Talk:Gary Taubes

Opinion
I'm removing the phrase "'something you are not likely to hear from your doctor'" because it is an opinion. Mambo5king 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some crummy grammar replaced with marginally better... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.189.211 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Controversial"
I am removing the word "controversial" from this sentence: ''Taubes is known for his controversial 2002 New York Times Magazine article What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? which questioned the efficacy and health benefits of low-fat diets and was seen as defending the Atkins diet against the medical establishment.''

In my opinion, that word is such a cop-out. Who thinks it is controversial? Who are we quoting? Is that opinion or fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougRisk (talk • contribs) 17:22, December 9, 2007


 * In Wikipedia articles, footnotes are designed to answer exactly these questions. Apparently you were not familiar with this concept or overlooked the footnote given for that statement when you removed part of it and wrote the above complaint: Here the article is called "controversial" right in the sub-heading (Martha Henry, program coordinator for the Knight Fellowships, interviews Gary Taubes about his controversial article.)
 * And further down, Taubes himself agrees and emphasizes that it was very controversial:
 * ''HENRY: Did the reaction to your NYT Magazine story surprise you?
 * TAUBES: Yes. Even though I knew the article would be the most controversial article the Times Magazine ran all year, it still shocked me. ...
 * Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Links
It would be nice if links were added to the article to existing online streaming video of Gary Taubes. These include classroom lectures and TV interviews. They can be found on Google video, YouTube, and other sources. There is also a radio interview online from the CBC.69.110.0.187 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

UK edition
Does anyone know if the UK title "The Diet Delusion" (ISBN 0-09-189141-8) is "Good Calories, Bad Calories" under a different name, or something else? Whichever, it seems to me some mention should be made of it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the listing but I think that was the old name for the book while it was being written. Frankg (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the same book under two different titles, according to this reference SkyeWaye (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Relevant Material
An editor at an ip address has deleted approximately one third of the material in Taubes article claiming self-promotion and advertising. I have reverted the changes twice as I see no evidence of self promotion or advertising and find the material deleted useful to someone who wishes to read material on Taubes using the deleted references and external links. Comments and discussion are most appreciated.Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IP address 94.193.135.203 has reverted again, without discussion, to his previous deletions, claiming "RV biased advertising vandalism", an incorrect assertion as the material deleted did not fall into that category. I have restored the article to 18:14, 11 May 2010 152.91.9.9 version. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I left a message at their talk page about WP policy on wp:Verifiability, wp:Concensus, wp:Neutral point of view and wp:Edit warring. I also invited 94.193.135.203 to come here to discuss their concerns. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Darrell" you know damn well this article is biased, you just don't care. I've repeatedly said now while changing the article back to the version that isn't a total adverrtisement sounding like it's been written by a publicist or publisher... I don't know why you are so interested in defending this spamvertising crap, the other article created by this guy The Diet Delusion was rightly deleted as total spam... Stop your biased vandalism.


 * I looked closer and you seem to have a history of this on this article:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Something to declare? ... --94.193.135.203 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comments above I interpreted as a aggravating personal attack on me which I did not reply to in order to de-escalate the angry words and situation. You have taken the non-reply as a green light to revert to your version. It was not. For the record I have no conflict of interest with respect to this article. For the record this [revision] you keep on reverting is the combined effort of dozens of editors. You have deleted one third of the article claiming advertising. There is no advertising in the material you deleted. It is material a reader wishing to learn something about Gary Taubes would appreciate in my opinion. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just reverted your June 1 undiscussed edit. I would appreciate it if you would discuss the changes here rather than just reverting. wp:Edit warring is not appropriate. I believe WP:RV applies in this instance. i.e., "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." Please discuss changes on this talk page. Thank you. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok everybody, let's all calm down and stop with the accusations. This is a content dispute, so the conversation should be about the content, not the editors involved. There's nothing wrong with trying to improve an article without discussing it first, editors are encouraged to be bold and fix things. When those edits are reverted, however, it's time to discuss them here. If you can't come to an agreement, please don't keep reverting each other. All that is going to do is get one or more of you blocked for edit warring. Consider requesting page protection or pursuing some form of dispute resolution instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents - I have read the book Good Calories, Bad Calories aka The Diet Delusion and found it to be a great book. The content could definitely be considered controversial, but it is difficult to assess the content without actually reading the book. After reading the book, I (of course) searched WikiPedia to see if there was a page that summarizes the contents of the book. I was pleased to find that there was such a page and it did a very good job of describing the content. I was going to send the link to the page to friends before recommending the book since it is hard to give a thorough description of the book without making it sound like hyperbole. I was disappointed to see that the page was deleted shortly after I had discovered it. --GetAGrip (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just asked the admin about the deletion discussion, his [replies] Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor at [87.194.7.142] has reverted Gary Taubes's article to the version by [94.193.135.203] a couple of times. This deletes approximately half the material, references, and links in the article. I have asked [87.194.7.142] to discuss changes before future edits to the article here on this talk page and noted if he is the same editor he has already been warned with respect to wp:ew. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor at [87.194.14.248] has reverted Gary Taubes's article to the version by [94.193.135.203]. This deletes approximately half the material, references, and links in the article. I have asked [87.194.14.248] to discuss changes on this talk page before deleting material from this article. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor at [87.194.14.248] has deleted a majority of the Gary_Taubes article twice more today. He has not discussed these deletions except in the edit summary saying "RV edits by Gary Taubes' PR agency", which is an incorrect assertion. Three warnings have been placed on his talk page with no effect, other than his blanking his talk page after the first two warnings.Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
I found an article [] about controversy surrounding Gary Taubes. Could someone add this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.182.248 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's more about Taubes' possibly unethical methods here, this time in the cold-fusion affair. It looks like there's more to be written about Taubes than is currently covered by the article. --TraceyR (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion affair
The body of the article concentrates on Taubes' writings on nutrition. The summary paragraph mentions the cold fusion affair, which is not otherwise mentioned in the article. I have seen material online which suggests that Taubes was less than candid in his dealings with cold fusion researchers, before writing that at least one of them had acted fraudulently. Can anyone provide a section on this objectívely presenting all sides of this affair? --TraceyR (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are waiting for someone else to write it, it may take a while. Not sure the article you reference would meet reliable source guidelines but maybe some of the articles it references like the Wired article would. Lambanog (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the material in the article cited above does come from the Wired piece. Is Wired a reliable source? --TraceyR (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All you need to know about Taubes' false allegations. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Vagueness in educational details
Regardless of how one interprets the statements about Mr. Taubes' educational background, he obviously is superbly well educated. Nonetheless, one of the key sentences is vague in the way that people sometimes seek to mislead about their academic background. I refer to, Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard University and aerospace engineering at Stanford University (MS, 1978). Did he receive his bachelor's degree from Harvard? Was it in applied physics? And ordinarily I would read this without question as saying that his Stanford MS was, indeed, in aerospace engineering, but coming off the vagueness (dodginess?) concerning Harvard, I don't feel quite certain. If there is something being evaded here, it could not possibly diminish the prestige of an education that began at Harvard and included masters degrees from Stanford and Columbia. The article would be improved by being more precise and unambiguous on these small points of what degrees were received where and in what fields. Considering the extraordinary impact of Taubes' challenge to nearly the entire medical and nutritional community, people are going to want to know everything they can about his background and who he is.107.197.156.7 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Taubes graduated from Harvard College in 1977 with an S.B. degree in applied physics, and received an M.S. degree in engineering from Stanford University (1978) and in journalism from Columbia University (1981)." From http://www.garyshealthtips.com/chewing-the-fat-with-gary-taubes-the-author-of-good-calories-bad-calories-part-2-of-2/ Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated article with info and better reference. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

