Talk:South Beach Diet/Archive 2

Remaining (and new) problems with the article
This is a much better article now than it was last week; thanks are due especially to Doc James and Alexbrn for your work here. That said, some issues not related to medical claims remain: it is still outdated in a few places, some relevant info is missing, and some good faith edits have nevertheless introduced POV. Most of this I believe could be solved with just an additional sentence or two in each section; here's a list of what I see as being most important:


 * The introduction is too short, and not especially informative. It certainly doesn't follow the advice of MOS:LEAD to be a proper introduction to the subject. Indeed, the first and third sentences privilege value judgments over specific information about how the diet is intended to work—i.e. "has three phases which emphasize eating high-fiber, low-glycemic carbohydrates, unsaturated fats, and lean protein, and categorizes carbohydrates and fats as good or bad"—which I believe is what readers would expect to find here. Besides, I agree with LaMona that "fad diet" is pejorative; WP:LABEL should apply.


 * Similarly, the History section consists only of a few details about how the diet was conceived. There is certainly more to the "story" of the South Beach Diet, readily available in (non-medical) third-party sources: about the publication of the first book, its rise in popularity, the brand's 2011 acquisition, and so forth. I think many readers would expect to find that here, too.


 * The Packaged foods section gives the impression that no South Beach-branded food line exists today, which is false. (The draft I had offered before included up-to-date information about the extant products.) Meanwhile, the current section includes more details than seems necessary about a discontinued food line, such as calorie content.

This is definitely not a comprehensive list, but in the interests of keeping the discussion focused, I'd like to focus on one or all of the above. Any and all editors previously involved, including Jytdog, are encouraged to weigh in. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup agree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to hear it, Doc James. I was hoping a few others would respond as well but, since they haven't, I'd like to begin working on specific language to remedy these issues. If Alexbrn, Jytdog, LaMona, or others have any additional thoughts about the above, I invite them to contribute.


 * To start, I'd like to focus on the History section. I've put together a new draft that's much more compact than previous efforts, and succinctly describes in successive paragraphs: diet's conception and rise to popularity; the main South Beach Diet publications; and the acquisition of the brand in 2011. The two sentences currently in the article are included, though I removed 2003 as the year the diet was developed. (Here's why: The first book was published in April 2003 so, logically, the diet would have been developedearlier than that. In fact, sources exist statin it was developed in the 1990s. I didn't replace 2003 with another year, however, as the the Mayo Clinic article is a stronger source than the ones I have, such as this People article which says 1996. Here is the new text I am proposing:


 * Please let me know what you think. I am happy to revise based on feedback or provide reasoning for what I've included. If there are no issues with the wording, sources or details, I hope an unconflicted editor will move this into the live article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I find the "with the assistance of..." to be unfortunate language, since sources I have seen indicate that the two worked together on the diet, not as "X and assistant." A simple "and" would be fine. And I'm fine with the rest EXCEPT the mention of Bill Clinton which is absolutely irrelevant, but positively promotional. We do not know the circumstances under which he undertook the diet - my guess is that he didn't just buy the book and go it alone but did it under medical supervision, along with who knows what other changes in life style and medications. Citing his success, while not mentioning any failures, is not NPOV. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah and Clinton "revealed" !? talk about poorly-sourced POV. As a general observation this is what happens when we get paid advocates trying to turn Wikipedia articles into adverts for their clients: shit content. Alexbrn talk 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with making some adjustments. I actually meant to change the first sentence to say "and" or "with", but "with the assistance of" somehow crept back in. I included the sentence about Bill Clinton because it was a major point in the diet's popularity; how about changing this to "stated"? (It is not poorly sourced—my citations are to USA Today and The Telegraph.) I appreciate the quick feedback and hope that we can move forward with those two changes implemented.
 * Finally, I thought twice about including this, but here goes: I do not much appreciate having my good faith suggestions labeled "shit content". I am aiming to write NPOV as much as anyone, but no one editor can get it right all by themselves. That's why these kinds of conversations are useful, and I hope we can keep it civil. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have in fact made these changes above: each now reads "with Marie Almon" and "Bill Clinton stated". WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have edited my comment so it makes no sense. Please put this back to a sensible shape. Alexbrn talk 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. I was using Ctrl-F to replace it in the markup above, only I found the wrong one and failed to notice. Fixed now. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I still object to including Clinton in this at all. It is a single example that is not representative, and exists only to promote the diet. Thousands of people have been on this diet, under a wide range of uncontrolled circumstances, with various levels of success. Naming a single person's success just isn't appropriate. Now, if there were some study that gave percentages of numbers of people who lost/didn't lose and what their health is 5 years later, THAT would be relevant. From my reading, though, scientifically valid studies of that nature do not exist. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LaMona, this part of the article is not about judging the diet's effectiveness. The intention here is to give some idea about the media attention it received. What would you say to removing his claim of success, and simply noting that Bill Clinton was one who tried it? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WWB Too It isn't a matter of effectiveness. The issue is that it makes no difference in terms of the history of the diet that Bill Clinton went on it, or claimed to. That's one, exactly one, person, and there is no point to the statement. This is a clear case of "celebrity endorsement" (albeit he's not in on it) -- which is to make people think your product is better because some known person is associated with it. Citing a famous individual as associated with your product merely because they used it or claim to have used it can have no purpose but promotion. LaMona (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

