Talk:Rip Esselstyn/Archive 1

Use of primary source

Primary sources are allowed on the Wikipedia if used in a certain way - and they are commonly used in biographies. Please note here - WP:PSTS. In other words, when discussing biographical details without analysis, they can be used. I don't want to get into an edit war on this issue, but it is important to clarify what happens in biographies.

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy."

-Classicfilms (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:SELFPUB. You cannot use a primary source to claim he won triathlons, is on board of directors or any other third party claims. Being a biography, it is extra important not to use primary sources without care. Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB refers to blogs, twitter etc. not Official websites which are frequently cited in articles. In addition, these statements are made in the book Engine 2 Diet which does not qualify as self-published - it was published by

http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/

and qualifies as notable WP:GNG - it was on a bestseller list, written up in reliable sources, and referenced in the documentary Forks Over Knives.

-Classicfilms (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A book is self published. A website is self published. Per, WP:SELFPUB, " For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis..." Bgwhite (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This rule refers to Vanity press publishers which this publisher is not - see Hachette Book Group USA. In addition note - WP:BLPSPS:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)"

"(from the see below section) --

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.

We can tweak the language on the athletic events but they have been referenced in numerous secondary sources and in the film. Awards are part of biographies and thus not promotional. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A book written by the subject cannot be used to do claims about third parties, end of story. The Vanity press was given as an *example*, not as the definite rule. An autobiography is written by the person. The publisher may or may not do fact checking. Plenty of Autobiographies contain made-up stuff. I've been down this road many times before. Everytime, it was found a book by the author for the author's article cannot be used for third parties. Nowhere does it say autobiographies published by "x" is ok. Claiming to be on the board of directors involves claims about third parties. Esselstyn writing himself in a book does not make for a reliable source. End of story. Get the companies/charities website to show he is on the board. Get a newspaper article. I'm not going to write any more about this as this is going nowhere. When people start to wikilawyer, I stop. So if you think this is unfair, then goto reliable sources noticeboard, but it has been ruled on before. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I posted a request here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification_of_WP:BLPSPS_for_Rip_Esselstyn_article

-Classicfilms (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of Citations in Lead

Citations are allowed in the lead - see WP:CITELEAD. At this point, the modifications work so I will leave it as is but I did want to clarify this point. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Only if the material being sourced is not included elsewhere in the article. The lede is to be used as a summary. Generally, all information found in the lede has to be found in the article. Except for small stubs, 99% of the time, no references in the lede. Bgwhite (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." There is no hard and fast rule on this, though at this point the rewrite is fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

Anotherwords, don't repeat citations for the same material. The material should already be in the text and cite it there. Above I used "Generally" and "99%" because there are exceptions that can be done by consensus. This is getting ridiculous. Don't point out small parts and ignore everything else. Bgwhite (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Vegan diet

