to thank you because in looking into this question I found three more fantastic reliable sources which has helped expand the article and improve it, in my estimation. If you would like to add more to the article, especially if you can find more reliable sources, I would encourage you to do so! It would help to move past this conflict, anyway. jps (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I provided the prominent arguments that were used, which were notability, original research, relevance and due weight. That doesn't acknowledge your main argument? Now I proposed them to remove labeling Garth as a vegan.

The secondary source Healthline mistakes what veganism is. The creator of that article thinks a plant based diet is interchangable with veganism, but it is not. It's a common error to mix the two. If you put it into plain words, it wouldn't make sense: "The film promotes veganism (animal rights)" or "The film promotes veganism (a philosophy)", while "The film promotes a plant based diet", with this label there is no way to mistake what it does. If we were to use vegan interchangably, we would only be feeding into this error. RBut (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to simply remove the label, rather than reword anything. Him selling a plant based book, which is relevant to GC, portrays everything that is required. Plus, people like Layne follow a carnist ideology, (carnism), but we are not labeling every non vegan person in this aricle with it, so it doesn't make sense to use vegan either. You're either one or the other, a carnist or a vegan. It's like being pro racism or anti racism, you're either one or the other. So if you were to argue against including the carnism label, but pro including veganism label, I do not know if it makes sense. Maybe you could say basically everyone is a carnist and less people are vegan and most people aren't labeled anti racism, so a vegan label is more significant, but still, I do not see how this biographical discription is relevant to GC. What does Graths ethical standard have to do with it? you wouldn't label him as an anti racist either. So in essence, my argument is, why is it relevant even though it's a biographical description? RBut (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't acknowledge your main argument? Nope.

The secondary source Healthline mistakes what veganism is. That may be, but it is not our place to correct that. If you don't think Healthline is a reliable source for the quote included, you could make your case at WP:RSN.

people like Layne follow a carnist ideology, (carnism) Does Norton identify that way?

What does Graths ethical standard have to do with it?... why is it relevant even though it's a biographical description? It is a relevant point about his approach to the subjects that many reliable sources identify are relevant to the film, and he describes exactly why he is vegan in the very article we are citing. I see it as a simple way to indicate to the reader what his particular opinion about relevant questions are without going into unnecessary detail.}} jps (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You use these arguments "It is a relevant point about his approach to the subjects that many reliable sources identify are relevant to the film, and he describes exactly why he is vegan in the very article we are citing" but at the same time claim Laynes COI shouldn't be mentioned... both arguments you have used, apply to Layne... everyone thinks a COI is relevant. I can reference a ton of sources but they will not be mentioning Layne by name, because Layne isn't popular, neither is Garth and he isn't mentioned in the sources you have referenced, which would make your argument synthesis of sources, right? As for the argument you've used, it applies to Laynes COI (Garth mentioned his COI, so did I, so do people on YT for example, and I can use synthesis of sources to prove everyone else cares about COI too, regardless of when the funding took place (e.g. even if 50 years down the line somebody that were sponsored by big tobacco were defending big tobacco), they just won't mention Layne by name. Your other argument also applies to Layne, in that Layne mentions he has a COI. Both of your arguments apply to this scenario with Layne. Yet, those arguments are not good enough when it comes to whatever doesn't support your position.

From the sources you posted, I believe only 1 or 2 were secondary sources. Their diets already have the required names, e.g. vegetarian, flexitarian, lacto vegetarian, pollotarian, pescetarian, these are all versions of plant based diets that include animal products. They wouldn't be used if plant based was specific enough. I guess I can agree this is confusing since many use these terms without understanding so the meaning of plant based has been watered down. However in our previous argument, you were not interested in using these terms (plant centered as well - which is what dietary guidelines recommend, mediterranean or DASH diets, which are centered around plants but contain animal products). I'm assuming because you didn't want people to think a plant only diet was recommended? and if you will say it's because the dietary guidelines didn't use those exact words "plant centered or plant based", that is again not an argument that you follow. For example in the "references favorable scientific studies". You inferred the gist of what the critiques were saying and you inserted your own phrase which you believed covered their argument. Just as it would be in the plant centered case, but in this case it again wouldn't be a good enough argument because it's not a position you have taken.

Secondary sources also aren't 100% objective facts, if they use a phrase that does not mean they have dictated what that phrase is for the rest of everyone's lives. They are not authorities on the subject. So yes, it is our place to not follow them blindly. All in all, I agree with your argument. The term plant based has been watered down to the point where it doesn't mean 100% plant based for many people. But I do not agree that you can argue to list Garths veganism while simultaneously using the same arguments to say that Laynes COI should not be mentioned. Arguing for one, argues for the other. RBut (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you do not know what to respond to, essentially I'm still arguing that since Layne mentioned his COI and we didn't, Garth mentioned his veganism and we shouldn't either. Some people have watered down "plant based", sure. But it still is exactly what the documentary and Garth argue for. e.g. ::Garth uses versions of a plant based diet for his patients, since we are using their statements as evidence for their own personal claims, I can back that one up. He has said this in an interview. Meaning he thinks it's good enough that people go towards that direction and not entierly plant only. He has stated it is a lot harder to prove that fish is unhealthy (because epidemiologically it doesn't show it, so you'd have to turn to mechanisms and heavy metal pollution such as mercury), and that it's harder to argue for a plant only diet than a mostly plant based diet. So again, I think we wouldn't be misleading anyone, by leaving the label out.

And the Game Changers haven't once used the word vegan, only plant based, and they included people that do not follow plant only diets, such as Nate Diaz, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. They're not arguing for plant only diets either, they've even stated as such in their post interviews and on their GC page, which we can take as their defintion of plant based. Therefore to label them vegan would be disingenuous, imo.

An ethic has nothing to do with GC.

Plus I have better things to do, this debating is taking up too much time and ruined my schedule. It will take several days of adjusting to get back to normal. RBut (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you've made your case here and you've rehashed a lot of arguments. I understand your position; I just disagree with it. The moderator of the Dispute Resolution Board also agrewed with my position. I don't think there is much more we can do here. You're going to need to drop this argument. I welcome you to join me in giving a full accounting of the dieticians' reviews of the movie from the sources below. New sources you might find would be especially welcome. jps (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm making a point that you're using arguments you do not agree with. RBut (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Game Changers and veganism -- RD reviews

Above we're discussing the connection that veganism may have to the film. We already have some discussion of this in our article, but I found at least two more sources that might be able to help us out here:

From Kelly Jones, R.D.:

I don’t believe that The Game Changers advocated everyone drop meat from their diet immediately and go vegan overnight, but I can certainly see that being the impression some athletes and health professionals have. I’ve gotten questions from family, friends, athletes and Instagram followers, there’s been some buzz on my list-serves regarding athletes wanting to go vegan out of nowhere after watching this and I received a call from a friend who is a college swim coach about his athletes wanting to do the same.

Before jumping further into my detailed review, I want to share the photo from The Game Changers official website, in an effort to help everyone take a deep breath and approach plant-based in a more balanced and realistic way. Despite what you may have taken from the documentary, and how they presented it, even they don’t want you to do something that isn’t practical! This should have been conveyed better in the film, but I’m sharing in hopes that anyone who IS on a journey to plant-based chills out, does it gradually, and finds a dietitian to help.

What the film failed to do is describe what “plant-based” actually means. It does NOT mean vegan, despite the fact that only vegan athletes and physicians were interviewed.

From Laura Ligos, R.D.:

The Game Changers documentary is all about how top athletes have switched to a “plant-based” (anytime you read this phrase or hear it in this documentary, read: vegan) diet and have seen not only improved health but also improved performance as a result. The documentary follows many (vegan-based) doctors and health professionals as well as athletes and other unsuspecting and uneducated humans they deemed fit for this documentary using “science” and “reasearch” (i use quotations heavily here) to show why a “plant-based” (once again, read: vegan) is superior to any and all diets....

Ok, before I give my full review of this documentary, let’s back up for one moment. I was introduced to the word “plant-based” almost 2 years ago now. When I first heard it I thought nothing of it. I thought “huh, I’m plant based because I eat a ton of fruits and vegetables.” End thought. Then, all of a sudden I was seeing and hearing the word EVERYWHERE. I even went to a “plant-based” event only to find out that plant-based ACTUALLY was code for Vegan or at least mostly Vegan diet/lifestyle. Once, again, not hating on vegans I have clients and friends that choose that lifestyle. My issue with plant-based is that it has been used as a way to re-invent veganism. Ever heard the phrase “you can polish a turd but it’s still a turd.” Yeah, so that’s what we have going on here.

