Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Why is it not valid? It's just as valid as fad diet. We have a reliable source--WSJ--describing it as both. It's not neutral to pick one description over another. It's a both/and situation. and both also describe this as an elimination diet. I'm not sure what you want me to wait for--a fourth RS? ] (]) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
:Why is it not valid? It's just as valid as fad diet. We have a reliable source--WSJ--describing it as both. It's not neutral to pick one description over another. It's a both/and situation. and both also describe this as an elimination diet. I'm not sure what you want me to wait for--a fourth RS? ] (]) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::::It's obviously a fad diet so the required RS is weak. It is far from obvious it is an "elimination diet" so I'd want to see a strong medical source to provide such a categorisation. ] (]) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::::It's obviously a fad diet so the required RS is weak. It is far from obvious it is an "elimination diet" so I'd want to see a strong medical source to provide such a categorisation. ] (]) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
Please slow down '''everyone''' and be more civil to each other. And think about what each other are saying, please. And please refrain from ] in deciding content of this article. What's "obvious" to any specific editor doesn't so much matter here. People have different perspectives and can disagree on categorizations like that, in totally good faith. We have to allow that others will not always share our opinions, and use sources. ] (]) 00:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
I see "fad diet" in an article's title, but not in the body of the article itself. I don't believe that article titles are typically used in this way. If we're including something in the first sentence of an article, per WP:LEAD, we should surely have a better source than an article title alone. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The content in the body of that article fully supports the label in the title. One doesn't need a quotation for support; we summarize sources in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
added another ref. It is not contentious except for someone trying to sell it To to any objective observer; it fits the definition of fad diet (you really should read that) to a T. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC) (strike via redaction with apologies Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The second source you've added also does not refer to the Whole30 as a fad diet. The article subtitle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements," but that's as close as we get. It's also a listicle, there must be better sources out there. Also, yes, "fad diet" can clearly be seen as a contentious term by someone who is not trying to "sell" a diet. I will start a discussion at a noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
After looking through the sourcing again, I think a better description of this diet is Elimination diet. It is described as such in the US News & World Report and Dallas Morning News, which look like our two best newspaper sources. According to the Dallas Morning News source, "Weight loss is not a focus of Whole30." It doesn't seem to promise any extraordinary benefits per Fad diet such as a longer diet, either. It looks like you're supposed to cut out certain food groups for 30 days, then start reintroducing them and see which foods, if any, make you feel worse. That seems consistent with elimination diet. I cannot find any sources that say you're supposed to never eat the eliminated foods after 30 days. Per Self, "The program is all about eliminating and reintroducing these potential problem-causers so you can better understand how what you eat is affecting you. Think: Paleo meets an elimination diet—just for 30 days." I think a more accurate first sentence of the article based on the available sourcing would be: "The Whole30 is a 30-day elimination diet during which participants eliminate sugar, alcohol, grains, legumes, soy, and dairy from their diets." Safehaven86 (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
it is a fad diet; stating that is accurate and neutral. you can also describe it as an elimination diet as well, elsewhere. do not remove the fad diet statement. it NPOV now, per the WP:PSCI policy. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The article on fad diet says a fad diet "is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life." I am not seeing that in the citations here. I am seeing that this diet tells you to not eat certain foods for 30 days, then reintroduce them later in a way consistent with an elimination diet. And please do not give me orders, such as "do not remove the fad diet statement." Did I remove it? Did I say I was going to remove it? I've obviously started a discussion here about it, and I don't need to be patronized. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That seems like OR or SYN to me, and i would urge the editor to be more friendly and to consider the other editor's notes abot dynamics of this dialog. This is giving me the willies. Doesn't feel like a good dialog to me. I just wish to urge people to be calm and good to each other, and speak to the content and not with imperatives. I do recall there's one indy source that does categorize this diet a "fad diet" and there are not many sources on this diet other than self-published ones. SageRad (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Where are you seeing that "The point of the elimination is to lose weight quickly and/or dietary detoxification"? I am not seeing that in a source--many of our sources clearly state the goal of this diet is not to lose weight. Here's an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "More People Pick Elimination Diets to Discover Food Sensitivities: The Fad and Science Behind Not Eating Entire Food Groups for Weeks at a Time." This article appears to be WP:RS for both "fad diet" and "elimination diet". Basically, it looks like we have a "fad elimination diet." I am concerned with the existing wikilink to fad diet because that article suggests the point of a fad diet is to lose weight and/or live longer, and neither of those are claims made by this diet. So I guess we really have a "fad elimination diet designed to identify food intolerances rather than to spur weight loss" or a "fad elimination diet that makes no promises of weight loss," etc. I don't think our current article introduction is sufficiently comprehensive/nuanced at present (and the "fad diet" article doesn't seem to be, either). Safehaven86 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This is not medical nor healthy; yes there is a fad for people eliminating gluten or other things from their diet as the WSJ describes. There is a fad for gluten free diets, for example, as described here. Whole30 is a money making enterprise that is very much in fashion now - a "cult". It is a quintessential fad diet. As the Business Insider and other sources note, people who use it are focused on weight loss and "detoxing". Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what implications your commentary has for the content of this article. Do you disagree that the Whole30 is both a fad diet and an elimination diet? These terms do not seem to be mutually exclusive. The recent reversion of an excellent WSJ source seems unhelpful. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a fad diet, not sure about "elimination" from just one source - and certainly not without something in the body. Reverting some shitty lede-bombing sources too. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to get you up to speed here, the WSJ source that you reverted is currently our most reliable source for "fad diet." It also describes the Whole30 as an "elimination diet." So in your effort to label this diet as a fad diet you've ironically removed the very best source we have describing it as such. Ha. It makes sense for us to describe it as both, as the terms aren't mutually exclusive. And there are other RS for "elimination diet" as well, please see my comments above. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Als, re. "shitty lede-bombing sources...." 1) this article doesn't have a lead as there are no article headers/subsections 2) it was one source, from Self, which is of exactly the same variety as Health, which is currently used as a source in the article. If you had a problem with this source, fine, remove it. But you didn't need to revert the whole edit or the addition of the WSJ source. You also don't need to swear to get a point across. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Now you're edit warring. This diet is not an elimination diet in the sense defined in our Misplaced Pages article, so we don't say it is. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
We have a Misplaced Pages policy of verification. The WP:RSWall Street Journal says the Whole30 is an elimination diet. What Misplaced Pages policy says that we can't call things what reliable sources call them unless other Misplaced Pages articles define things in the same way? We don't have to wikilink elimination diet if you don't like. But we're wikilinking fad diet, an article which doesn't match the RS descriptions of this as a fad diet (i.e. no promises of weight loss or longer life, but the fad of cutting out gluten, etc). A bylined article in WSJ is much more reliable than an unbylined listicle in Health magazine--we can't ignore RS just because you don't like them. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is it not valid? It's just as valid as fad diet. We have a reliable source--WSJ--describing it as both. It's not neutral to pick one description over another. It's a both/and situation. US News & World Report and Dallas Morning News both also describe this as an elimination diet. I'm not sure what you want me to wait for--a fourth RS? Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously a fad diet so the required RS is weak. It is far from obvious it is an "elimination diet" so I'd want to see a strong medical source to provide such a categorisation. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please slow down everyone and be more civil to each other. And think about what each other are saying, please. And please refrain from WP:OR in deciding content of this article. What's "obvious" to any specific editor doesn't so much matter here. People have different perspectives and can disagree on categorizations like that, in totally good faith. We have to allow that others will not always share our opinions, and use sources. SageRad (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}