Hi Classic, you seem to be going through Wikipedia systematically removing the word "vegan". These people advocate a vegan diet, not only a plant-based one, which might contain some animal products. Whether they use the word "vegan" is irrelevant, and if they don't (on purpose) we can certainly add that. But it doesn't change the fact that they're advocating what everyone else, including the secondary sources, calls a vegan diet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slim - Please do follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I actually have contributed to a number of articles on veganism. The articles I edited are concerning folks and films/books that state that they do not use the term veganism to qualify what they are doing. I used quotes to support what I am saying in the articles. Their approach is not a refutation of veganism but an approach that has specific requirements concerning processed foods, oil, sugar etc. that are not a part of traditional definitions of veganism. I personally do not have issues with veganism - nor do they. I am trying to follow Wikipedia rules about how to represent living people, by their words. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it wasn't intended as a personal attack. It's fine if they don't want to call themselves vegans, and we can make that clear in the articles, but it doesn't change that they are advocating an entirely plant-based diet, i.e. a vegan diet. Not a diet that sometimes includes meat or dairy, as a plant-based or whole-foods diet might. So I'm making that clear by writing plant-based (vegan) diet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I just don't want to get into an edit war over this. I don't know these people personally, but they do have a number of open and public forums including Facebook and others that are Non-RS sources. They also hold events that talk about their approach and summaries are written. I know from reading these materials that the individuals whose pages I edited are opposed to describing what they do as "vegan" and within BLP I think we need to respect that point because to restore the word "vegan" in light of the quotes I included borders on original research. It is sort of like saying veganism and vegetarianism are the same - they aren't. "Whole foods, plant-based" which is the phrase they use refers to a health-based approach not covered by traditional definitions of veganism. You can eat processed food with oil that is technically "vegan" but is not a part of what they advocate. I have not reverted your edits to the template or the disamb. page as I will leave that to the community. But when it comes to personal biographies, I think we need to follow what the subjects say about themselves. That's all I have been trying to convey. I personally as I said have no issues with veganism, vegetarianism or the other isms out there. I'm just trying to be a good Wikipedian. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems arise when people try to invent their own vocabularies. A plant-based diet can include animal sources, so they are not advocating a plant-based diet, they are advocating a vegan diet, which is entirely plant-based. A whole-foods diet can include animal sources, so they're not advocating that either. They're advocating healthy vegan diets, minus the rubbish that vegans can eat too. They don't mind the words vegan or vegetarian, they just don't those words because they want to focus on the health aspects. But we can use the word vegan, as the secondary sources do, to make clear that they mean no animal products. It's not a BLP issue, because it's not an insult to call a diet a vegan diet; it's just a description, and the word is in widespread use and well understood. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Esselstyn states pretty clearly that his approach is not a "vegan" approach. I'm not sure why it matters that we use the term at all. To impose terminology when we have a quote from him that states that this is not the way to qualify what he is doing is a form of original research. We are putting words into someone else's mouth which is not the role of the Wikipedia. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)00:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Individual sources don't get to change the English language. The way you've written this makes it sound as though animal products might be part of the diet he recommends. But so far as I can tell they're not; that is, he advocates a vegan diet, whatever he chooses to call it. Or does he allow some meat and dairy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that he is not advocating meat. His books are clear, the film is clear. To avoid WP:OR we should follow what the sources say. To insert the term "vegan" contradicts very clear quotes offered by the subject. I have to sign off for today. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If he's recommending a diet free of animal products, he's advocating veganism. If I were writing this article alone I'd call it a vegan diet, and if you were writing it alone you'd call it a plant-based diet, so I suggest we split the difference and call it a "vegan (plant-based) diet" or "plant-based (vegan) diet". That way, we've used his term, and we've also made clear that he means no animal sources. I don't mind which way round we write it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim - I don't have much time today so I'll respond by stating my concerns:

I do not personally have issues with veganism, I want to reiterate that. I have edited vegan articles.

I am also interested in finding a way to resolve the wording of content.

This to me is a WP:BLP issue - I do not feel comfortable putting words into the mouth of a subject who states:

"I intentionally stay away from 'vegan' or even 'vegetarian' as they are not accurate descriptors of what the plant strong diet is: 'a whole food nutrient-rich plant strong diet.'"

I feel to add the word "vegan" when Esselstyn clearly says it is not an "accurate descriptor" would be Wikipedia:No original research.

If necessary, we could quote from the books as to how the nutrition plan works - its emphasis is on the elimination of all forms of processed foods particularly fat and oils.

Another thought would be to open the debate to other editors and see if there are other ideas. As long as we are following WP:BLP and Wikipedia:No original research, I am fine. That's it for today. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He may not call it a vegan diet, but other sources do call an animal-free diet a vegan diet, including Wikipedia, and they also call his diet a vegan diet. Examples:

• CBS: "Vegan firefighter on his 'Beef With Meat'. Rip Esselstyn, a firefighter in Austin, Texas, convinced his firehouse to switch to a vegan diet."
• New York Times: "Firefighters Gone Vegan? Even Austin Is Impressed". "The five firefighters of Team C at Firehouse 2 — Rip Esselstyn, James Rae, Matt Moore, Derick Zwerneman and Scott Walters — now eat vegan".

The article can say that he prefers to call it "plant strong," but this is not a term in widespread use, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to adopt it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see it's a term he has trademarked, so I've rewritten the lead and made that clear. I've been looking around on discussion boards about this, and apparently the "plant strong" issue is causing confusion, making people think he perhaps advocates some animal products. So far as I can tell he doesn't, so it's important to make clear that this is, in fact, a vegan diet, whatever he prefers to call it. I've therefore added some quotes to footnotes about it, and also to clarify that in 1987 he stopped eating meat, fish, eggs and dairy himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)