Why I hate this phrase? It makes those of us who are plant-based or as I’ve heard someone say “plant-forward” not worthy of calling ourselves that if we choose to eat animal products. We no longer can use the phrase because it’s either all or nothing. If you know anything about me or my way of educating nutrition, all or nothing is a no go for me.

I'm not including these sources quite yet because I'd like to see if there is a good way to distill them, but I think they do shed light on some of the issues that a reader may encounter in reading our article, and I see some argument for incorporating these. If there are decent rejoinders to these two analyses and the one other one in the article currently, I would like to read those as well.

jps (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Found another good source. Not written by an RD, but rather a student intern at Northern Illinois University:

Jackie Braun holds a B.S. in Dietetics from University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. She is a dietetic intern here at NIU:

One of the first things I noticed was the ambiguous use of the phrase ‘plant-based diet’. By definition, plant-based diets consist mostly of foods derived from plants, with few or no animal products. On the other hand, a plant-only (also known as vegan) diet excludes all animal products and also avoids foods produced by animals, such as eggs and dairy. The film uses these two terms interchangeably to support eliminating meat products from the diet to enhance human performance. However, they are not the same thing.... Overall, this documentary shows that it is possible to follow a plant-based or plant-only diet and still be a world class athlete. However, it may only be showing one side of the story, rather than presenting both ideas and letting the viewers draw their own conclusions. Like many food and nutrition related documentaries, “The Game Changers“ is rooted in testimonials.

jps (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Another source: Aidan Muir, Accredited Practicing Dietician and Accredited Sports Dietician practicing in Brisbane, AU:

Firstly, I wanted to highlight that the terminology of “plant-based” is not really defined in the film. They reference anything from vegan to The Mediterranean Diet (which includes a decent amount of animal products) type studies based on whatever suited their points best.

But my understanding based on how it was discussed is that “plant-based” was being discussed as if it were similar to a vegan diet (i.e. no animal products) but without that definition. Since although it actually is not discussed much outside of vegan circles, veganism is actually defined as “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”

Therefore, veganism is not a diet. It involves so much more. “Plant-based” typically means just the dietary aspect. For the sake of this discussion, that is how I am referring to “plant-based”....

Overall, I think the highlight of the documentary for me is that it showed that athletes can follow plant-based diets while excelling as athletes at the elite level.

This has been demonstrated for decades, but it was great that the documentary highlighted it and brought it to the masses in an entertaining way.

I am also a fan of how it focused on the importance of focusing on a nutrient-rich diet. Nutrition involves so much more than just calories and macros, and although you could argue that a lot of studies were cherry-picked, they did highlight a lot of aspects worth thinking about. It also seems to have made people think about their diets more in general and how they can improve their diet. Due to how it was presented, I am aware of quite a few people who previously did not care about there diet suddenly take an interest.

While I think the documentary is not a great representation of the nutrition evidence we have available, I think it is a great intro for a lot of people that can get them going down the rabbit-hole of learning about nutrition.

jps (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And just because I'm on a roll (though it's not relevant to this section, per se): Sarah Brunner, R.D.:

Diet does not have to be an either/or. The Game Changers repeatedly puts a plant-based diet against an animal diet. After watching the documentary, I feel as though I can either continue eating animal sources of protein and suffer through the consequences, or I can eat a plant-based diet and reap all of the amazing benefits. There is, however, a much more simple conclusion – why don’t we all try to consume a more well-rounded diet full of fruits and vegetables? I am all for encouraging the public to consume more plants, but we don’t do this by telling people in the same breath that meat is killing them. Education regarding higher-quality meat options, the benefits of a whole food diet, and a possible progression toward incorporating plant-based options into familiar meals is a better, less intrusive way to approach the subject of nutrition.

jps (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

From Erin Kinney, R.D.:

When “The Game Changers” was released on Netflix it started a wave of discussion on plant-based diets. Every week since, a client has come into my office more confused about nutrition and questioning if they should give up animal products all together.

The first mistake that The Game Changers makes is not defining what ‘plant-based’. Plant-based and vegan are not the same thing. I want to start off with a disclaimer by saying I support veganism and work with clients every day to achieve optimal health with this dietary preference. I will also share how my own diet has evolved over the years. In the past, I’ve followed a vegan diet and I’ve also experimented with the keto/paleo diet. I now eat predominantly plant-based which for me includes fish at least 2-3 times a week, chicken 2-3 times a week, and red meat on special occasions. And I’m sure my diet will continue to evolve as my body and life do....

Overall, the film presented a lot of sweeping statements and one-sided research that made very impressive and convincing health claims. “The Game Changers” included all the essential elements of a box-office hit, not sound research, in this documentary: personal narratives, health-scares, and “ah-ha” moments. Additionally, in their effort to advance their case for plant-based diets, the film often used fear-based tactics instead of encouraging a well-balanced, enjoyable diet.

jps (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

From Sharon Palmer, R.D.:

When it comes to the scientific basis for this documentary, I felt that there were some reliable facts presented, and then some information that might have been more for illustrative purposes rather than evidence-based information.... There are many evidence-based benefits for eating a plant-based diet, many of which are presented in the film.

jps (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

From Megan Poczekaj, RDN, LD:

In the past few weeks, I’ve experienced a substantial increase in the number of people (especially guys) reaching out for help to go vegan as a direct result of watching The Game Changers documentary....

I understand the filmmakers intention: get people to eat less meat. James Cameron, the executive producer, (yes, THAT James Cameron) owns a plant-based food company, Verdient Foods. He and his wife went vegan after watching another one-sided pro-vegan documentary, Forks Over Knives. Makes sense.

Let’s get one thing straight first: it’s not odd that there are some high level athletes that are vegan. There are also engineers that are vegan, actors that are vegan, and dietitians that are vegan.

There are also athletes, engineers, actors, and dietitians that eat meat. There are a lot more non-vegan high level athletes than there are vegan athletes, so there’s no reason to think that switching to a plant-based diet is all of a sudden going to make you a high performing athlete.

Cherry-picking a few people that are highly successful and attributing their success to their diet is ridiculous. It’s even possible that the athletes featured are successful despite their diet, not because of it. Being vegan didn’t make you an Olympian. These people are the exception, not the rule....

The problem with all of these “documentaries” is that they only provide one side of the argument. One side of the data. They only show interviews with people that support their agenda, that have skin in the game of selling vegan products or promoting a vegan lifestyle. We NEED dialogue. We need to be presented with opinions and data from both sides in order to make an informed decision....

If you watch The Game Changers documentary and walk away with the knowledge that you need to eat less meat and dairy, great. If that translates into you preparing more meals at home, eating more greens, and thinking more about how your food lands on your plate, then bravo to the filmmakers.

In my experience working with hundreds of clients wanting to optimize their lives with nutrition, going vegan isn’t the only way to eat healthfully. For most men, it ends up being a one week failed experiment instead of a lifelong choice.

jps (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

From Cynthia Sass, MPH, RD:

There is an endless fascination with what athletes eat, and what they should eat to optimize power, strength, endurance, and even mental performance. There are also a lot of misconceptions about athletes’ diets, too. One of the biggest is that plants alone can’t supply enough protein, minerals, and other key nutrients to meet an athlete’s needs.

But a new documentary called The Game Changers (in theaters tomorrow) is about to flip that notion on its ear. And as a dietitian who has worked with professional and competitive athletes in numerous sports, I think the film is spot on. Whether you're a pro athlete or a regular gym-goer, I believe it is a must-see....

I suspect that the film is going to generate even more interest in plant-based eating, among athletes and non-athletes alike. Whether that means going fully vegan, even as a challenge (a la Beyonce's 22-Day Greenprint diet) or simply eating more meatless meals, I’m all for making the switch....

The Game Changers is part of a movement that's sure to have a positive domino effect on human health, and the health of the planet.

jps (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

From Abbey Sharp, RD"

I was pleasantly surprised with the film and overall, I think it was very well done. While I am not personally vegan, I think the research is very clear that we can all benefit from incorporating more plants into our diet....

Overall, I’d give this film a positive rating.

