User:ARoseWolf/Krista Varady content dispute

Attempt to clear up misunderstandings about content only
I'm going to make an attempt to clear up the misunderstandings related to content in the article. Let me lay some ground rules. I am not an expert in the rules as it relates to medical articles on Wikipedia so please have patience as I walk through this here. I'm going section by section and source by source in some cases. It's not an extremely long article so it shouldn't be too difficult. There are two points in doing this. First is to try and resolve the content dispute thereby stabilizing the article and the second is education. This dispute involves a new editor and many of us don't know the special rules that govern medical articles on Wikipedia so education is important. I will only discuss content so any dispute not related to content or uncivil language will be ignored and reported appropriately should it become disruptive. I appreciate any and all participation.

Some facts per the article history:
 * is the originator of the article and submitted a version of the article through the AfC process on February 26th, 2022.
 * Through several attempts the article was eventually accepted on March 28th, 2022. Note: The accepted version is almost a carbon copy of the version @Ejacobs8990 is edit warring to include.
 * On September 16th, 2022, trimmed 11,556 bytes of content with edit summary (trim promotional-seeming original research and biomedical claims sourced to non-WP:MEDRS sources)
 * This led to an edit war of reverts on October 4th and 5th between @Ejacobs8990, @Bon courage and.

The claim: What is being removed are contents and 18 sources that are allegedly a) being used to make claims they do not support or b) are fictitious altogether.

The contents removed:
 * Section title: Education
 * While at Berkeley, she published several pioneering animal studies in this area
 * Sources: ,, ,
 * My thoughts: There is nothing in any of these sources stating that this is pioneering work. It doesn't mean that is isn't but none of the sources state this directly. We should avoid such puffery language. The published sources do in fact show that she was involved in animal studies within this field of study. None of the sources attribute her to being at Berkeley, however, a source for the previous statement does have her at Berkeley at this time so it stands to reason this is true. The only issue I see with this statement is the inclusion of the word "pioneering".


 * and the first literature review of intermittent fasting.
 * Sources:, ,
 * My Thoughts: The primary issue here is with this study being called the "first literature review". None of the sources state it is the first in anything so before that can be said in Wikivoice it must be attributed to a reliable secondary source.


 * Section title: Studies of alternate day fasting
 * Varady has published numerous seminal articles examining how alternate day fasting impacts human health. In 2017, her lab published the first long-term (12-month) human trial of fasting. This study showed that alternate day fasting is just as effective as traditional dieting, i.e daily calorie restriction, for weight loss and weight maintenance.
 * Sources:, , ,
 * My Thoughts: The sources above do not call this study the first of anything, however, it does state that no long term clinical trials have been conducted up to this point seeming to imply this was the first. That's a judgment call. The words used in this section seem to imply that the results were positive for alternate-day fasting but in reality the study was neutral at best. By the results there was no discernable difference. I would have stated that the study did not produce better results than daily calorie restriction which follows closely with the wording of the study. Again, judgement call. I'm not seeing OR in this section but perhaps wording pushing a non-NPOV and not following closely with the sources.


 * Her lab has also published several key studies demonstrating that intermittent fasting is a safe diet therapy
 * Sources:, , ,
 * My Thoughts: The sources do, in fact state what is being claimed here. It determined there was minimal adverse results and had either "benign" or "beneficial" effects when it cam to the symptoms of eating disorders. Whether this source is considered reliable since it is obviously primary is a questionable concern. However, it is not a fictitious claim nor is it OR.


 * that can be used to lower cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and improve glycemic control in individuals with obesity and pre-diabetes.
 * Sources:, , ; , , ; , , ; , , ; , ,
 * My Thoughts: This, though further research implementing larger sample sizes is required before solid conclusion can be reached, stands out to me though the claims made in the statement are actually made in the conclusions so its not exactly OR. There is the use of the word "may" in the published writeup which seems to indicate uncertainty while the words used on Wikipedia seem to indicate something sure. I'm not sure this is presented in a neutral way.