LaMona, as much as you don't don't like it, it is a fact, and a well documented one, that Clinton was on the South Beach Diet. Heck the NY Times has mentioned that (one, two, three, four, five) times. In my view, there is no basis in policy or guideline for keeping that out of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PROMOTION point #5 + Testimonial. It's policy, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT LaMona (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * content stating the simple fact that Clinto was on the diet, as WWB Too proposed above, is writing in an "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."  With respect to the requirement there for independent sources,  that is well met. There is no basis there, to reject the simple statement of fact. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you just added a link to the article on Testimonial. That is not policy, that is just an article.  Please respond to the substance; I don't see how a well-supported statement of fact fails PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Testimonial speaks to the promotional meaning of WP:PROMOTION point #5, the latter which is policy. Using Clinton's name is like using a celebrity testimonial. If adding Clinton's name is ok, then in theory you can add any name there, including someone famous for the wrong reasons. If adding the name of someone infamous is not ok, then why is adding the name of someone famous ok? What's the point? I say that the point is to connect Clinton's name with the product such that some of his positive fame "rubs off" on the product. That is what celebrity testimonials is all about. Thus the link that I provided by way of explanation. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you are not dealing with what WP:PROMO actually says. I responded to what it actually says above, as does alexbrn below. 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says: "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." I consider the inclusion of Clinton to be precisely "puffery." YMMV, but that is what I am saying. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * for pete's sake. Puffery adds subjective language, and would be something like: "The esteemed former President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, famed for bingeing on fried foods, embraced the South Beach Diet with his whole heart and lost an amazing 35 pounds in an astonishingly brief amount of time yet was able to retain and even increase his well-known joie de vivre." A simple factual statement like: "Former US President Bill Clinton was on the South Beach Diet in 2004." cited to the NY Times, is not puffery as that term is used in WP.  You really have no leg to stand on, and so far have no support for your position.Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have stated my views as neutrally as possible, and resent the "You really have no leg to stand on..." type of reply. This is a discussion, not a contest -- the goal is not to try to crush each other. We can agree to disagree, but please be more civil and less combative. LaMona (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I seem rude. You taking a strong stand that has very very weak basis in policy and guidelines. I don't mind when people argue for their preferences as long as they are clear on that. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of what a friend once said: "The rules are vague, but everyone applies them rigorously." There is room for interpretation, otherwise editing WP could be done by machines. LaMona (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and, what are your thoughts on policy issues with regard to including a statement that Bill Clinton was on the diet? thx. as mentioned i think there is no basis in policy for keeping it out. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it could be okay to mention it, but not to state or imply any consequent health effect. Alexbrn talk 22:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback from everyone. I know there is still ongoing discussion above about the Bill Clinton sentence, but it appears there is general support for the proposed expanded History section, and some support as well for something along the lines of "In 2004, former President Bill Clinton stated that he was following the South Beach Diet" being included. If I edit my proposed draft with that statement and source it with this New York Times article that Jytdog linked to, do other editors think we're ready to move forward with placing it in the live article, or should we seek further comment? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Caldwell_Esselstyn indicates that Clinton later became a vegan. What other diets has he followed? LeadSongDog come howl!  01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LeadSongDog, based on news articles I've read Clinton has flirted with veganism, but that would be a discussion for an article about him. I've had a heck of a time trying to find consensus on what seems like it shouldn't be too controversial an addition. Would you mind looking at the proposed expansion (most recent one listed above) and share your thoughts? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The introduction
The opening section of a Wikipedia article should be sufficient to be a stand-alone summary of the content of the article. I made some edits to bring more of the article's information to the opening section, but these were very quickly removed. Let me explain why this is an important aspect of the WP style: increasingly, other data sources are transcluding or including (via linking) the introductory paragraphs as data enhancement within their systems. In particular, I work with libraries, specifically public libraries, whose metadata often does not help their users understand the content of a resource or subject heading. Wikipedia has great potential to be the enhancement that they need to serve their users better by providing actual explanatory text related to the brief entries in the library catalog. The introduction should be a brief "surrogate" for the article, giving enough information that the topic of the article is clear.

As an article on a popular topic, the introduction to this article should be something that would give an average reader, with no prior knowledge of the diet but who has retrieved basic information on the book, a context and brief information about the diet. It could include the name of one or two of the books, that the diet uses phases, and the types of foods it does and does not permit. It could include the intention that the diet be "heart healthy" although that is not proven. Think of it as the opening paragraph of a news article, that introduces the longer article that will follow. Please see WP:LEAD.

I would make additional edits that I think would be helpful to such a reader, using information further down in the article, but there seem to be editors who will not allow good-faith edits to stand.