No, I don’t love everything about it and I think their use of some of the research is faulty but they do bring up a lot of important points and I also think it’s kind of inspiring. It definitely helps dispel the myth that a vegan diet and athleticism are mutually exclusive. I also think even for us non athletes, it serves as a good reminder that we all would benefit from a plant-based diet, even if that means just introducing more plants to our diet in general.

Keep in mind that nutrition science is extremely complicated. It’s not black-and-white. If it was, we’d all be living well into our 100’s. Trying to jam in nutrition science into a hour and a half documentary is nearly impossible, so I commend Game Changers for the effort they made.

While there are quite a few flaws with this film, their overall message of eating more plants is something I can totally get on board with.

jps (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

From Johanna McMillan, PhD, Accredited Practising Dietitian:

The recent documentary The Game Changers is playing a pretty big role in promoting a vegan diet. I’m happy that it is encouraging people to eat more plant food – that is a very good thing for our health. It goes several steps further however and makes a seemingly compelling case, at least to the viewer without a solid nutrition science background, that animal foods are bad for us and we should only eat plant foods. It also claims that eating just plants can improve athletic performance and recovery from injury....

Nothing about the movie has changed the general nutrition recommendations that I, along with most dietitians and nutrition scientists, have made for years....

If the point of the movie is to say it’s possible to be a top-level strength athlete on a vegan diet, then yes, with the help of plant protein powders it certainly is. However, the inference made in the film and in much of the online commentary is that his performance is thanks to his vegan diet....

This is another biased documentary that does not tell the whole story and is often misleading or just plain silly (I didn’t even touch on the erectile function ‘experiment’ – please this was not science!). If it encourages you to eat more whole plant foods then terrific - very few people in the developed world are eating enough. Were we all to shift to more whole plants and concentrate on removing the junk foods from our diets, we would see significant changes in health. Make that your take home message. Whole foods are the way to go and include plentiful plants whether or not you also choose to eat animal foods.

jps (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

From Rowan Davison, Accredited Practising Dietitian:

Health professionals are bound ethically and morally to provide information that is based on quality research and scientific data. Filmmakers are not bound to utilise the same filters, and further use emotion and cinematic storytelling to accentuate their points. ‘Documentaries’ are supposed to provide a balanced viewpoint and allow the viewer to make a judgement, but there is minimal balance in this film. All of the main drivers of the film and experts interviewed have a vested interest in veganism, and it uses elite athletes and celebrities to drive home their messages.

The film has the appearance of being highly scientific – the writers know that this is essential. However, the film is guilty of cherry picking the research– only including evidence that suits the agenda.... The main undertone in the movie that ‘plant-based’ must mean elimination of all animal products....

Both vegan, and non-vegan diets can be both healthy or unhealthy. Diet quality and diversity is the key, as well as choosing options that suit your beliefs, lifestyle and goals.

Despite some very questionable tactics by the film makers, I still feel that the film will achieve a net overall positive result if people include more plants, quality grains, healthy fats, legumes, lentils, soy products and reduce animal products, particularly fatty/processed red meat) sugar and processed foods.

jps (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Layne and Garth

WP:ATT was cited by jps and listed the purpose of Layne's section. What are we using Layne for? 3 main points were summarized. Garth has replied to the points Layne has made, but since they are not allowed to be quoted (brought up in previous sections), I do not understand the WP:ATT or purpose of Garths reply.

Since one is treated different than the other and this will not change, both should be removed. RBut (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's okay to argue for the removal of the paragraph, but you should do so on the basis of arguments about source prominence and reliability. I note that Norton has a PhD in a relevant subject which makes his claims at least worthy of consideration. I also notice that a number of third-party sources including some of the RDs, Davis (of course), and the most prominent mention in the popular media (The Joe Rogan Experience) mention the review by Norton. I'm not sure why Norton's review has received so much attention, but it has, so I'm not convinced that removing it entirely is justified. jps (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the WP:ATT or purpose of Garths reply? it doesn't reply to a single point that Layne has made. Garth made this as a response to Layne, but we aren't allowed to quote him in direct response to the WP:ATT of Layne. RBut (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to move them to the popular culture area like for JRE podcast rather than remove, that's ok with me. Plus I didn't take the prominance and reliability route because we will have to remove not only Garth and Layne, but like 3 more sources (the whole bottom paragraph apart from the website Healthline). RBut (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a coherent argument here. This isn't really a "in popular culture" reference. jps (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course you don't see a coherent argument. You can label the documentary as listing "favorable studies", that's fine, "it's just what they do, there's nothing dishonest about that", but if Garth points out that Layne references mostly industry funded studies, then it's "THAT'S WP:REDFLAG!!", so Garth pointing this out for Layne, is WP:REDFLAG, you pointing it out for the documentary is just pure truth and honesty. Magical. I think it is beyond evident that you are the one that does not follow any sort of logical structure.

1) we remove all blogs, 5 - 6 sources. 2) we remove only Layne and Garth (and don't say Layne's article was mentioned on JRE as if that provides the popularity making it worthy of summarizing here, when you won't even allow the debate hosted on JRE podcast between the producer of this documentary and another dude to be summarized that gets multiple times more attention), or 3) we add Garths reply to the points that Layne made, which we have summarized in this wiki article, and not the current irrelevant quotes. Which route are you choosing? RBut (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We already had a dispute resolution over the point you are sore about. You made your case, the moderator disagreed with you. Continuing to argue it further is surely a WP:DROPTHESTICK moment. If you want to make a case for removing all blogs, make it. If you want to make a case for removing only the paragraph about Norton and Davis, make it. But don't reference the previous dispute in your argument because that's not an argument you have available. Right now, all I see are sour grapes and no attempt to identify a coherent editorial principle that doesn't rely on reopening closed arguments. jps (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not my fault you do not use consistent arguments. Just like it's not Garths fault that Layne has no self awareness. Layne says it's a conspiracy that most research supporting unhealthy foods are funded by industries selling these foods. Then references studies funded by these industries to support his idea that eating these foods are healthy.

The case for removing all blogs is that we have enough secondary sources covering this particular area. Why would we further rely on primary sources? and if popularity justified leaving Layne, then the far more popular JRE debate justifies summarizing the JRE debate. RBut (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder that snide tone is not usually helpful when trying to persuade. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That goes both ways. I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one who ignored my request to explain the WP:ATT of Garths reply, then say I provided something incoherent with no explanation. RBut (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for a third opinion if you think your position is as clear as you seem to think it is. jps (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove all blogs

Just so we're clear, the "remove all blogs" option would be a removal of every review that is not published by a third-party site. Sometimes this is a bit ambiguous. For example, the review at "Alive" may be technically be published by a third party, but the site's editorial control is not clear enough to determine. One thing I will note, however, is that the principle of "right of reply" will necessarily end as an editorial principle if we institute this idea. For example, Loomis will be gone while Kita will stay. jps (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As a general proposition, I would support this. I think it would make for an overall tighter article: while reasonable minds may differ as to how expansive we should be, I think paring down here would be a good thing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with these articles apart from Laynes because Garth does not get to reply. To me this is far too illogical, to silence one person and protect the other even though this person chose to contradict their selves. If this isn't changing, which I assume it isn't, then yes, I agree we should impose this rule and remove all blogs. Is there a wiki guideline on the right to reply? RBut (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So it looks like we are all in agreement, should I get started? RBut (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Better version

Per WP:NPOV and WP:COAT, this version is better. We cannot pretend that the documentary has done anything but present what it contends are facts. To do otherwise is a gross violation of Wikipedia's editorial remit. jps (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I have removed the section to here. We need sources that reference the synopsis of the film and make sure that it is properly noticed by independent critics and evaluators before we mention it in the article:

Section to discuss

==Synopsis==

The documentary opens by introducing James Wilks, a combatives expert and instructor for government agencies such as the US Navy Seals, who, while sparring, tore ligaments in both of his knees, immobilizing him for 6 months. Through his recovery, the film follows his exploration of the effects of plant-based diets and athletic performance. Wilks first consults a study on Roman gladiators that argues they were predominantly vegetarian. The movie then introduces some scientists who contend that humans are best suited for plant-based diets.

