View source for Talk:The China Study

{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Old AfD multi
| date      = 27 September 2009
| result    = '''Keep'''
| page      = The China Study (2nd nomination)
| date2     = 21 January 2008
| result2   = '''No consensus'''
| page2     = The China Study 
| collapse  = yes
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Books}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject China}}
}}
{{Annual readership|days=90}}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:The China Study|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:The China Study/Archive|numberstart=2|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:The China Study/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 17:43 August 19, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->

== Denise Minger ==

Why is the site of Denise Minger not mentioned? It contains a lot of information why the China Study should not be valid https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
--[[User:Rcsmit|Rcsmit]] ([[User talk:Rcsmit|talk]]) 09:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:[[WP:Blog|Blogs]] are not considered reliable sources. And this is a blog by someone with no relevant expertise and a professed strong interest in subjects like astrology and the paranormal. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 21:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

== This is an article about a book ==

There seems to be some confusion about the subject of this article. It is not about the [[China–Cornell–Oxford Project]], which has its own Wikipedia page and in any case only occupies one chapter of the book. It is also not about [[whole food]] or therapies for cancer. It is about a book. As such, it should provide background ''to the book'' (not the project), a summary of its contents, as well as any analysis, information on publication, and reception (see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Books]]). For information on the book's contents, the book itself is the primary source, and it is sufficient as long as interpretation is not added (thus, tags requesting a non-primary source are misguided). I am going to do the following:
*Move much of the lead into a section called ''Contents''.
*Remove the non-primary tags.
*Move the background on the project to the page about the project.
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have also removed the {{Tl|Medref}} and {{Tl|fringe theories}} tags because those are not relevant to an article about a book. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 19:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

==Unreliable sources==

I just reverted a bunch of unreliable quackery sources, Reddit, [[Mary Dan Eades]], [[Weston A. Price Foundation]] etc and chunks of text that verge on copyvio. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 13:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