I encourage editors to think not only of the message that they wish to get across, but of the users of the encyclopedia, and the varied uses that are made of introductions, infoboxes, etc. LaMona (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was I who edited your changes. I fixed a typo and tightened the wording while keeping the substantive meaning - except about the diets "continued popularity" which seems undue/doubtful stated that way. Please don't swerve into discussing editors, it's disruptive. Please WP:FOC. Alexbrn talk 04:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You waste my time. I'll go somewhere else. LaMona (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Supposed "vegetarian version" of the diet
Hi, folks. I'd like to see if we can switch focus here briefly to something that I hope will prove to be an uncontroversial change. The final sentence of the Difference from other low-carb diets section currently states that there is a vegetarian variation of the South Beach Diet. By juxtaposition with a quote from Dr. Agatston in the previous sentence, this implies that Agatston was involved with creating a vegetarian version of the diet. This is not so. The source for the statement is an unofficial website discussing what foods a vegetarian adaptation might include; this is one person's interpretation. In addition, I rather doubt this website would be considered reliable in any case. Would another editor watching this page be willing to remove this sentence from the section? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes this was poorly-sourced. Alexbrn talk 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you kindly. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the introduction and history section be expanded?
Withdrawn by requestor as nature of dispute appears to be rather narrower than this RfC contemplated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeking considered views from additional editors about whether to expand the History section following the suggested language which can be found, and whether to rewrite and expand the introduction following the suggested language which can be found. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment from requesting editor—Anyone newly arrived to this discussion should be aware that I have a financial conflict of interest with this topic: the South Beach Diet brand has retained my assistance with seeking improvements to this article. As a veteran editor, I follow Jimbo's "Bright Line" advisory and will refrain from making any direct edits to this article. In August I proposed a complete rewrite; responding editors asked me to break it down section by section, and so I did. However, as the existence of this RfC attests, I failed to find consensus for even these changes. A few participating editors have been rather grumpy, while a few more agreeable ones haven't stayed long, and I'm afraid that the result is this article remains rather shabby. It probably goes without saying that I am confident my suggestions are right on policy (and at least close on content) and would make it a better Wikipedia article. Not just for the benefit of South Beach Diet but for the benefit of Wikipedia, this can and should be a better developed, more informative article. I hope we can restart this process by finding agreement on the introduction and history sections. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I thought a strong consensus had already been established against attributing Bill Clinton's reported weight loss to him reportedly taking this diet, without proper medical sourcing. That is still in the proposed text? Alexbrn talk 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believed we were very close to agreeing on a version that included mention of Bill Clinton publicly stating he was on the diet (which apparently the New York Times mentioned a dozen times) without attributing any specific weight loss to the diet plan. Perhaps I should re-include the latest versions of each section for closer consideration. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 01:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We mention Clinton that way already (I added it). It's not clear precisely what changes this RfC is asking for. Alexbrn talk 06:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, and that's appreciated. However I had proposed a version of the History section, linked above, that included more context for the diet's history. That hasn't been included, although there seemed to be consensus for that before. Additionally, the introduction is at issue. I'd like to see more information included, again similar to what I linked in my initial RfC post. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 11:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While the lede could do with being beefed-up, the proposed re-write removes any mainstream independent assessment - which is rather dismissive of this fad diet. This risks appearing as a kind of watering-down and damages neutrality. As discussed above, the proposed history section re-write introduces poorly-sourced health claims about Clinton's weight loss, which is a no-no. More generally I feel neutral-to-cool about the brand information proposed for this section, as although while I can see this may be of interest to the people paying to try and get this page changed, I am not entirely convinced that general readers will value the details of this diet's brand fished from obscure sources; perhaps (WP:NOTEVERYTHING) this is just too much detail. Alexbrn talk 12:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you and I do not agree on a few key points, which is partly why I've sought to open this up as an RfC. I am not convinced that the introduction needs to take a position on the diet—that seems more POV to me, especially use of the term "fad diet" based on your interpretation (perhaps rising to WP:SYNTHESIS) of sources. Meanwhile, the version of the History section I now support makes no claim as to Bill Clinton's results, merely that he spoke publicly of being on the diet. Likewise, I must respectfully dispute your assertion that the sources I have presented are altogether "obscure" or fishing; I am quite certain that any source I have proposed would meet the requirements of WP:RELIABLE. Tomorrow I intend to post the latest versions of my proposed updates for a clarified discussion. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 05:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How can "fad diet" be "my interpretation" or "synthesis" when it is directly sourced? It's the diet's main claim to fame in the serious medical literature; missing it out would violate neutrality. We can't really run an RfC on a version of the text which exists in your head only, or which keeps changing. My opposition is based on the actual text you linked to which waters down criticism of the diet and introduces a poorly-sourced health claim. Alexbrn talk 06:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it's well-established that you and I have disagreed on this topic. This is largely why I've opened up the RfC, and I am disappointed that no one else has joined the discussion yet. However, I remain optimistic that a consensus can be obtained here. We have two debates—about "fad diet" and what the lede should say + what to include in the History section—so I'll take them in order:


 * Introduction
 * We certainly disagree about whether "fad diet" is a straightforward descriptor or a contentious label. I maintain it is the latter. The article currently cites a nutrition book that uses the word "fad diet" and "South Beach Diet" in the same section but, at best, only insinuates it is a fad diet, rather than stating so clearly. In fact, the phrase "South Beach Diet" only appears twice in these pages, the second time in a table where it is more clearly labeled a "popular diet". You have also cited a Harvard Health Letter paper which uses "Diet Fads" as a MeSH tag (along with "Florida" and "Humans") in relation to a discussion of South Beach Diet. I am quite certain this is meant to indicate that the South Beach Diet had a run of popular attention in the media, not that it is a "fad diet" in the sense of Food faddism—which is currently linked in the first sentence of this article. More to the point, the South Beach Diet is not even a "fad diet" in the sense that the term means: it doesn't promise fast weight-loss without a long-term maintenance plan, it is not based on eliminating or consuming a particular kind of food, etc. Meanwhile, a straight-up search of PubMed for "South Beach Diet" + "fad diet" returns precisely zero results. Yes, I believe your usage of the term "fad diet" represents an unacceptable synthesis of sources to make a point not found in any of them.


 * For anyone else joining the conversation, here is what the intro looks like :


 * In the interest of seeking compromise, I've decided to add the critical second sentence of the current introduction. Indeed, none of my arguments are meant to say that the diet is above criticism, only that it must be fairly presented. Note also that my introduction omits most citations (currently only including ones in the sentence I have copied over) following WP:CITELEAD:


 * I hope you'll agree to this version being closer to the intention of WP:LEAD, Alexbrn—as I hope others will, too.


 * History section
 * Second, let's turn to the History section. And I'll concede an unforced error on my part in my original link: I thought what I had linked to a version trimming down the Bill Clinton anecdote. I will correct this below. First, here's what the current section looks like :


 * And here's what I propose—as noted above, the only part of this contested in previous conversation was the Clinton detail. Now that this is resolved, I hope we can find consensus for this considerably more informative treatment of the diet's history, including more recent developments:

These are my specific proposals, and I think they would improve this entry significantly. I hope this will make it easier for others to consider my proposed changes, and see for themselves how it would benefit readers looking for information about this topic. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. To repeat, my main problem is that you've removed the mainstream view of this fad diet (and yes, this term is properly sourced from a well-established nutrition text book, compliant with WP:MEDRS) from the lede. In general mainstream science/medicine is rather dismissive of this dietary product, and not saying so clearly and prominently is a basic violation of neutrality. I'm sure the South Beach people who are paying you to modify this article would prefer that their products' dubious nature be suppressed, but we should resist promotional POV-pushing, even if it is by proxy. Alexbrn talk 17:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn, I've responded with a move toward compromise (in no way am I attempting to "suppress" any legitimate criticism) and a clear explanation of my position rooted in a consideration of sources and guidelines. Your latest reply doesn't even attempt to grapple with that; instead this is "proof by repeated assertion". Meanwhile, it would be more correct to say that mainstream medicine is ambivalent toward the South Beach Diet, not dismissive. (It's also not a "product".)
 * I have been nothing but polite to you, while you've continued being rude. Although I am trying to maintain a discussion based on assuming good faith, since you have accused me of POV-pushing, I'll have to make this counter-observation: I am looking for a broad solution in two sections, while you're objecting to a single phrase in one of them. It seems to me that you're just being an obstructionist, and I believe editors not previously involved in this discussion will come to see that. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't question your good faith, but your judgement. How can you presume to assess whether you're POV pushing if you're hobbled by a COI? Since from good RS this diet seems to be a canonical example of one of the legion oversold, under-delivering fad diets that have comes our way over the years, we need to relay that mainstream view to have a properly neutral article. As MEDRS wisely puts it: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge" - yet you're proposing to airbrush current medical knowledge out of the article's lede, mentioning instead how it intends to "promote weight loss and a healthy lifestyle". If you can't see that's a problem, then I really wonder ... Alexbrn talk 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be arguing that my acknowledged professional relationship with the South Beach Diet brand renders me completely unqualified even to offer suggestions about how information should be represented in this entry. That's pretty much the opposite of what WP:COIADVICE says. In particular, you're avoiding the fact that I have offered a pretty compelling explanation (my un-indented post immediately above, ) for why the phrase "fad diet" is a big stretch as well as to ignore the rest of my fairly straightforward suggestions. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that you're trying to find a compromise. And that's why I've brought this to RfC. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The objective is not compromise, it's ultimately to have a good article. As an example of your argument being partial, look at how you are still referring to the "fad diet" categorisation being a "stretch" or "synthesis" even after a good source has been provided listing it as a canonical example of such (and there are more sources if necessary). You'd have Wikipedia ignore on-point RS and instead have bland wording about supposed health benefits. You even refer to your own argument as "compelling", which should surely give pause and prompt some introspection. Alexbrn talk 19:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course the goal is a better article, about which there must be WP:CONSENSUS, which is found "by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies". I've suggested a fair bit of content that expands the article in a neutral, encyclopedic way, and you are objecting to only one small part of it. That is certainly keeping this from becoming a better article. And about your reference to "health benefits": one can't introduce its properly without stating the diet's methods and aims. If you have a specific objection or counter-suggestion, I haven't heard it.