Wilks then interviews and highlights the accomplishments of elite-level athletes who eat a plant-based diet such as Scott Jurek, Patrik Baboumian, Bryant Jennings, and Derrick Morgan. In an interview, Arnold Schwarzenegger says that the stereotype "meat makes you a man" is marketing and, "not based on reality." Wilks focuses on a fight between Nate Diaz who follows a plant based diet and Conor McGregor who does not. During trash talk, McGregor says that he will eat Diaz "like a lion eats a gazelle", and footage of McGregor tapping out to Diaz in the second round of UFC 196 is later shown.

The film turns its attention to animal-based foods and cardiovascular health arguing that animal protein is packaged with molecules the film says cause inflammation and that animal products change the gut microbiome to produce inflammatory mediators. The movie contrasts this with plant-based proteins that it argues are packaged with antioxidants and phytochemicals, proposing that such chemicals reduce inflammation and optimize athletic performance.

The film then shows some demonstrations, which it terms "experiments", where men who eat a plant-based diet are compared with men who do not. The first demonstration purports to show that plant-based meals have favorable effects on the male sexual organ, thought scientists interviewed in the film admit the demonstration is not a scientifically valid. Another "experiment" measures the endothelium of participants after eating plant-based or animal-based meals; the film purports that this demonstrates a well-known phenomenon of constant postprandial endothelial dysfunction impairing physical performance. Then Rip Esselstyn, a triathlete and former firefighter, challenges select firefighters to a 7-day plant-based diet after which the movie says several of their cholesterol levels dropped by 100 points. Finally, Walter Willett argues that there is accumulating evidence that high consumption of protein from dairy sources is related to higher risk of prostate cancer and that the cancer causation is pretty clear.

The movie then accuses the meat and dairy industries of promoting a propaganda similar to the tobacco industry playbook by hiring their own researchers to create doubt, confusion, and combat public health messages. Exponent is named as an example of a company that repeatedly challenges the health risks from substances such as asbestos, arsenic, mercury, to animal foods. David Katz punctuates this point by saying that despite the appearance of confusion in the media, there is massive global consensus on the fundamentals of a health promoting diet, which he says is a plant-food predominant diet.

The movie then highlights the environmental damage caused by animal agriculture. Damien Mander, a retired special ops sniper and founder of the International Anti-Poaching Foundation says the biggest threat to wildlife is the meat industry, because they are slowly encroaching on remaining wilderness areas.

The movie ends with Wilks recovering and going back to teaching self defense while promoting a plant-based diet.

If anybody wants to know what the documentary has said, they can read the synopsis on wiki rather than watch a one and a half hour documentary. That is the purpose of a synopsis. Synopsis does not require anymore than a synopsis or a detailing of the documentary. Just as the original synopsis does. RBut (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

While in general I support the article having a synopsis or summary, as it stands, I think this one is far too detailed and in-depth, and actually less helpful in that way. We don't need a blow-by-blow account, but rather just a high-level overview. As ever, just my opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt anybody will complain that a synopsis is detailed. I checked many examples of documentaries, there are synopsis that are even far longer and more detailed than this. If you are reading the synopsis and would like to know what the documentary has said, why would you want to know less? I don't believe this is a complaint that any reader has thought. RBut (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it, so that's one reader at least! We have to strike a balance between detail and readability, and for me, this runs too far to the detail side of things. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and if consensus is against me, I will not complain. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It does go into unnecessary detail. We don't need to know the quotes, the background and should definitely cut out the editorialising. Aircorn (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot include a synopsis unless we can source it to reliable sources other than the movie. This is not negotiable. jps (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually you don't need to cite a plot (see WP:PLOTCITE). Aircorn (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I was reviewing this section as well, but the whole bit is very specifically concerned with works of fiction--I am not quite sure why this is, and for all I know, it might be an oversight, but on the face of it, those sections don't apply here. Any thoughts from any quarter would be welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed is more useful. A matter of fact description of the plot is fine as it is assumed to be cited to the movie. Aircorn (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am fine in a general way with including a summary, but I am not quite sure why this distinction exists, and even your second reference (and thanks for that) seems to shade in that direction, talking about the "plot" of an "artistic" work (though this does obviously apply to documentaries). So, as I say, fine with a shortened summary, but I'd love to know why there's a policy distinction! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly WP:PLOTCITE does not apply when there are editorial disputes over how to summarize the plot itself. Especially as it seems we run the risk of WP:COAT here. After all, the movie has been accused of being problematic in exactly that fashion. I tried in good faith to achieve a WP:NPOV summary of the plot working from RBut's first attempt. He reverted back to his slanted and biased recounting. What I include above here is my attempt at neutral summarizing, but if we cannot come to a consensus that this is a neutral plot summary then I'm afraid our only recourse is to look for how the plot has been summarized by outside sources. jps (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, which parts do you deem editorialized? There is only a single line that I can spot which is in the beginning. The documentary does not say this, which the synopsis does "which sends him on a journey." Everything else is purely from the documentary. RBut (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Essentially all of the edits I made to the plot summary were attempts at removing editorializing, whitewashing, and coatracking. That was my entire goal. You reverted back, I assume, because you want the summary of the movie to conform to your perspective about what it is successful at doing. jps (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted back because a synopsis should be a synopsis. Your edited one is not a synopsis. It might be worthwhile to allow Acron to answer. RBut (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a non-answer. jps (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A synopsis should be a synopsis. Your edit changed a synopsis to an editorialized version which you claim to have removed, e.g. "The film then shows some demonstrations, which it terms "experiments"" - can you point to the timestamp of when this is said?

And now, point out all of the "editorializing, whitewashing, and coatracking" in the original. RBut (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also advise looking up the definition of a synopsis... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synopsis RBut (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

RBut, you have now had three separate people tell you that your version is too long, too detailed, and too editorialized (count me in for that), and your response is to link to the dictionary. I don't know how you intended that, but it strikes me as incredibly condescending. So let me respond with a definition of my own: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus If your intent is to persuade, I can say that you're having the opposite effect on me. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a good compromise here would be to re-write the synopsis i.e. condense it into less text. The suggested synopsis above was 30 lines, maybe 10 would be a better option. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to do that, but I imagine it will be met with knee-jerk derision. jps (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Trial

The documentary follows James Wilks, an athlete and combat expert who, while recovering from a sparring injury, explores the health benefits of plant-based diets for athletic performance. Wilks first consults a study on Roman gladiators that argues they were predominantly vegetarian. He then interviews elite-level athletes who eat plant-based diets such as Scott Jurek, Patrik Baboumian, Bryant Jennings, Derrick Morgan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Nate Diaz. The film argues that animal-based foods are harmful for cardiovascular health and inflammation while proposing that a plant-based diet can reduce inflammation and optimize athletic performance. A sequence is shown where men who eat a plant-based diet are compared with men who do not with positive outcomes for the men consuming plant-based diets. The movie accuses the meat and dairy industries of promoting a propaganda similar to the tobacco industry playbook by hiring their own researchers to create doubt, confusion, and combat public health messages. The movie then highlights the environmental damage caused by animal agriculture. The movie ends with Wilks recovering and going back to teaching self defense while promoting a plant-based diet.

A synopsis is supposed to be more detailed, rather than a very short and simple overview... Why should it omit so much of the detail and be shorter?

And I have asked multiple times to point out the editorializing in the original, that has yet to be done. RBut (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you came up with the idea that a synopsis needs so much detail. And I certainly don't see much point in trying to explain where your version came across as editorializing. The last time I tried to have a content discussion with you it was utterly pointless. jps (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And I don't know where you came up with the idea that a synopsis now needs to be short, when the original synopsis explains what happened in most of the documentary. Just like how you're coming up with ideas that a synopsis needs to be sourced (even though the synopsis references to Wikipedia's articles - so now you also deem Wikipedia as a non viable or reputable source?). And the reason you cannot point out the editorializing is because there isn't any. I would advise looking up the definition of the word since your edit added it, which means you're using words you do not understand: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editorialize - e.g. "The film then shows some demonstrations, which it terms "experiments"" - this is literally what editorializing is. This is what you did, and what you deem a "neutral" edit. Again, point out the timestamp of when this is said since you're basing this on the documentary and not your opinion, right? RBut (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

RBut, as far as I am concerned, your bludgeoning and ownership with regard to this article have become a ludicrous time sink. Unless you hear otherwise, consider me diametrically opposed to any edit you wish to make. I wish you luck and all the best in your Wikipedia endeavors, though I would respectfully suggest it might be better for everyone if those involved other articles. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

These questions are an attempt to do so. And I would appreciate if you could note that I feel the exact same way about you and jps. If this also a consistent stance, will you do the same for other wiki articles?

