Talk:Diet for a New America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Veganism and Vegetarianism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

58 album

The primary article for Diet for a new America was just redirected to the book's page, stating that the book is more notable. However, I would argue the album is more notable, as is the article since this article is one line with only one reference? I would suggest that either this article is improved or the default for Diet for a new america should be the album.

What are everybody's thoughts? I shall wait a month for opinions before completing the switch.

On another note, not that it really matters, but has anyone else noticed the only listed source is a scan on Google books of Vegetarian Times from August 1989? Surely there are better sources than that... Drmotley (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A bestselling book which was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize is more notable than a single album rock band. Please do not switch without achieving consensus. Feel free to add "better sources" to the article if you wish (see Google Scholar, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times). Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize" is meaningless. I can nominate the authors of this article for a Pulitzer. If I didn't hate paperwork, that is. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the sources. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Critical Reception" of the book, Diet for a New America, Marian Burros' NY Times' not-so-flattering book review is quoted. Unfortunately, her review is not of the 1987 'Diet for a New America' book but of the later 'Eating Well" book. This is clear if one peruses the references, but otherwise totally misleading. If the Times' review of the earlier book, which I understand was quite favorable, is not available, then in the interests of accuracy and fairness, the Burros review should be deleted.----

- - - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.221.166 (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colman McCarthy

Yes, Colman McCarthy raved about the book. Where? In promotional material for the book. Who? A board member of a non-profit founded and run by Robbins. Including this is absurd. If his mommy likes the book and compares it to the Bible, should we cite her too? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsave was founded as a result of the book, not the other way round.[1] It appears many high profile American veg*ns joined the board as a result of reading the book.[2] Excluding all board members, means excluding most prominent vegetarian authors/journalists/doctors in the late 80s/early 90s. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "high profile veg*ns", you seem to mean "PETA and PETA-funded group board members" (Neal Barnard, PCRM; Ingrid Newkirk, PETA; Jeremy Rifkin, FARM; John Robbins, FARM; T. Colin Campbell, PCRM; Casey Kasem, FARM; Michael Klaper, FARM; Lawrence Kushi, PCRM; Frances Moore Lappe, FARM; John McDougall, PCRM; Dean Ornish, PCRM; Andrew Weil, PCRM; David Wolfe (PCRM)). Yeah, I guess notable vegans who join Robbins org founded within a year of the book being published are maybe a b it predisposed to think that on-my-god-this-is-the-greatest-book-EVER. It's kinda like a movie documenting a guy thinking about going vegan, deciding to go vegan, and going vegan with the help of a doctor when the guy, the doctor and numerous others involved in making the film are the board of directors of an organization the film doesn't mention. It's all very convenient, but it sure isn't objective. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the research of Campbell, Ornish, Barnard etc is biased/not objective? Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying groups on one side of an issue tend to produce and promote research that supports their opinion. When Heartland has something to say about climate change, it ALWAYS says climate change doesn't exist. When vegan groups have something to say about milk, it is ALWAYS that milk is bad for you. Some vegan groups say there are natural, plant-based sources of vitamin B12. Independent sources and more reputable vegan groups say it's bunk. Who do you suppose is biased? An author who devoted his life to promoting animal rights (McCarthy) is likely to promote books that promote animal rights. The general standard for reviews on Wikipedia is professional reviews. McCarthy is a vegan author, not a columnist. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree, if you agree omnivore reviewers/authors also support their POV. The only way NPOV can be achieved on veg*n films/books/articles is presenting POVs/reviews from both sides and peer reviewed scientific research. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly fringe diets on the other side as well (the low carb and paleolithic diets which often lard on the meats come to mind). "Balance" does not mean presenting both fringe views. In fringe cases we discuss the claims of the subject as covered by reliable sources. So, Fruitarianism discusses the fringe beliefs of fruitarians and the academic consensus (that, gosh, an all natural, all fruit diet isn't healthy). In the present case, we discuss what independent reliable sources say about the subject of this article. One time TV critic and "founding father of the modern animal protection movement" Amory is not an independent reliable source for this topic (though his comments on TV shows in 1960s and 1970s might be). Award-winning (Emmy, Nat'l Press Club, etc.) food columnist for the New York Times, however, is. (If you do a bit of digging on her, you'll find she is not partisan. Amory clearly is.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colman McCarthy (the title of this thread) is just as notable as Marian Burros. Academic consensus is not always right. Not so long ago the majority of scientists were sure the Earth was flat and the Sun orbited the Earth. Peer reviewed research is the key, even if it is a fringe idea. Esselstyn, for example, has shown via clinical research that a low fat, whole foods, plant-based diet reverses heart disease. If Wikipedia aims "to be the sum of human knowledge", then this should be noted on articles, even if its fringe. No one is arguing over the health merits/deficiencies of fruitarianism or the necessity of B12 supplements on a vegan diet. Please keep to the topic. Nirvana2013 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing whether or not McCarthy is notable. McCarthy is, so far as I know, notable and, as a result, has an article. We are discussing whether or not McCarthy is an independent reliable source for material about the book. My contention is that a member of the board of Robbins' organization, providing promotional material for the book is not an independent source for a review of Robbins' book. While pre-scientific cultures often believed the Earth was flat, Pythagoras came up with a spherical Earth pretty long ago. Had Wikipedia existed when the geocentric view of the universe prevailed, Wikipedia should have reflected that reliable sources indicated the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And yes, people are arguing over the need for B12 supplements in a vegan diet. Every now and then I go to the various vegan articles and restore that annoying little fact.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "No one" I meant no one in this discussion (i.e. only you and I, so far) and no reliable sources (i.e. peer reviewed clinical research); not unverified edits by various Wiki editors. All the current research shows that vegans need B12 supplements. There is a theory (by raw vegan self-experimenters) that B12 can be obtained from the roots of unwashed, organically grown plants and non-UV disinfected/non-chlorinated water. But this is POV and has no place (currently) on Wikipedia.

