Talk:David L. Katz/Archive 1

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David L. Katz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources needed[edit]

Some possibilities, though not great (good blogs but still blogs):

Is there anything better out there, or just more bioblurbs? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There have been a few useful pieces published in Yale Daily News.[1][2][3] Gorski had a couple of other articles on katz as well. [4] Given the dearth of sources, I'd say blogs from reputable sources (like Gorski and Novella) would be appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I second the use of blogs by Gorski and Novella in this case. Delta13C (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the gist of the 3 Yale Daily News article; all worthy of inclusion.
Yale Daily News (September 2016):[5] Katz published an article in HuffPo lambasting a supermarket chain for selling unhealthy foods, while failing to reveal that one month before the column was published, the supermarket chain had cut ties with NuVal, a nutritional ratings service that Katz established in 2008, because its ratings algorithm was out of date. YDN noted that this was the second time “Katz has failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest in his biweekly Huffington Post column”.
Yale Daily News (April 2016):[6] Katz was criticized for an ad hominem attack against investigative journalist Nina Teicholz. Several health care professionals called for Katz to apologize and to be censured. His comments were described as a “highly sexist, personal and vitriolic attack,” and “an embarrassment to Yale”. The article also pointed out: “Katz is not permanently employed by the University but by the Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut — which is not part of the Yale-New Haven Health System...because Katz is a voluntary faculty member, he is employed on a temporary, year-by-year basis and is not answerable to the Dean’s Office… there is no connection between the medical school and the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, of which Katz is the founding director... the nominal relationship stems from a 1998 decision to attach the Yale name to the center.”
And then, there is the Yale Daily News article describing Katz’s online trolling and self-promotion of his book using a pseudonym.[7] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that information. I'm happy to help incorporate it into the article. I'll look for more sources too. I believe a public argument with him and the folks from Science-Based Medicine was covered somewhere, but I need to see. Delta13C (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Full steam ahead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be wary of the Yale student newspaper. That content was added by an apparent sock of Teicholz herself (according to how one of the involved accounts represented itself) who has had disputes with Katz (which is somewhat ironic given what the socks did, denigrating Katz and adding praising content about Teicholz elsewhere). In addition to socking the editing was a violation of both WP:BLPCOI as well as WP:HA and is serious as hell, and I am rather surprised to see Rhode Island Red uncritically following the sock's suit, especially after I informed them of this at their talk page. In any case content based on those refs should not be used unless it is verified by other sources; and higher quality sources should be used. Retraction Watch for instance is much stronger than the Yale student newspaper. I've added a cc box above with a link to the SPI to verify what i have written here about the socking etc.. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Daily News is a legit independent source. I found the articles on a Google search. In what way should we be wary? Sounds like the sock situation is under control; it has no direct bearing on the editorial details we're discussing. Your claim to be surprised is itself surprising since I asked you to elaborate on the charges you were making and you never replied.[8] Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something, you only started considering them after the sock added them. If you don't understand the seriousness of abusing WP for harassment then I cannot help you. But again, college newspapers are not the most reliable sources. if you try to add to content to this article based only on them, I will bring you to AE and seek a block per BLP. I will make sure you are aware of the DS. Do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you seem to be missing my statement -- the one you were responding to above -- where I said that I compiled the articles from a Google search. Nor would it matter how the articles came to my attention; e.g., if a sock brought a relevant NYT article to my attention, that wouldn't negate the article in any way. Obviously, socks shouldn't be socking, but that wouldn't automatically discount a WP:RS. And no, I do not understand why you are talking about harassment, but if you don't want to explain, that's your prerogative. There are 3 editors who have appraised the sources in question and are in the process of discussing what content from them, if any, might merit inclusion, and achieving consensus; in other words, following proper protocol. There is no policy that would bar Yale Daily News out of hand (i.e., WP:RS, and no content based on those sources has yet been proposed for inclusion. The threat was unwarranted, premature and not civil. You are of course welcome to weigh in on the discussion once content has been proposed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, harassment is one of the most rigorously enforced policies here, as is BLP. Please read them. Please read the SPI case. The issues are obvious as dirt. After you have read all three, if you still have any questions, please let me know. I am doing everything I can to warn you that you should be very ginger here. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would be best to state your point clearly rather than being cryptic. I don't see who is being harassed, other than me perhaps. Your plea for gingerosity is duly noted. No reason to assume that I wouldn't be ginger. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being cryptic. You don't seem to have read the two key policies nor the SPI and of course you will not understand until you do. You are obligated to understand the policies and guidelines, and yes you have to RTFM. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are being cryptic. I consider myself to be pretty well acquainted with the relevant polices including WP:BLP and I read over the sock case. You have not made your point clear and it is not unreasonable to ask you to do so. You are basically saying "my point is so obvious that I'm not even going to make it, and if you don’t understand me its not because I'm being vague but because you're ignorant". If you don't wish to communicate clearly, that is your prerogative, but I still don't understand what it is that you are objecting to. No content has been proposed yet for inclusion; Yale Daily News appears to pass the basic sniff test for WP:RS, and there is no sock involved in this discussion -- at least none that I am aware of. Once content is proposed, if you still have concerns about it or the sources cited, you can raise them here on the talk page, at WP:RSN, or WP:BLP. It's not like you don't have a voice or that any objections you raise would go unheeded. That would be a much more constructive and diplomatic approach. Assume good faith. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize all these issues about the sock with the content from the student paper. I'm going to hold off until I can verify with stronger sources. Delta13C (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sock is blocked so no longer seems to be an issue. Yale Daily News seems to meet WP:RS and WP:SOURCE and does not fall under WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:QUESTIONABLE. Could always run it up the flagpole at WP:RSN if necessary but such decisions are often context-specific and depend on the text being proposed for inclusion . Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let’s try a different approach. You (Jytdog) directed us to WP:BLP and the sock case (among others); surely you didn’t intend to imply that every single word of those multipage documents applies to our current editorial content discussion. So help me out – point to the specific parts that you think apply here. I’m confused because you seem to be saying that some of the sources proposed aren’t usable, not because they don’t meet WP:RS but because somehow they have become permanently tainted through incidental contact with a sock. One of the YDT sources discussed above[9] doesn’t have anything to do with the sock – doesn’t mention Nina Teicholz name anywhere. So again, I don’t see how the sock case is pertinent as to whether or not the source meets WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is simple. If there is stuff you want to add from one of the student newspapers articles, go see if you can find it discussed in better sources. if you can't it is very likely local gossip that is part of the real world dispute and not appropriate for WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So after all the vagary and threats, the issue boils down to you thinking that Yale Daily News does not meet WP:RS? That's something that you could have easily addressed through WP:RSN, after content based on those sources had been proposed (none has been proposed to date). No one is likely to suggest using "gossip" nor would I condone it if they did. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these specific articles from that paper on this specific topic should be treated as suspect. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I am back to not understanding. In what way are they suspect on this specific topic but not other topics? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like you are almost trying not to understand. I don't know how to help you further. I gave you very concrete advice -- If there is stuff you want to add from one of the student newspapers articles, go see if you can find it discussed in better sources. if you can't it is very likely local gossip that is part of the real world dispute and not appropriate for WP. -- you will follow it or not. I will not reply here further. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am trying my best to understand your position but for the life of me cannot. I am not asking for your help; I am merely asking you to better explain your argument. You seem to NOT be arguing that Yale Daily News is a WP:RS but are nonetheless insisting that it can’t be used as a source. That, I do not understand. One of the YDN articles says that in 2008, Katz established “NuVal, a nutritional ratings service”. According to your argument, the source is invalid and/or this detail should not be included because it is gossip. That makes no sense.