 * As for "fad diet"—let's go look for some sources. As I mentioned before, a PubMed search for "south beach diet" and "fad diet" yields nothing at all. A Google search yields a plethora of non-RS links, a WebMD overview that explains the diet without using the phrase, and then the same nutrition book I've already pointed out spends very little time on SBD and uses the phrase "popular diet" interchangeably. Could "fad diet" appear somewhere in the article? OK, that's a compromise I can make. Is the lead section a whitewash without it? Of course not. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or see this for example. We should also be mentioning the multi-billion dollar industry perhaps? Alexbrn talk 20:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course I am aware that the term "fad diet" is sometimes used in reference to a set of diet plans of which SBD is one. However, considering the usage as I did above, putting it in the first clause of the whole article gives it a prominence that isn't really warranted, and is a POV problem. As I concluded in my last reply, I wouldn't necessarily oppose a sentence in the body of the article such as "South Beach Diet is sometimes considered a fad diet"—with one or both of these books as a source. After all, using an "in-text attribution" is how WP:LABEL suggests dealing with "value-laden" terms. If that's a concession necessary to for the rest of this to go ahead, so be it. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious categorisation, which is why it is a MeSH term for this topic. We should start with the obvious/independent/neutral and only then move to more detailed, while avoiding promotional stuff. That is my chief concern. The term "fad diet" must appear in the lede, as must the mainstream view that this diet over-promises benefits without supporting evidence. Anything else would veer us towards doing SBD's advertising for them. Alexbrn talk 20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I count two PubMed sources about South Beach Diet including the "Diet Fads" MeSH tag out of eight total sources mentioning SBD in their abstracts. Meanwhile, the specific combination of "south beach diet" + "fad diet" appears in zero results. Your insistence on the primacy of this one phrase is WP:CHERRYPICKING.


 * Looking at discussion of "fad diets", this PubMed source makes an interesting point: "Use of the term 'fad diet' reflects the contentious nature of the debate in the treatment of diabetes and generally targets diets based on carbohydrate restriction..." Clearly, it's a contentious WP:LABEL and one that should be used very carefully. The current article does not reflect this guideline, whereas my suggested compromise would. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Basically the proposed changes include a lot of potentially useful content, but at the price of much of that content having a POV slant favoring the diet. For example, there is a large emphasis on how many books have been written about the diet and how popular they are. Likewise, the proposed intro paragraph de-emphasizes the statement on the effectiveness of the diet, even if that's not the intention.


 * So yeah, if it's a strict support or oppose, I would oppose, but that doesn't mean that the information couldn't eventually be worked in to the article once reworked.  Sunrise    (talk)  02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased to hear that you think some of it might be useful, Sunrise, however I'm surprised to hear you think the diet's publication history is over-emphasized. After all, the reason most anyone knows about the diet is because of the best-selling book series. As I mentioned in a related discussion this morning, I strongly support the goal of keeping woo and pseudo-science off Wikipedia, but I'm afraid this has become an overcorrection in the opposite direction: that a dispassionate treatment of the topic is effectively a "POV slant favoring the diet". Anyway, if you are willing to help rework some of this material for inclusion in the entry, I'd appreciate it. Because of my COI I have recused myself from direct edits on this topic. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 12:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved problems with the current article
From August 2014 until this message, I have been active on this discussion page, offering suggestions for improvement in my capacity as a contractor to South Beach Diet, the company responsible for the book series and food brand. While some of my suggestions were adopted, most changes have been made by others based on their own views. While the article has changed significantly, there are numerous ways this article remains problematic. It's incomplete, out-of-date, and certain sections are clearly written from an adversarial POV. While I am stepping back for a time, the purpose of this message is to highlight remaining issues for others to consider fixing:


 * Introduction
 * The introduction itself takes a strong POV against the diet, whereas other reputable online medical sources—WebMD and Mayo Clinic, both used as citations elsewhere within the article, present the diet in far more balanced terms. The sources currently cited represent only critical views, and describe an earlier version of the diet, prior to publication of the book South Beach Diet Supercharged.
 * One of the more intractable disagreements is whether "fad diet" is a suitable descriptor for the first sentence of the entire article. I have argued that it's a contentious label (WP:LABEL); User:Alexbrn argues it's a simple fact; no one else has taken a strong position either way. I'd encourage anyone interested in evaluating our respective arguments to read these two threads, and.