"Had Wikipedia existed when the geocentric view of the universe prevailed, Wikipedia should have reflected that reliable sources indicated the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe." Agreed and if they were doing their job right they should have reflected Galileo's fringe idea too (reliably sourced, of course).

Interesting you mention Pythagoras. He also had the idea of advocating a plant-based diet for animal welfare and health reasons. Its just that this idea is proving harder for humans to grasp. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo's fringe (Copernican) idea would not have merited mention until it was discussed in independent reliable sources.

Pythagoras' idea was based on asceticism and, possibly, a belief in reincarnation (and a ban on beans to reduce farting in his breathing space). This points to the reason humanity is taking soooooo long to grasp "this idea": It isn't one idea. We should eat only fruit (with various definitions of fruit) or only vegetables or maybe honey and/or eggs and/or dairy and/or fish and/or other seafood and/or poultry. We shouldn't cook it, lest we destroy the quintessence. Or cooking is fine. We should also not eat garlic and onions. Or that's fine. We absolutely shouldn't eat artificially fortified foods and supplements. Or we absolutely MUST. Oh, and meat and such are fine, so long as we didn't pay for them. (There are, of course, hundreds of other variations.) The reason(s) for all of these restrictions? Simple: It's for health reasons. It's more "natural". It's better for the environment. We don't want to kill animals. We don't want to kill anything (even plants/fungi). It's for various conflicting religious reasons. Meat is "yucky". It's less expensive. (There are additional claims here as well.) In any case, those true believers who have attached every aspect of their personal and professional lives to one version of "this idea" and have very publicly signed on to promote one person's exposition of "this idea" (as with members of Robbins' organization's board) are clearly not independent reliable sources. Thought experiment: is a "researcher" who works for a tobacco company an independent reliable source for the health effects of smoking? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is something very different to being on the board of a commercial enterprise like the tobacco industry and on the advisory board of a non-profit agency like EarthSave, especially if you are like McCarthy who's livelihood does not depend on vegetarianism. But anyway this is all beside the point, as McCarthy was not even on the board when he wrote about the book in his August 1988 articles in The Washington Post and Finger Lakes Times. EarthSave was only founded in December 1988 and the first board put together in late 1989.[12]

The quote given is not taken from a Washington Post article. It is taken from promotional sites that say it is from the Post. How do we know this? They are all using exactly the same section of the quote. Does this matter? Hell, yes. Without reading the whole article, all we know is what McCarthy's employer (the author of the book) wants us to read from his employee. Consider a movie review "Far from being the blockbuster action film of the summer, this movie plods along for 90 minutes while the audience quietly stews." How about we call it: "the blockbuster action film of the summer"? Link to the source you got it from, not the source your source says they got it from. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get an expanded quote from the news article. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found where the various vegetarian sites got it. They got it from promotional material accompanying the book. How do I know this? simple, it's in one of the supposed sources for the quote in the first place. ""'Every so often a book comes along which has the capacity to awaken the conscience of a nation,' wrote Cleveland Amory in promotional material accompanying Mr. Robbins's book. Mr. Amory, the author and animal-rights advocate, is a board member of Earthsave, the group founded by Mr. Robbins. ' "Silent Spring" was one such book,' Mr. Amory wrote. 'John Robbins's volume is destined to be another.'"[13]

This is promotional material for the book we are citing, not a Post article. Until such time as we actually use the Post article, we cannot cite what it says. I'm restoring this to the properly cited material saying it is from the promotional material that came with the book. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]