Similarly, another YDN article says “Katz is not permanently employed by the University but by the Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut — which is not part of the Yale-New Haven Health System...because Katz is a voluntary faculty member, he is employed on a temporary, year-by-year basis and is not answerable to the Dean’s Office… there is no connection between the medical school and the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, of which Katz is the founding director... the nominal relationship stems from a 1998 decision to attach the Yale name to the center.” By your argument, none of that information could be included either because, the source is insufficient and the details are gossip. I see no basis for that position. Either you agree that YDN is WP:RS and therefore can be cited, or you disagree, in which case you should present a compelling argument to support that position. There is no question that malicious gossip shouldn’t be included, but no is proposing doing so, nor would I support it if they did.

None of the content I pointed out above has anything to do with any “real world dispute” and I find that suggestion rather bizarre and in need of an explanation on your part. If you choose to not defend these statements (and I don’t see how you could), that is of course your prerogative. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really the last time. If you want to add something from the student newspaper, check to see if it is verified in a stronger source. If it is, great - then you should cite the stronger source. If it is not verified in a stronger source it is dubious and in light of the context there is a presumption against using it. There will also be WEIGHT to consider but that is is another layer that we cannot even begin to discuss yet.
But instead of wasting more time going around this tree, would you please actually propose the content you would like to add, taking these things into account? If we disagree we would need something concrete to get feedback on at BLPN and RSN in any case. So please propose content. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added recent clarification from Yale[edit]

Yale explicitly distanced itself (politely) from this guy recently. I added the source. Also added some trivial material from an outdated bio-page still (presently) on Yale site. I think the material, obviously provided by Katz, may reveal something of his character.

On the whole, I think this article ought to be deleted for reasons of non-notability. On the other hand it seems that every community college "professor" that has ever published a blog somewhere has a Wikipedia page. So go figure.

76.250.61.86 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff about his interests removed[edit]

Seems the personal stuff from his Yale bio page isn't "encyclopedia" material. I admit, I think it makes him appear trivial. But it is from, as they say, a "reliable source."

So presently, this article documents that he did some vague "stuff" at Yale previously, formerly etc., but doesn't establish/document the significance of whatever it was, neither presently nor historically. It goes on to document some unseemly stuff he did with HuffPo when it was open to basically anybody, and it mentions where he went to school.
Also, it documents (we assume) that Katz is a contributor and advisory board member for Naked Food Magazine.

I'd say, therefore, that it doesn't really establish Katz' "notability." But that's just me. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism/Vegetarianism WikiProject[edit]

In regard to this removal [10]. Katz has authored papers defending plant-based diets, for example [11]. He is an advisory board member for Naked Food [12] a magazine for plant-based diets and veganism. He is also a contributor to Forks Over Knives [13] a vegan website. He has written articles defending vegetarian diets. In 2019 he defended vegetarian/vegan diets in a debate with a meat-based diet advocate Nina Teicholz [14]. I believe the WikiProject add is justified to be included. Katz's involvement with plant based diets is well known. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A solid WP:RS that refers to him as an advocate of plant-based diets would be ideal. Know of any? Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is from his own peer-reviewed publications and writings, he researches both plant-based diets and vegetarian diets, so the WikiProject would be relevant for his article. Katz is not personally vegan but has written about veganism and vegetarianism [15], [16]. Katz has spoken at the Ivy League Vegan Conference, at Harvard. [17]. His own website has articles on the topic.
In regard to plant based diets he has said for example, "Both the scientific literature and consideration of indelible links between native diet and adaptation for all species including our own lead to the conclusion that a diet of foods mostly direct from nature and predominantly plants is supportive of health across the life span". [18]. In 2019, Katz authored "Plant-Based Diets for Reversing Disease and Saving the Planet: Past, Present, and Future" [19]. In 2018 he said "The evidence of every variety overwhelmingly highlights the benefits of plant-predominant diets for the health outcomes that matter most: years in life, and life in years; longevity, and vitality" [20]. Katz co-authored How to Eat: All Your Food and Diet Questions Answered with Mark Bittman which advocates what they term a "plant-predominant" diet [21]. There may be other reviews of this book. Katz is often referenced on plant-based websites [22], such websites fail RS but it shows us the relevance of this topic to his biography. He is also quoted in various newspapers as supporting plant-based diets such as Newsweek [23] Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ideally there would be a solid WP:RS, preferably a reputable scientific/medical source, that describes him as an advocate of plant-based diets; WP:PRIMARY aren't ideal. It's interesting that he has written a couple of review articles on the topic but doesn't appear to do any actual bench research on the subject. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Katz is on the advisory board for Naked Food a plant based magazine and that reference is on the article so the link is there. Do we need a RS saying he is an advocate of such diets to include a WikiProject? I am not editing the article itself (yet), I merely wanted to add his name to the WikiProject. Because he has written peer-reviewed papers on plant based diet and vegetarianism it makes sense to include his name on the WikiProject so we can expand his article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_L._Katz/Archive_1&oldid=1185149501"