 * Technique
 * The section deals with the methodology and three phases of the diet, and I find Technique to be an odd name. I'd suggest something like Method, Methodology or The three phases.
 * The section refers to the diet's three "stages" but the term in used in the literature is "phases".
 * The section acknowledges there are three phases to the diet, yet only includes details about the first of them. A few suggested points for the second and third phases are below. All of which can all be supported by the MayoClinic article on the diet:
 * Phase 2 allows for what it considers "good" carbohydrates, such as whole grains and fruit, to be reincorporated gradually.
 * Agatston's books advise that those on Phase 2 can lose between one and two pounds a week during this phase, which lasts until the dieter's goal weight is achieved.
 * Phase 3 is designed as the maintenance phase of the diet and is intended to be followed indefinitely as a lifestyle.
 * In Phase 3, the eating principles from Phase 2 are retained and followers of the diet are able to eat all foods in moderation.
 * Health effects
 * Besides the introduction, this is arguably the least balanced section—only critical views have been selected for inclusion. Here's just one sentence I'd encourage editors to reconsider: "Dr. Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, a diabetes researcher, questions the validity of the glycemic index, on which the diet is based." This is just one researcher's opinion, and there are plenty of counter-arguments from respected dieticians, including the work of Jennie Brand-Miller. One such source is an article from The Journal of the American College of Nutrition: "Dietary glycemic index: health implications."
 * The phrase "fad diet" again occurs without qualification.
 * History
 * The section stops short at 2008. A few items that should be included are below:
 * In August 2011, equity firm MidOcean Partners purchased the South Beach Diet brand in partnership with Dr. Agatston and moved its headquarters to Bonita Springs, Florida.
 * South Beach Diet branded foods were launched in 2011 under MidOcean Partners' management.
 * Sources include Fortune, NCN News and The Miami Herald article "South Beach Diet has new owner" by Ina Paiva Cordle published on August 1, 2011 (unfortunately, it's not online).
 * The publication of The South Beach Diet Gluten Solution could also be added, as it marked a shift in the diet's goals. This Miami Herald article would serve as a good resource.
 * Misc.
 * I'd also like to suggest the inclusion of a bibliography. As far as I can tell, there is no comprehensive list of South Beach Diet books anywhere. It could be useful for readers to have the full bibliography.
 * The Further reading section includes only one source, with a quote selected to highlight criticism of the diet. Again, WebMD and Mayo Clinic would be ideal sources to include.
 * In August, I proposed a detailed, well-researched version of the entry which I believed to be a straightforward, non-promotional and encyclopedic treatment of the subject. However, I could not find consensus for it, and very little of it has been used. For anyone interested in working on this article in the future, it may be a good resource. You can find it here.

While I'll have to move on to other projects at this time, it is possible I will return to this subject in the future. If so, I hope a better discussion can be obtained at that time. Until then, I hope other editors will act on any changes they agree with from based on my notes above. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * you perhaps missed it but I weighed in on "fad diet" on christmas eve, here. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen your comment, Jytdog but I'm afraid it doesn't address any of the points I made. My frustration here is less about having my way—I hope you'll notice that I was willing to modify my position in search of consensus—and more that I couldn't seem to get anyone to engage the substance of my arguments. Considering the section you started just below, I take it you see merit in some of the points I raised in my last comment? If there is something you would like to fix, please let me know. In spite of all the trouble this has been, I'd still like to see this article improved. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Scope question
in the view of folks working here, is this article about the diet per se (what you are supposed to eat and not eat and when), or about the business around it, or both? Am asking due to some of the issues raised in WWB's comments above. Am thinking we may want to have this be about both, but deal with the business aspects separately and clearly.Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both I think, but reflecting the coverage found in good sources - so mainly on the dietary/health aspects. Alexbrn talk 02:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of keeping the business aspects in their own section(s). The diet should be the first thing one encounters. The lead would also follow this pattern, with the business aspects mentioned last. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Reworked introduction
In my previous request, User:Sunrise supported some of the material in my proposed introduction paragraph, but suggested it be reworked. I've done so below. I took into account the critique that my last draft (unintentionally) "de-emphasize[d] the statement on the effectiveness of the diet" and moved that statement to immediately follow the description of the diet. I've also pared down the information to just the most salient pieces. I've also retained the "fad" term, though I've presented it with a bit more context. Here's what I'd suggest:

I am fairly confident that this new proposal addresses all the issues editors found with previous versions. For anyone involved before, what do you think of this version? I also hope this discussion receives input from others interested in this topic broadly, but who may have not taken interest previously, to comment with a fresh perspective. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't "become a fad" but is intrinsically a fad diet (and not just in the US). Would be a tad non-neutral to have your proposed wording. We should also mention, again for neutrality, that the diet is in part based on "incorrect and misleading information". Then we'd be good to go. Alexbrn talk 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I have had a fairly thorough debate about this, which I'd encourage anyone to read. To recap my view: I don't dispute that it has been called this, but the term is a non-scientific, value-laden judgment that should not be put into "Wikipedia's voice" per WP:LABEL and certainly should not precede a description of the diet itself. I am willing to abide by some criticism of the diet in the introduction, but your idea of a compromise here seems to be adding even more criticism. Hence my interest in seeking wider input. For the sake of argument, and taking your point about the breadth of it's popularity into account, here's a possible alternative:


 * To be sure, I would strongly prefer that the phrase "fad diet" not be included in the introduction at all, but in the interests of getting to a version better than the current, I could live with either one. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some substantive stuff from your proposal, which would in its entirety rather play down the scientific view of this diet and over-emphasise the title of the for-sale product. Alexbrn talk 16:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your inclusion of specific information about how the diet is intended to work, so thanks for that. I remain concerned that, after all this time, you have continued to ignore my point that "fad diet" is used as a pejorative, and therefore is unsuited for the first line of the introduction. Meanwhile, this new version of the first sentence—developed by Arthur Agatston in a best-selling 2003 book—is incorrect. It was developed in the 1990s, but popularized following the publication of this book. For what it's worth, I didn't ask for it to be called "best-selling" although it certainly fits that definition. I'm also not sure where "sound science" comes into play; I know it is a phrase you have used, but if it's supported by a reliable source, I haven't seen it. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The book which promotes it also contains some incorrect and misleading information" can be summarized as the diet's promised benefits not being not being based on "sound science", no? If there's an equally good or better summary I'd be cool with that too ... Maybe we could just say some of Agatston's material was incorrect and misleading? Whatever, it's important we bring out the notable criticism here that some of this diet's promotional boosting is just hooey. Alexbrn talk 20:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of the introduction, exactly, do you consider "promotional boosting"? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not the introduction here; the "boosting" is associated with the diet itself which, as we know, advertises itself as more than it is. Wikipedia shouldn't be buying into that game. We keep ourselves clean by being sure to contexualize the diet within the expert opinion of high-quality independent sources. Alexbrn talk 21:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, as we know you are being paid to edit this article on behalf of entities with a financial interet in making money from this iffy diet. In the interest of transparency, could you please clarify what it is you've been asked to do here? I'd also be interested to know how much you're being paid and what the terms are. Care to help? Alexbrn talk 21:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The specific terms of my contract with the SBD brand are none of your business, but I will share this much: my agreed-upon work period has actually passed. I'm still here because it pains me to see Wikipedia's processes fail. I stated the range of problems with the entry in my first post on this page, now archived. However, this is off-topic. I'd prefer to discuss the content, and I think we need—at the very least—a third opinion. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You cannot "contract" with a "brand" but only with an entity. You are required to disclose what that entity is. If you want (unhelpfully) to keep confidential the terms of that contract, then so be it; but failing to disclose the precise identity of "your employer, client, and affiliation" is a violation of WP's terms of service. Alexbrn talk 22:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, now we're having a conversation in two different places. This page should focus on the content of the article; if you wish to discuss the work I do generally and how I go about it, let's keep that on my user Talk page. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts in response to the ping. Keep in mind that this is fairly cursory - I've never looked into this diet before, and you guys have presumably been studying it in some detail. :-) With regard to the two proposals in dropdown boxes in this section, I have a preference for having a separate paragraph about efficacy in the lead when health may be involved, but tastes may vary in that respect.

I typically don't have too many preferences on whether a specific word is used or not, e.g. if we want to use the term "incorrect" I don't think there's anything wrong with that (as long as it can be sourced) but its absence also wouldn't bother me since I think "promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence" should give basically the same message. On the term "fad diet," the sources seem to make a pretty strong case, e.g. we have a nutrition textbook that doesn't only call the SBD as a fad diet but as a typical example of a fad diet (and presumably is using it as a neutral technical term rather than as a pejorative). So if the term is used, it seems to me that unless sources of similar quality are presented that either contest this or use more useful terminology, it should be presented as a statement of fact as is the standard practice. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence but I suppose it could be. Of course, if there are any synonyms which avoid the negative popular connotations but convey the same information, that would probably be better, though I can't think of one at the moment.  Sunrise    (talk)  02:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * adding my 2 cents. from a neutral point of view, "fad diet" is totally appropriate.  it is in the sources and it is how the field of nutrition discusses things like SBD.  from a marketing viewpoint I know that is a bummer but that is the way the ball bounces in an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the thoughtful comment, User:Sunrise. On the whole I tend to agree with your way of thinking although, with a closer read, I believe you might change your opinion on whether "fad diet" is a simple statement of fact. Here is my best case for why I think the term is misapplied:


 * How strong is nutrition book as a source? The book User:Alexbrn cites is a perfectly fine source, but it only mentions "South Beach Diet" twice. The first time it's grouped in a list of other "fad diets"; the second time it's called a "popular diet". I haven't argued in favor of the latter phrase because I've figured that would be seen as promotional. But this helps to clarify an issue unaddressed so far: the word "fad" is sometimes used to mean "has a popular following" and sometimes meant as in "food faddism". The former is not necessarily pejorative; the latter is, and this is Alexbrn's stated intent.