This documentary has 1360 words in its synopsis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron:_The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room - that's almost double the the original here. Will you now go over there and omit all of this information because it is "too long" for your readability?

This documentary has 820 words in its synopsis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_film) - that's around 40 more than the original here. Will you omit all of the information because it is too long for your readability?

This documentary has around 930 words in its synopsis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth - Will you now omit all of this information so that I would have to watch the documentary to know what it said?

This proves there is no reason to make this synopsis shorter. It is easily digestible and every single sentence is important to the synopsis. And that the actual reason you push to shorten it is because it does not support your views (further evidenced by the editorializing by jps, and your support for it). RBut (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Then no synopsis it is, I guess. Unless/until you are ready to actually collaborate with others, there is no reason for us to continue. jps (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

RBut, what you seem incapable of realizing is that yes, jps and I agree, but aircorn did as well and Psychologist Guy at the least thought a shorter synopsis was a reasonable compromise. Everyone who has looked at this is on a somewhat similar page. Except you. It is not ownership to propose that consensus prevail. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@jps The questions that I ask, as well as the evidence I've requested, is my attempt to further this. This is my definition of collaboration. Ignoring and shutting down these attempts with a "do what I say or I will not engage and we will keep this synopsis hidden" is my definition of the opposite of collaboration.

@Dumuzid Aircorn said "It does go into unnecessary detail. We don't need to know the quotes, the background and should definitely cut out the editorialising." Removing the background of the scientists is reasonable (unless they do not have a wiki page, e.g. Fabian Kanz). However, we do need the quotes as they're part of the plot - but, they can definitely be replaced with narration. And I cannot find any editorializing as the wording used is from the documentary. RBut (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I have included a few inline templates to indicate the really terrible writing that this "new synopsis" includes. Apart from rampant editorializing, passive writing for no reason, and needless repetition, there are a lot more problems. Since when I tried to fix them last month (this is largely a rehash of the same writing RBut had tried to include before) I was simply knee-jerk reverted, I'll start putting up the tags so you can see my complaints which are many. jps (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

New Synopsis

The documentary opens by introducing James Wilks, a combatives expert and instructor for government agencies Transcript: "I've been teaching fighting technique to government agencies for more than 15 years. Including the US Marines, the US Marshals, US Swat Teams, and US Navy Seals." I shouldn't have to inform you on this as it is the very beginning of the doc. I did not have issues understanding this, it were not vague to me. I am not sure about others. Feel free to share. The vagueness article is also an editorial, not policy/guideline. Lastly, the very next line specifies: such as the US Navy Seals. During sparring, James tears ligaments in both of his knees, immobilizing him for 6 monthsIt's the beginning of the doc and he explains what sent him on this journey. It's important. You must be willing to at least watch the beginning if you're editing the synopsis? Transcript: "I was sparring with a future heavyweight champion and tore ligaments in both of my knees. Unable to train or teach for at least six months, I spent more than a thousand hours studying peer reviewed science on recovery and nutrition. Looking for any advantage I could find to get back on track as quickly as possible. That's when I stumbled across a study on the Roman Gladiators." And this plays into the next comment:. During that time, James attempts to find any advantage PROVE IT - not shouting, but highlighting) to recover as quickly as possible. He stumbles PROVE IT. it's a word for word copy. This is a running theme of this synopsis. across a study on the Roman gladiators, which sends him on a journey editorializing means it's an opinion. He went from an injury to studying literature to interviewing athletes and mainstream scientists. Are you able to explain how that is not a journey and how it is a subjective term? If this harmless language is a big deal (possibly for you only? I don't know what others think), we can replace it.

Fabian Kanz, a forensic pathologist at the Medical University of Vienna says high levels of strontium were found in the gladiators, which is an indicator of a high intake of plant foods. The expert PROVE IT. - again, not shouting He's a forensic pathologist. He has specialized in forensic pathology. He has expertise in forensic pathology. He is an expert on forensic pathology. This is an objective term. A scientist that has specialized in a field, is an expert concludes that the gladiators were predominantly vegetarian. ScientistsRichard Wrangham was named within the same sentence in areas such as anthropology, archaeogenetics, and genetics, are later they are introduced half way in. What can we even do with this information? it'll be ignored. "half way into the doc, scientists in these areas are introduced?" I'd classify this as a time wasting critique (only pointing it out because you have complained of this above) introduced, such as Richard Wrangham that explain why we are best suited for such diets I will expand on this section via their exact wording. It explains that plants food could always be relied on, and they are easy to find and eat due to their immobility. As well as that our scientific methods were biased towards finding preserved tools and animal derivatives versus plant derivatives, because plant matter decomposes rapidly whereas bones, tools, hides and such do not. They explain how due to new technology they are able to find residues of plant matter, and when looking at the very same areas which they thought were dominated by an intake of animal foods, they instead find plants to make up the majority of our ancestors' caloric intake. Basically they re-visit the same era underground at sites and find decomposed plant matter of common foodstuffs. They explain that our understanding of our ancestors has been mislead, and then point to many other factors we have evolved that we should have paid more attention to that were signaling this, such as how our brains are starved for glucose, and consume a very large amount just by existing and much much more. This section debunks that we were carnivores for most of our evolution by using mainstream and non plant based scientists. Which is a reason why I find many of the biased claims of this documentary hilarious. The amount of plant based scientists that were featured were minimal, and when they were, it were only on their groundbreaking research e.g. Caldwell Esselstyn and his CHD halting and reversal studies. Most of the info in the documentary comes from mainstream scientists in the most prestigious universities. It's why countries such as Canada are beginning to recommending plant dominant diets. It's not fringe. It's becoming mainstream, and for a good reason (this is what our best nutritional evidence shows) - this last section is not relevant and trivia to the synopsis.

James looks for plant based athletesTranscript: "I was curious to find out if there were any other elite plant based athletes", and elite level athletes such as Scott Jurek, an ultramarathon runner, are introduced exactly what happened. The tone article isn't guidelines or policy, but an editorial. They accomplish impressive athletic endeavors peacock article states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", this synopsis can classify, as we use their direct language. Your edit: "Wilks then interviews and highlights the accomplishments of elite-level athletes" I would call elementary itself, and is subject to the very same critiques "what accomplishments?" If you do not want to use this language, PROVIDE the accomplishments we should list - again, not shouting, just highlighting following a transition to a plant based diet. James wonders where the big guys exact words of the documentary. The buzzword article isn't policy or a guideline but an editorial which is an opinion piece are, and elite level exact words of the documentary. There is nothing wrong with calling elite level athletes elite level athletes. Those that win Olympic medals and other elite level events, and set world records are objectively elite level athletes. The peacock article allows for common sense exceptions, and I would say this classifies athletes such as Patrik Baboumian and Bryant Jennings are introduced I find nothing wrong with the tone. The tone article is not policy/guideline. You PERSONALLY do not like the grammar - again, not shouting. They similarly accomplish impressive athletic endeavors objective term. World records, Olympic medals and more are elite level accomplishments which are the highest level and most competitive events we have. I think impressive is a good term to substitute listing their actual accomplishments following a transition to a plant based diet this is how it were broken down in the doc, this is the plot. They feature endurance plant based athletes, and he makes the observation "they're all lean, maybe plant based prevents you from being strong/massive?", and then they feature the strength/mass monsters with impressive accomplishments. Later, the Tennessee Titans team members specified in the next sentence - it does not make sense to list 14 names, such as Derrick Morgan are introduced MoS article is about making sure your grammar is understandable, and to watch for errors that can happen. I do not find this to be confusing. Not sure about anyone else. Feel free to share. They say they had their best season in the last 15 years they didn't specify. We probably should not do original research, with 14 of their members following a plant based diet. Charity Morgan, a professional chef was credited for inspiring I would not agree that inspired is a peacock term. It's an objective term to describe an event. Such as inspiring athletes to adopt a plant based diet by cooking pro standard food for them this transformation when people change, it can be called a transformation. It doesn't imply for better or for worse. It's not loaded language. It's an objective term to describe personal change. I think you are misusing this critique. in the team. James questions the stereotype that meat makes you a man exact words of the doc. Tone article is not policy/guideline but an editorial.. Arnold Schwarzenegger says the idea that meat makes you a man is marketing and that it's not based on reality PROVIDE IT - again, not shouting. During trash talk, Conor McGregor plays to that stereotype PROVE IT. and says that he will eat Nate Diaz who follows a plant based diet, like a lion eats a gazelle PROVIDE IT. Footage is later played I'd say this is a time wasting (something you complained of earlier) critique. Even if this is provided, what would you be suggesting? "an hour into the documentary, Conor is shown tapping out"? or to move it further in the synopsis where it will not make sense? showing Conor tapping out to Nate in the second round of UFC 196.

