Talk:Michael Greger

Do more research.
Not evidence-based? He's sardonic, sarcastic, and brutally honest. He's not deceptive. Do your research. Shame on this posting. 24.148.80.55 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You are free to provide sources from third-party reliable sources that clarify what you perceive as the article's failings. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Reception" section
Why on earth does this article have a "reception" section? It's about a person, not a work.

It seems that most of this segment is used to promote criticism of the person, and the final entry that brings up commentary by Joe Schwarcz is such a twisted representation of it's source material that I'm not going to delete it right now. I'll also be editing the paragraph about it to reflect that Harriet Hall's criticism was meant for a specific video he published and not on his overall work, but I think that it should be removed entirely since it's about a youtube video (of which he has produced hundreds) and not about a more serious work like a book.

Or at least I would if I could. I guess I haven't made enough edits to count just yet.

Akir Ikasu (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that the independent, reliable sources indicate mention is WP:DUE. --Hipal (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Akir Ikasu, the Science-Based Medicine article is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia guidelines. It is unrealistic to think it will be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Most biographical articles include a person's work. It's why they're notable. Bon courage (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)