NUSI
If we're going to put an article about Taubes organization NUSI, a link to that organization's web page in external links is justified. We should probably add a section on NUSICarbShark (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want to link to slightly dodgy advocacy sites which according to Wired as of June this year "consists of two part-time employees and an unpaid volunteer hanging around". Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate POV In First Paragraph
The first paragraph of the article states, "Some of the views propounded by Taubes are inconsistent with known science." One of the main points of Taubes's books is that the "known science" is unreliable because it arose from flawed studies. For example, thanks to Ancel Keys, the "known science" for fifty years told us that animal fat in the diet was harmful and led to heart disease. Taubes minutely dissects the faults in Keys's arguments in his book Why We Get Fat, and elsewhere. Younggoldchip (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism in headline
The line in the introduction paragraph:

"Some of the views advocated by Taubes are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity."

is spoken in Wikipedia's voice, WP:Assert, when it cites the opinion of a researcher in a book review, rather than a citation of the general view of modern science. It probably isn't even appropriate for the summary, especially considering this is a biography of a living person.

I notice that editor Alexbrn was edit warring about this same phrase with another Wikipedia editor prior. I'd like to hear why anyone believe the citation is esteemed enough to represent general and modern scientific view. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:FRINGE issue and we have a couple of RS giving the mainstream context. Since Taubes' avowed schtick is that conventional science on obesity is wrong, and he is right, this is a kind of obvious &amp; axiomatic statement. If in doubt, this could be discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah. If you believe it is WP:FRINGE you should have a well sourced citation that supports that, not just assert that its fringe with a poor citation. It appears the views of Taubes contradict some mid-late 20th century scientific beliefs, but some of his views are consistent with modern 21st century science. Of course, if I were to assert that in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, I would need a very strong citation, similar to your assertion. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't "believe" anything other than our need to represent RS. WP:PARITY applies: a popular-science diet book does not need "a very strong citation" to refute it. That's kind of basic. I have raised the issue at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, PARITY. Perhaps the wording could be revised, but removing it completely is something else entirely. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Hipal, I completely agree with revision. I had proposed the following, which was reverted: "George A. Bray, an American obesity researcher, believes that Taubes' views are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity." What do you think of this line? Two other authors had also proposed different wording more appropriate for the citation, but they were also reverted by the same person. AS the line was contentious, and as the is a WP:BIO, I was just suggesting we remove the line until we figure out some consensus.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've opened up a topic on the Biography of a Living Person page as being cautious against libel is the primary reason behind the edits to meet compliance. Please feel free to engage there.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like forum shopping. It also makes no sense, because if you truly thought the claim was libellous then your edit to attribute it would merely be repeating the libel. In reality, the question of whether or not obesity is caused especially by carbohydrate is not a matter of biography, but of science, and it's a kind of WP:CRYBLP to suggest it is. We need to heed WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your statement, and its unrelated to the article. We can't have productive discussions with continuous accusations.Gsonnenf (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL also matter so the criticism shouldn't only be presented as one's opinion (one of the sources for instance cites systematic reviews). On the other hand a variant of "Some of the views advocated by Taubes are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity." that I think might be closer to the Hall source could be: "Taubes received criticism for advocating to hastily adopt practices based on generalizations that lack proper scientific evaluation."  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like that would be fine too; we just need something to make it clear these views are not polemic not science. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)