Scientists in the fields of cardiology, hematology, urology and several team physicians are introduced It is easily understandable for me. I am not sure about others. Tone article is also not policy/guideline, such as Kim Williams, explaining PROVE IT the effects of animal foods on cardiovascular health. One of the scientistsJ.ames Loomis explains it is the package that the protein comes in that is important the next sentence clarifies. Some of these critiques are seeming to be an impulse to me. He says animal protein is packaged with inflammatory molecules PROVE IT such as Neu5Gc, endotoxins, heterocyclic amines, and heme iron, and that animal products change the microbiome in our gut which produce inflammatory mediators such as TMAO. Whereas plant based protein is packaged with antioxidants and phytochemicals that reduce inflammation PROVE IT. And I should mention the doc has like 30 citations on this section. and optimize your bodies performance word for word copy. That sentence fragment article is not even an editorial, but a general article. Several experiments we're not meant to editorialize it are carried out, showing we're not meant to editorialize it plant based meals to have favorable objective term. They explained the effects which were favorable. I summarized to favorable. effects on the male sexual organ, which the scientist Aaron Spitz - he has no wiki page, if we use his name, we'll need to add more than that says is not scientifically valid, as well as the endothelium I'll re-word it, which the scientist says demonstrates a well known phenomenon I'll re-do this section. But if you read the next sentence, it's no longer vague, the effects of a meal on endothelial function. He[[J.ames Loomis]] says that constant postprandial endothelial dysfunction can impair performance. Rip Esselstyn, a triathlete and former firefighter challenged firefighters the ones in the documentary. I do not require clarification as this is straight forward to me. I am not sure about anyone else. Feel free to share. to a 7 day plant based diet, and several firefighters drop their cholesterol level by 100 points we're not meant to editorialize it. Walter Willett says there is accumulating evidence that high consumption of protein from dairy sources is related to higher risk of prostate cancer. He says that chain of cancer causation seems pretty clear word for word copy. Tone article is not policy/guideline but an editorial.

Several scientists Terry Mason & David Katz - Terry Mason has no wiki page, we'll need to add more if we use his name cover the tobacco industry playbook and say the food industry word for word copy. The food industry are any industry that sell food, and sometimes their food is found to have negative effects. Once the evidence piles up, agencies begin recommending lowering the consumption of those foods or the compounds in them, and the industries that sell those foods do not like these messages. So they use lawyers, politicians, scientists and every play in the book to increase their profit margins for as long as possible. To the point where their highest level executives will even lie under oath [[28]] The food industry doesn't refer only to AG, but also to the sugar industry, oil industry and many more. Their strategies are a replica of the tobacco industries playbook. Objective fact. Not that this is relevant, this is trivia (in regards to this synopsis). uses it by hiring their own researchers to create doubt and confusion, combating the public health message Governmental agencies such as the WHO that release public health messages. I am not having an issue understanding this. Not sure about others. Feel free to share. Exponent is used as an example I have no issue understanding this. Not sure about others. Tone article is not policy/guideline, a company that repeatedly challenges the health risks from everything PROVE IT such as asbestos, arsenic, mercury, to animal foods. David Katz says despite the appearance of confusion in the media, there is massive word for word copy. We can remove global consensus on the fundamentals of a health promoting diet I am not having clarification issues (not sure about others). It specifies in the next sentence, and is word for word, which he says is a plant food predominant diet to be consistent, I'll have to point out that "which he says" is editorialized. "he says" adds redundancy and editorializing. It needs to be changed to "global consensus on the fundamentals of a health promoting diet which is a plant food predominant diet".

Scientists in the field of the environment, such as Tim Lang talk about the environmental damage caused by animal agriculture. Damien Mander says the biggest threat that we have I'm not sure if I would classify this as vague. It's specified in the next sentence is the meat industry, because they are slowly PROVE IT taking away the left over I am not having issues understanding. It's a word for word copy wilderness areas. The journey ends Buzzword article is not policy/guideline and I'm not even sure I would classify that as a buzzword with James recovering and going back to teaching self defense, but with a new, critical component, internal defense. Armed with the tools of nutrition all of the last ones are a direct copy (just as everything else, so your critique of the 7th grade grammar is actually a critique of the scientists/James in the doc). I also did not have issues understanding (the articles you have been citing make this point, that understanding can become an issue if you are not careful). Some of those articles are editorials and not guidelines/policy., he says he now has the tools to protect more lives than ever before PROVE IT. PROVIDE IT. Again, to be consistent, "he says" were editorialized. Specifying "he says", is redundant and adds editorializing. Needs to be changed to "he now has the tools to protect more lives than ever before".

What do you think? RBut (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It reads like you are a seventh grader writing a persuasive essay. I don't think it is worth even starting on this version, but you can see the issues as I've marked them up as your teacher with a red pen. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. jps (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The documentary is persuasive, hence when a synopsis is written on it, it comes out persuasive. The wording that was used in the documentary was what this whole synopsis was based on, apart from a few lines. I will show it when I clarify on your comments later. Some have merit, some do not. RBut (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If we were using direct quotes, your argument about the tone of the text would be reasonable. But since the text is in WP's voice, there is definitely a requirement to write the text so it conforms to the standards of WP:TONE, WP:PERSUASIVE, and WP:FORMAL. jps (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The majority of these are direct quotes, without the quotations. Most of this synopsis is word for word. RBut (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"teacher with a red pen" sorry but this seems like a power trip. It makes it seem like you're saying that everything revolves around what you'll allow... we're meant to collaborate. You cannot dispute something with no evidence and then force others to prove you wrong. You have to provide evidence for your dispute, to prove it right, right? it has to have merit. Are you not willing to even watch the beginning of the doc? You need to put in some of the leg work yourself, since I even had to transcribe the beginning of the doc. If you are not willing, then why be keen set on editing this synopsis? (I'm not saying it can't use improving or that all of your critiques were wrong) But it makes it seem as if your motivations aren't to improve this synopsis, but to criticize the actual documentary in the synopsis. For example, you have shared your belief that you have neutralized this synopsis, but if you look at your edit at the start of this thread: "The movie ends with Wilks recovering and going back to teaching self defense while promoting a plant-based diet." - this is not even close to what the doc said. This is not at all neutral. It is an option to allow me to collaborate with others. Plus, you have been making things up such as that we need to cite a synopsis (a literal plot of a documentary). So I cannot view you as a reliable source of info. Your critiques many times are attempting to be actual critiques of the doc, as in you are attempting to critique the doc within the synopsis. Plus, you have also complained of time wasting but are not aware of the beginning sentences of the doc, this seems disingenuous to me. I would classify that as a projection. If you legitimately care about improving this synopsis, you will need to collaborate and put some effort in yourself rather than only boss others around. RBut (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:ONUS. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/onus Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