== "Contents" section ==

Wikipedia articles need to be based on secondary sources, so a huge section with Wikipedia editors' interpretation of the source is not acceptable, ''especially'' when it is making fringe claims in the SCI/MED space. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 17:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
:This is not an article about the science. It is an article about the book, and the material that you have removed is a summary of the book's contents, for which the book itself is the best source. See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 19#Contents section and primary source|this discussion]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 18#WP:OR vs book summaries|this one]] from WikiProject Books. I have done my best to summarize the contents without adding interpretation. If you disagree, please give specific examples. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::It is making medical claims, sourced to an unreliable source (the book), and is completely undue. Wikipedia should not contain editor's own digests of popular science books, but articles must instead be based on secondary sources. It is a particular concern since this book contains fringe/pseudoscientific material. I have raised a concern at [[WP:FT/N]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
:::The book is full of citations of high-quality peer-reviewed scientific literature, so I think you're too quick to claim it's fringe. In any case, we're still discussing an article about a book. I have notified [[WP:WikiProject Books]]. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 19:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
*{{tq|This is not an article about the science. It is an article about the book}} I agree, and as it is about the book, it should not be repeating claims of science from the book, but rather ''summarizing'' the contents and directing readers to relevant articles to learn more about the topics the book covers. A 3700 word explication of each chapter in the book is ''far'' beyond [[WP:UNDUE]], and becomes a serious NPOV problem when it presents uncritically the numerous claims in this book, many of which are flatly contradicted by the very sources they cite. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::It's not clear to me how [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] applies in this case. Is there more than one point viewpoint about what the book says? And what are the contents, if not scientific claims? Or are you saying that [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] somehow applies to the ''length'' of an article? The article is definitely summarizing the contents of the book, and in my judgement I could not have done it clearly with fewer words. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
:::In an article about a book, it strikes me as absolutely [[WP:UNDUE]] for the synopsis section (which is generally quite brief) to be the longest part of an article. "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Articles ''about'' a book rarely summarize it in much detail. Secondary coverage instead tends to emphasize things like its composition and publication history, influences, and reception. As a point of comparison, [[WP:NOVELPLOT]] suggests only 400 to 700 words for the synopsis. Roughly 1-2 sentences per chapter strikes me as sufficient here. You might compare to a non-fiction book article I wrote, [[Daughters of the Samurai]]. [[User:Oulfis|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ oulfis</span><small> 🌸</small>]]([[User talk:Oulfis|talk]]) 00:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::::That makes sense. I can try to do that, although I suspect that ''Daughters of the Samurai'' didn't have as many concepts that needed explaining. I must admit, though, I was finding it very time consuming to write such detailed summaries, and I never managed to finish the synopsis. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 01:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::Some other useful comparison points might be some Good Articles like [[Madonna: An Intimate Biography]], [[The Road to Total Freedom]] or especially relevant [[The 100-Mile Diet]]. In general, I'd say any specific examples are out of place in a synopsis, and if there is a background concept that needs explaining, that concept probably ought to be explained on its own article which is then linked. For example, I did not try to explain the [[Iwakura Mission]], or in fact anything about Meiji-era Japan, in the Daughters of the Samurai article. So there might be places where your detailed writing would not go to waste. [[User:Oulfis|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ oulfis</span><small> 🌸</small>]]([[User talk:Oulfis|talk]]) 01:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
*As for the claims that this book is fringe/pseudoscience or that its claims are "flatly contradicted by the very sources they cite": If you have reliable sources that establish your claims, I welcome their addition to the article. So far, the only sources anyone has found that are critical of this book are blogs written by people with dubious credentials. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::(ec) The plot summary of ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' is only 2800 words, and that ''trilogy'' of novels contains over 1100 pages. This book has 417 pages, and you wrote 3700 words about it.
::As for the factual accuracy of the book: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/ Science Based Medicine - The China Study]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 21:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
:::That article does raise some plausible concerns, and the author does have some medical credentials (although not, apparently, research experience) but it's still a blog. And I have to wonder about her judgement when she quotes Denise Minger (someone with no research credentials and a passion for astrology) on the scientific validity of the China Study proper. By contrast, Campbell has published hundreds of articles in top-tier peer-reviewed journals. So it seems like pretty thin justification for dismissing his work out of hand. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::::I strongly suggest you go to WP:RSN and search for "Science Based Medicine", check the link count to get an idea of how often the site is used, and read [[Science-Based Medicine]] before you dismiss it with "but it's still a blog." It is, in fact, not a blog, but an online-only magazine with an editorial board and strict fact-checking, which evolved from the editor-in-chief's blog. You might also note that their entire editorial board consists of well-known, highly-respected physicians. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 13:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::O.k., fair enough. And this article would certainly benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the content from third parties. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
: The summary is way too long for an article of its length. It cites zero independent sources and is therefore totally undue. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
*There are some overly aggressive and rude edits to this page. The more thoughtful arguments above interpret [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] as calling for a trimming of the synopsis, not a complete removal. But it seems that we have some wikilawyers here who would rather nuke the article than improve it. That said, I'm fine with {{U|RandomCanadian}}'s removal of a paragraph from the lead. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 04:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::I can't find any rudeness in this entire discussion. Note that unsupported accusations of bad behavior are, themselves, considered [[WP:ASPERSIONS|bad behavior]]. And, somewhat ironically, are quite rude. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I said the edits were rude, not the discussion. Blanking extensive work by someone when a more constructive approach would be to summarize the summary, so to speak. Trimming it is something that I'd be willing to do, but why would I bother starting from scratch to make a shorter summary if I think that someone might just blank that too? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
* <u>Any</u> summary of points in the book needs framing by secondary sources to establish due weight, with particular attention to a need to avoid airing fringe notions per [[WP:GEVAL]]. [[Science-Based Medicine]] is a fine [[WP:RS]] for fringe science content per [[WP:PARITY]]. The edit-warring and personalization of comments is concerning. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 05:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
* I have no opinions about the scientific or medical content in this article, but I made a few edits which have the article looking appropriate from the bookish point of view. I'd like to see a "composition" section, especially since the book comes such a long time after the studies. I also assume there is probably more to be said in the reception section about the book's controversy, and about its financial success. But my research interests lie more in the realm of eighteenth century sonnets, so I don't plan to edit further here. As the article is edited I would warn that it is important to avoid [[WP:OR]] in the form of citing scientific/medical studies: unless those studies mention this book, they are not relevant to this book's article. Citing scientific studies is a sign you are creating a [[WP:COATRACK]]. Presumably the debate about medical/scientific content belongs on that China-Cornell-Oxford article. [[User:Oulfis|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ oulfis</span><small> 🌸</small>]]([[User talk:Oulfis|talk]]) 07:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Oulfis}} Some time ago, I tried to find information about the composition of the book, but didn't succeed. Any suggestions for ways to research that? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 22:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|RockMagnetist}} For contemporary works, I've had the best luck locating composition information in author interviews conducted around the time of the first publication. In this case I would be interested in questions like, when they first decided to write the book, how long from then to submission of the manuscript to a publisher, whether there was any discussion/changes in plan in terms of the choice of publisher, and especially any details related to the joint composition (when and why they co-authored, how the labour was divided, etc.) Once you find a few of these details, arrange them chronologically in the article. This is often tricky information to track down but, I think, the hallmark of a good book-related article, which provides the whole history of the book as an object. [[User:Oulfis|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ oulfis</span><small> 🌸</small>]]([[User talk:Oulfis|talk]]) 23:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:* Oh, actually, I'm not sure that the further reading and external links sections are OK. My instinct is that scientific sources are not suitable here, only sources that would be about the book itself. But I am not confident enough to delete. [[User:Oulfis|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ oulfis</span><small> 🌸</small>]]([[User talk:Oulfis|talk]]) 07:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::: The best detailed review of ''The China Study'' can be found online at the redpenreviews website [https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/the-china-study-the-most-comprehensive-study-of-nutrition-ever-conducted-and-the-startling-implications-for-diet-weight-loss-and-long-term-health/]. The book was reviewed by Stephan J Guyenet and was peer-reviewed by Travis Masterson. I think we should use this source to expand the article. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 16:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::::I agree. Between that and the SBM review, there are quite a few facts about this book that don't appear in this article at present. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)