Talk:Scarsdale diet

Title Change??
The name of this page should be changed from Scarsdale medical diet, to The Complete Scarsdale Medical Diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.99.18 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that match the common name of the article, per WP:NC? tedder (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope; I've changed it back. The article is about the original diet system and original accompanying book, not about other books advocating the same diet but in part or wholly by different authors. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Scarsdale diet. Shouldn't be capitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Scarsdale medical diet → Scarsdale Diet – WP:COMMONNAME - current name is the corporate branding. More commonly simply as the "Scarsdale Diet" Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have just done this but the page already exists as a redirect Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, common name. Randy Kryn 14:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Verification/sourcing/weasel/NPOV etc. problem
has reverted text into the article which reads but in the source this is just one guy's view (Dr. Harding le Riche's). From 1982. To quote the source:

So this fails WP:V and is a WP:WEASEL. Anyway, why are we using such an old opinion when we have a modern textbook? That would seem to go against WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No. You really should actually read the sources you quote occasionally.  Note that WP:WEASEL states

Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.


 * This is a direct quote, in context, capturing the whole of the writer's opinion on Scarsdale in the source, and sourced reliably and verifiably. Unless, Perhaps, you think Ms. Swartz was just making the quote up?


 * As for why such an old source is in the article, a brief glance at the article history shows it was added by your buddy JytDog. Perhaps you should ask him?  Anmccaff (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So our text should say "one person said ..." or "Harding le Riche said in 1982 that ...". Saying "some" is a weasel. But with this new wording it'd still be undue and not WP:MEDRS. It needs to go. Alexbrn (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alexbrn. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You "agree" your own cite was bad? Anmccaff (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No policy-based rationale for keeping this text has been advanced. We need to keep iffy health information out of WP so I have removed it. I think at this point it's a question of moving on and finding newer/better sources if possible. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, taking that as a given for a moment, why was it good enough to add when it was falsely assumed to be denigratory, aften a tendentious search? Jyt commented on hos last poiece of edit warring

please continue to discuss,
 * But he appears to have appointed you as his mouthpiece. Anmccaff (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and still no discussion....Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "appoint as mouthpiece" is a personal attack that is not helpful to working toward consensus. Please comment on content, not contributors.  What I agreed with above, is Alexbrn's comment on the use of the source.  Sorry for not being more clear. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what made it a good source before, then? After all, -you- just added this, when you thought it fit your agenda, no?  Anmccaff (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn commented on two things - the source, and your use of the source. I agreed with him on your use of the source. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm, yes. So, why do you think one usage "failed MEDRSS" and WP:V while your own (mis)use did not? This is what discussing is about, about addressing the points raised, not just hiding behind initialisms and tag-team buddies. Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to leave it unless & until more recent sources are found. But since the diet was hot in 1982, and is now not, these may be hard to find. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. On the other hand, a diet that "was hot, and now is not" is not a "fad diet" in many senses of the word, and this deliberate equivocation is what creates problems for these commercially-tinged diet programs.  Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems still
is continuing to edit-war this undue (1982!) individual opinion into the piece. We should be using better sources, more judiciously. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * agree should have newer source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Have used one. Alexbrn (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)