RBut (talk · contribs), why don't you go get a third opinion to see if they think that your arguments are reasonable here? So far, I've only seen truculence and a stubborn refusal to collaborate. jps (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@jps I'm not sure if this is accurate. For example you have written critiques in the new synopsis and say something is editorialized, I only ask you to prove it (or to provide the quotes which you have requested - I already did the transcript of the beginning sections - it is what I call collaborative). As in, actually watch the documentary, go to where this is said and then say "aha, it didn't say this, but actually it said this, here are there errors and what we need to change. (Or, "it did actually say this, and this is word for word, sorry, you were right")". For the other non policy/guideline critiques, such as "tone" and etc, in many of those I say "personally, I do not have an issue understanding (which is a major point of those articles - to watch for errors that can happen in understanding), however, if anyone else does, feel free to share and we can change" I have no prob with changing those, if simply more people than you agree there is an issue. And lastly, I agreed that the endothelium section should be rewritten, and that I will do it (and that I will expand on the "why we are best suited for such diets" section). And that some things can be removed (such as "massive" and "journey" (though I did ask you to at least attempt to reason as to how that is not an objective term - but it really does not matter, it can be removed, it will not harm this synopsis - but personally, it just made sense, and a better synopsis). Sorry, but I will disagree that this is not collaborative. Again, I feel like you are being dishonest that I do not want to collaborate simply because you aren't allowed to boss others around, or to make any change you want (again, not that I have issue with most of those, I simply ask for more people to give their input). RBut (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As to why I do not get a third opinion, I feel like this is reasonable, no? RBut (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Forget it. We don't need a synopsis of the film. jps (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to proceed, we can start with the #Trial version above. If you have specific objections to wording, we can deal with those (e.g., you somehow don't like the last sentence, but never explained why). But we're just not going to start with your version which you've now admitted includes wording that is quoted directly from the film's transcript but not included as direct quotes, a blatant form of WP:PLAGIARISM. jps (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Final Synopsis

The documentary opens by introducing James Wilks, a combatives expert and instructor for government agencies such as the US Navy Seals. While sparring, Wilks tore ligaments in both of his knees, immobilizing him for 6 months. After the injury, Wilks looks for any advantage to recover quickly, and comes across a study on the Roman gladiators. Wilks consults Fabian Kanz, a forensic pathologist at the Medical University of Vienna who says high levels of strontium were found in the bones' of the gladiators which is an indicator of a high intake of plant foods. Kanz shows contemporary accounts of the gladiators that refer to them as "hordearii" which translates to "beans and barley muncher", and concludes that the gladiators were mostly vegetarian. Wilks experiences disbelief. This contradicted everything that he had been taught about nutrition, so he looks for plant based athletes.

Athletes

He discovers Scott Jurek, who was aiming to be the fastest person to complete the Appalachian Trail, a distance of 2,200 miles (3,500 km). Jurek suffers a quadriceps tear while record breaking rainfall double whammies, but persists, and beats the record by three hours. Wilks then meets Morgan Mitchell, who was training for the 400 meters. She ends up winning the Australian domestic season, and the Australian nationals. As well as Dotsie Bausch, who was training for the Olympics. They end up beating Australia in track cycling by 0.082th of a second in the semi finals. Bausch imputes to her plant based diet that qualified her for the Olympics by facilitating recovery and allowing her to train more frequently. Wilks makes the observation that these endurance athletes are lean, and wonders whether a plant based diet is an obstacle to gaining strength and mass. He finds Kendrick Farris, who was training for the Olympics. Farris broke two U.S records, the snatch and the clean and jerk after adopting a plant based diet. As well as Patrik Baboumian, who was training to set the Guinness world record for the heaviest yoke. Baboumian lost his father and sister in a car crash at 4 years old, and dreamt of becoming strong enough to flip a car to be able to assist rescuing people. He achieved both events, by setting the Guinness world record and flipping a car. Baboumian continued to gain strength and mass, and managed to break the front hold, keg lift and log lift records when he stopped eating meat. Bryant Jennings was training to contend a boxing heavyweight title, but lost the event versus Wladimir Klitschko by decision. Wilks then found out that his strength and conditioning coach, Lucious Smith has been following a plant based diet for 10 years. Smith says his blood pressure and heart rate have lowered while experiencing an increase in energy upon following a plant based diet. At 60 years old, he says young adult athletes cannot outperform him in strength-endurance events. Wilks also found other NFL players, including Derrick Morgan. Morgan says the injury rate in the NFL is 100%, and that you are not helping the team if you are not on the field. He tried a plant based diet to expedite recovery. Which improved, he was less sore and swollen. He got a blood test to confirm his experience, and found that his cholesterol and blood pressure had lowered, as well as an inflammation marker that became obsolete. He had the best season of his career following this transition. Scott Stoll, a team physician for the USA Olympic team and former Olympian follows by ratifying Morgan's experience. Stoll explains that a whole foods plant based diet optimizes the growth of blood vessels in damaged tissue, while simultaneously assisting with laying down new tissue in the tendons and muscles which accelerate recovery. The other Tennessee Titans NFL players that Wilks met include Jurrell Casey, Brian Orakpo, Tye Smith, Wesley Woodyard, Daquan Jones and Rishard Matthews. Woodyard makes a joke that he taught meat was essential to be strong. But upon improving his performance following the adaptation of a plant based diet, he thought his childhood was a lie. The other players laugh and share the same sentiment. Finally, Wilks met Nimai Delgado, a bodybuilder and an IFBB pro who has never eaten meat, as well as Lewis Hamilton who says his well being has significantly improved upon adhering to a plant based diet.

Health

Wilks was puzzled as to how the athletes could get enough energy without consuming animal protein. He confers to James Loomis, a team physician who was a part of two championships, the World Series and the Super Bowl. Loomis explains that our energy mainly comes from carbohydrates, in the form of glucose that is stored as glycogen. And that when you sacrifice too many carbohydrates for protein, your level of glycogen drops which impedes performance. He says it is a fallacy to think that plant protein is inferior to animal protein because as long as the proper amount of amino acids are consumed, the source is irrelevant. Scott Stoll conveys the importance of the package that follows a source of protein. He pin points the inflammatory molecules that follow animal protein which include Neu5Gc, endotoxins, oxysterols, heterocyclic amines, AGEs, arachidonic acid, and heme iron, and that animal products change the microbiome in our gut which produce inflammatory mediators such as TMAO. Whereas plant-based protein is packaged with fiber, vitamin c, antioxidants and phytochemicals including lycopene, carotenoids, flavanoids and lignans that reduce inflammation, flourish mutualistic microbes in the microbiome, improve blood supply, and performance. Robert Vogel, Co-chair, NFL Subcommittee on cardiovascular health imparts the importance of a meal preceding an athletic endeavor as there is a direct correlation between a meal and endothelial function, a process that regulates blood flow throughout the body. Vogel designs an experiment that feature Miami Dolphins players Michael Thomas, Griff Whalen and Kenny Stills, comparing the postprandial effects of burritos consisting of either grass fed beef, organic chicken or black beans on endothelial function. On the first day, the meals consisting of meat produced a cloudy plasma, demonstrating endothelial dysfunction. While on the following day, the burritos consisting of beans produced clear plasma. Vogel says the cloudy plasma lasts for ~6 hours, and that this compounds after every meat meal, subverting performance throughout the day. Aaron Spitz, lead delegate at the American Urological Association designs another experiment featuring three Miami Dolphins players to test the effects of a meal on the male sexual organ. On the first night, the meals consisted of burritos with grass fed beef, organic chicken and organic pork. On the second night, the meat were replaced with meat analogues of those same products. The results showed an increase of ~10% in the hardness of the erections, and ~360% in the duration of the erections during sleep following the plant based meals. Spitz affirms, that while this is not a scientifically valid study, the results are exciting. The players joke that they would laugh at people eating salads for being soft and would look up in awe of the heavyweights eating a steak, "but at the end of the day, the heavyweight is soft and the guy eating a salad is hard". In an interview, Arnold Schwarzenegger says that the universal stereotype that eating meat turns you into a man, is marketing and that it is not based on reality. Wilks focuses on a fight between Nate Diaz and Conor McGregor who plays to that stereotype, and during trash talk says that he will eat Diaz like a lion eats a gazelle. In the fight, McGreogor taps out due to a rear naked choke by Diaz. Then Rip Esselstyn challenges firefighters to a 7-day plant-based diet, and several firefighters drop their cholesterol level by ~100 mg/dl, with an average cholesterol drop of 21 mg/dl. Kim Williams enunciates that upon the consumption of animal products, formation of atherosclerotic plaques begin that can progress to CHD and block blood flow. Columbus Batiste, chief cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente says avoiding heart disease is more complicated than limiting red meat or fat, but that inflammatory molecules play a significant role in the development of heart disease. Helen Moon, hematologist at Kaiser Permanente points to heme iron. She says people underestimate the heme iron that subsists within poultry and fish, at around ~1 - 2 mg per serving, while an average hamburger patty has ~3 mg. An intake of every 1 mg/day has shown to increase risk of CHD by 27%. Finally, Walter Willett says there is accumulating evidence that high consumption of protein from dairy sources is related to higher risk of prostate cancer and that the cancer causation is pretty clear.