 * What is the definition of "fad diet" anyway? Consistent with the definition found at Food faddism, online medical dictionaries all describe it approximately as McGraw-Hill does: Any of a number of weight-reduction diets that either eliminate one or more of the essential food groups, or recommend consumption of one type of food in excess at the expense of other foods; FDs rarely follow modern principles for losing weight. Yes, the first phase restricts whole grains and fruit, but they are reintroduced in the second phase. On the whole, it is intended to be a sustainable, low-glycemic diet. SBD has enjoyed popularity, sure, but it's not a classic case of "food faddism" (like, say, the Master Cleanse or Grapefruit diet).


 * What do medical sources say about SBD and fad diets? Alexbrn initially cited a Harvard Health Letter paper which uses "Diet Fads" as a MeSH tag (along with "Florida" and "Humans") in relation to a discussion of South Beach Diet. On PubMed, "diet fads" appears 664 times. The term appears with "south beach diet" just twice. Pretty flimsy for the introductory sentence, no?


 * So why does the phrase come up so often? Based on my reading, the most reliable sources, such as the nutrition book mentioned above, or this book about the food business Alexbrn has pointed to previously, put SBD into a list of other "fad diets" such as the Atkins diet, Weight Watchers, Zone Diet, and Jenny Craig programs. (At the risk of disturbing the WP:OTHERSTUFF gods, I'll point out none of the linked articles use the phrase "fad diet".) Used this way, the term is inexact, suggestive rather than descriptive, and serves as a catch-all for describe any diet with a commercial interest behind it.


 * At best, "fad diet" is reductionist. At worst, it's an unscientific, POV-laden term. I'm willing to live with the phrase appearing in the article—even in the introduction—so long as it's prefaced by a clear statement of what the diet is about, and the phrase is attributed to a source. The food business book I think would be particularly good for this.


 * The above being my best case, this is the last I'll press the point about "fad diet" for the time being. Between the two of you, Sunrise and User:Jytdog, I believe you'll read with an open mind and modify your position, or not, based on sources and guidelines. Meantime, as always, I'm happy to answer any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an impressive effort to rid the lede of the "fad diet" term, but I'm afraid it's just what the diet is - and how it is routinely referred to both in academic and lay publications (as any search will easily show). It would be possible to add good sources until the cows came home if necessary but I really don't see any point since we're well-sourced enough already. Maybe, though, this from Nature Medicine could dispel any lingering doubt about how this is just a plain and neutral way this diet is referred to:
 * Alexbrn talk 17:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn talk 17:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I think the above quote actually supports my point: writers loosely use this term, which has both medical and colloquial meanings, to describe a range of diets with little in common. As currently used in the lead, the phrase either places a value judgment on the subject before a working definition is provided, or puts jargon ahead of a clear description. Either one I believe does readers a disservice. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's NPOV for you. Wikipedia mentions this is just A.N. other fad diet as that is what good sources tend to do. We've baked a neutrality ingredient into the lede. These diets do have an essential characteristic in common: they're a bit iffy and exist mostly for enriching the deviser. We clue the reader in from the off that this is the view of high-quality respectable sources. We're not attempting to provide any "service" to the reader other than neutrally digesting accepted knowledge about the diet. Alexbrn talk 02:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

i suggest we stop debating "fad diet". There is no more to say on this, regardless of how WWB_Too feels about it. (sorry WWB_Too) Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid I don't think a debate has really occurred here. Alexbrn is implacable, you seem intent on staying out of it, and no one else seems particularly motivated to get involved. In the interests of being realistic, I will have to let this go for the time being. I'll just conclude with the observation that, in his own words, Alexbrn is putting a particular viewpoint ahead of a disinterested recitation of facts—and that I am deeply disappointed that no one is willing to engage with the points I've made. Before I wrap this up entirely, I will put together a final list of issues that I consider outstanding with this entry, and I will post this by the end of the week. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a wise person once said to me, in another forum entirely, when I complained about a committee document I had tried to influence, but which ended up not to my liking: "You see before you the result of consensus!". There is general approval for the text as it is, and no significant opposition, and so - it stands as the consensus text. Alexbrn talk 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn There is a distinct difference between consensus and bullying. In consensus, everyone goes away feeling that they can live with the solution. In bullying, one person wins, and the others leave disappointed. I see no consensus here. 142.254.111.19 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that statement reflects a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV as those terms are used in WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, sure doesn't. From the page: "When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." That did not happen here. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That shows a lack of understanding too. The opening sentence of that para has "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised". Dissenters with improper concerns (e.g. those that run against our WP:PAGs) can be safely discounted: for example if a group of editors wanted to use Wikipedia libel a celebrity based on hearsay their "dissent" would count for nothing no matter how clamorous it was. So it goes for attempts here to have the article not reflect the content of high-quality sources - hence the WP:NPOV aspect: neutrality is a non-negotiable. Alexbrn talk 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)