Anthropology and Genetics

Wilks became perplexed. He was taught that our ancestors' diet consisted mainly of animal products which should not induce any negative health effects. He interviews Christina Warinner who explains that plants decay rapidly unlike bones and stone, which have misdirected the understanding of our historical diet. She says that microscopic fossils of plants do preserve, and that with advanced technologies, ample evidence of plant consumption were found upon re-visiting previous paleolithic sites. She annotates that humans do not have any specialized genetic, anatomical or physiological adaptations to meat consumption, while comprising many adaptations to plant consumption. She alludes to our long digestive tract, trichromatic vision, and an inability to produce our own vitamin c. Mark Thomas, geneticist at the University College London clarifies the importance of glucose for a large human brain to evolve. He says carbohydrate consumption were required as meat is a poor source of glucose. Wilks asks Nathaniel Dominy, professor of anthropology at Dartmouth College whether our teeth are evidence that we were built to eat meat. Nathaniel answers by converging to male gorillas, who show the length of their formidable canines when they intimidate other males. He compares a skull of a carnivore to a human skull and identifies the distinctive teeth that are shaped like scissor blades in the carnivores' which shred muscular tissue and swallow, while human teeth are square and low cusp for crushing and grinding plant tissues, which is distinctive evidence that human diets were not centered around animal products. Thomas attests that if you were placed in an ancestral environment, knowledge of edible plants, rather than a spear, is most important for survivability. Wilks resolves, that the reason animal products are not good for us is because we are not built for them.

Tobacco Industry Playbook

Terry Mason, Cook County Department of Public Health remarks on the tobacco industry playbook, a combination of strategies that are employed by the food industry. It embroils hiring researchers to create doubt, confusion, and combat public health messages. As well as incorporating idols and symbols of health, such as popular athletes and doctors for advertisement. Wilks features the advertisements of the tobacco industry where Babe Ruth promotes smoking, and the meat industry where Christiano Ronaldo promotes McDonalds and KFC. Following the WHO report on the carcinogenicity of processed and red meats, Shalene McNeill, executive director of The National Cattlemen's Beef Association appears in a news interview enunciating that the WHO report on processed and red meats is alarmist, and that she does not believe there is a sufficient relationship to suggest such a connection. Exponent is named as an example of a social engineering company that repeatedly challenges the health risks from substances such as asbestos, arsenic, mercury, second hand smoking to animal products. David Katz attests that this formula works symbiotically for the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry that treat the diseases caused by the food, and the media that can create a new story about diet everyday. He says despite the appearance of confusion in the media, the global consensus of a health promoting diet is a plant-food rich diet.

Environment

Rob Bailey, a research director of Energy, Environment, and Resources at Chatham House orates that 3/4ths of all agricultural land are used for livestock production which impose a significant cost on biodiversity and habitat destruction while only providing 34% of the protein and 18% of the calories worldwide. With more than ~70 billion land animals consumed each year, growing animal feed requires substantial amounts of land, making it one of the leading drivers of deforestation. The livestock sector is responsible for 15% of global co2 emissions which is equal to the amount produced by all forms of transport around the world. Including planes, trains, cars, vans and ships together. Johan Rockstrom remarks on the overuse of fresh water by the animal agriculture industry which has caused 25% of rivers to no longer reach the ocean and Tim Lang, professor of Food Policy at the City University London follows by lamenting on the 4,000 litres of embedded water that are required to produce a hamburger. Wilks then focuses on water pollution and finds out that in the US, farm animals produce 50% more waste per year than the entire US population which pollutes rivers, lakes and ground water. Rockstrom says agriculture is the biggest culprit threatening the future of humanity, but that a viable solution would be to shift away from an animal based diet which would reduce agricultural emissions by up to 73%, while saving 1 million litres of water per person per year. Globally, this shift would free up an area of land the size of Africa, relieving pressure from endangered ecosystems and species. Lang encourages reducing meat and dairy consumption, and increasing plant consumption which would improve both public health and environmental health.

Closing

The documentary ends with Wilks recovering and going back to teaching self defense but with a new component, internal defense. Armed with the tools of nutrition, he says he now has the tools to protect more lives than ever before.

I used your synopsis and respected your critiques from the previous synopsis. The explanations are no longer ambiguous, they are more in depth. I added a joke by the athletes to improve readability. I did not use "argue" because it makes it seem like there was debate/arguing, but it was a stream of interviews. I used the word "experiment" without the preamble because changing a variable and observing its effects is an experiment. You could even do this without humans, with a bacterial cell for example, or even an atom. That doesn't mean the experiment contains a lot of scientific weight (this is accomplished with numbers, as well as repetition).

I believe a criticism will follow this is too long. However, this is a one and a half hour documentary, which is not easy to summarize in a few hundred words. If that is implemented, the 200 - 300 words distributes minimal information, and hence, it is almost inconsequential as it bestows little information that were not included in the description of the material itself. Whereas the in depth synopsis provides in depth information, and as such, is advantageous. Particularly to those who are interested in such wiki pages. Those who are not interested, scroll down. That is something I practice myself, rather than editing articles and deleting such information. This is not unprecedented. This is practiced all across Wikipedia, including identical wiki articles (as it has been shown above). There are a multitude more examples. Of course, I am not opposed to improving grammar to summarize the material more efficiently.

I envisage that this will be the one. It fixes the errors of the previous. RBut (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but this is a no for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It can also be split into parts for aesthetic and selectivity reasons. I added subsections "Health", "Anthropology and Genetics" and etc to test. That way "Athletes" subsection can be improved. I expanded until Patrik Baboumian. I will finish it later. - Alright, that is done. Grammar could be improved, but not today. RBut (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid - Where do we go from here? I of course believe this synopsis improves this article rather than implementing a description that would be found on Netflix. I share the same sentiment with the other in-depth synopsis on identical wiki pages. Do you mind explaining why you hold an opposing position?

These synopsis are very useful to me as I am a fan of re-visiting material that I appreciate. It saves a significant amount of time to refresh the material via summarization. I very much appreciate the work of the editors that create these, as their efforts have saved time for others. Anyways, that is one of the primary reasons that I very much appreciate in depth synopsis. Cheers. RBut (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding the undo of my edit: "Undid revision 1052923360 by RBut (talk) apologies, but in the context of a critical source, "thesis" seems a more apt description; I am not sure among whom the consensus would be here" - I believe the consensus of the largest environmental agency (UN/IPCC) should be used as the consensus, versus the opinions of a dietetics organization who have referred to a single study as a rebut to the UN/IPCC (it is likely that they were not aware, as that is not their field of study). Cheers. RBut (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I have made final edits. I believe this synopsis is adequate. It expanded on jps's synopsis that consider his critiques of the original, as well as the most recent critique by Dumuzid, which was its length. Now it contains a short intro, but also a more in depth synopsis for those interested. Since there is prolonged inactivity, I have been given a green light by a moderator to instate the new synopsis. RBut (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Consensus is for a short synopsis. No one agrees with what you've done. jps (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree insofar as my inactivity should not be taken as acquiescence. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright. However it is fair to mention that you are both friends that edit articles together. So there is automatic consensus against anyone, especially since you both edit articles with low traffic. And personally, I haven't seen a disagreement between you both on on a single thing. But let's move past it and get this synopsis done. So to keep this punctual, productive and collaborative, I have began a dispute resolution thread (I have added jps and dumuzid - if anyone else wants to be involved, add yourself and notify yourself on your own talk page). Cheers everyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:The_Game_Changers RBut (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect this is going to be resolved at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Consensus is clear. The ball is in your court and has been for some time. jps (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RBut -- while I think it is fair to observe that jps and I appear to have some overlapping interests, describing us as "friends" is not particularly accurate, and we do not "edit articles together." I have not interacted with jps outside of Wikipedia, and I don't even recall any major interaction on our personal talk pages. More to the point, we in no way collaborate outside of what is readily apparent on article talk pages (and mainly this one, to be honest). But even if, for the sake of argument, we were arrayed against you, we represent a consensus of two. That shouldn't be hard to overcome. But as far as I can tell, you have failed to carry the burden of persuasion with regard to a single other editor. You seem to think that either repeated efforts at your preferred version or sheer time will enable you to introduce the edits you want--but that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)