This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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
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 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.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 Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
User:CalCoWSpiBudSu, I think your recent revisions are mostly a positive. I think perhaps you are downplaying Gregor's alarmism over mad cow a bit, including only the student newspaper reference and then rebutting it. What about the Envirolink reference (Animal Life, Spring 94)[here?], which is titled "Much More Serious Than Aids"? Or his article from ten years later in "Earth Save News" ([here], titled "The killer among us: Could mad cow disease already be killing thousands of Americans every year?" Evidently his views had not really evolved in those ten years.Brianyoumans (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning it. I added the information. Greger never directly made that statement; he only asked the question indirectly. The wording may be confusing to the reader. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. However, because I get obsessed with these little things, I looked around and found that it seems like he had been giving talks for years using the phrase or something similar as a title. For instance, he spoke at a [1998 Boston Vegetarian Food Fest] on "Mad Cow Disease - The Next Great Plague?" In 2004 he gave a [talk at MIT] apparently titled "Mad Cow Disease: Plague of the Twenty-First Century?" (Or perhaps it was the name of the overall event? It's unclear.) Another talk in Rochester in early 2004 was titled "Mad Cow: Stop the Madness!". He may have been more moderate in his speech, but his titles were provocative.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, and I see it too. He used a shocking title but did not state it clearly, making everything vague. I think we should avoid adding too much information because it may confuse the reader, making it unclear what the real intention of that paragraph is. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That does at least confirm part of Greger's story about his grandmother. I wasn't really questioning it. But I do agree with the editor who deleted it that we should be making it clear that the info about the story and the impact on him is coming principally from Greger. It makes sense to include, I think, as a story that Greger tells about what motivated him to become the doctor he is. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About his membership on the Vegan Society committee: I don't see how the organization's own website is a bad source for establishing his membership on the committee. I think the fact he is on the committee shows his regard among vegans and his interest in promoting veganism.
About him speaking in front of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: I think that helps establish that he is considered an expert in his field. I don't see how using an original source to establish a simple fact, that he spoke at the meeting, is inappropriate.
The "Related Media" section: I kind of agree that presenting this this way is unnecessary - perhaps a simple list of some of his more important appearances would work? I don't agree that the sourcing here is poor - I mean, TV Guide? The New York Times? The Golden Globes website? Seems solid. I'm not sure we need a fancy grid or to mention as many appearances. Maybe something like, "has made a number of prominent media appearances, including in..." or something like that.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I used in the table were chosen based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. All the listed films have their own Wikipedia articles, and Michael Greger is a key figure in documentaries like PlantPure Nation, What the Health, and Seaspiracy. I don’t understand why a Netflix film like What the Health, which has been reviewed by major news outlets such as National Post, Vox, and Time, is considered to have "questionable encyclopedic value," or why Seaspiracy, reviewed by The New York Times, The Guardian, and BBC News, is deemed to have "poor sources." This is simply a list of films Greger has appeared, in their quality, whether good or bad, is not the main concern.
Good articles like those on Sean B. Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and Robert C. Stebbins all include sections listing the films they’ve been involved in. Based on these examples, I plan to move the deleted table to a "Filmography" section, while Google and TED talks will go under an "Other Appearances" section. Both will be grouped under a larger heading, Selected Works with "Books". What do you think? CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSPS states, Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself.
Basically, if it's not covered by a reliable and independent source that demonstrates historical significance to Greger, then inclusion is questionable. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP as well.
Good articles are sadly not the place to look for adherence to policies and guidelines. Noticeboards and RfCs are what to look for, or we can use either ourselves. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Why is being a credited actor in Netflix documentaries like What the Health and Seaspiracy not considered relevant information for the "Media" section?
4. Based on WP:SOAP, which part of the deleted content contained campaigning, propaganda, recruitment, rumor-spreading, or self-promotion?
5. Based on WP:NOTNEWS, which part of the deleted content included original reporting, rumors, or celebrity diary-style material?
6. Why does Seaspiracy—a film with Wikipedia entries in 11 different languages, a 75% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and significant controversy—not demonstrate historical significance to Greger? Likewise, why are his advocacy for a plant-based diet and the films that have highlighted it, such as PlantPure Nation, What the Health, and Eating You Alive, not regarded as historically significant to him? How important does information need to be to be considered relevant?
User:Hipal, which of these are you regarding as "self-published sources"? If you are talking about the Vegan Society thing, here's another quote from the policy: "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." Brianyoumans (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, what we are discussing here are these two sentences, apparently:
"He also serves on The Vegan Society's Research Advisory Committee. In July 2019, Greger spoke at the second meeting of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee." (I took out the footnotes.)
WP:VNOT states While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.
Yes, I was just commenting on those two sentences.
As for the other information, the policies I cited still apply.
Re #1 - All policies apply, not just BLPSPS. The NYTimes ref lists Greger with no other content, so no indication that this is historically significant to him.
Re #2 - He's not notable for being an actor nor for appearing in such media, nor do I see any references indicating these appearances are significant.
Re #3 - I believe my answers to #1 and #2 address this.
Re #4 - Mostly SOAP#5, "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations." The greatvalley.psu.edu is an announcement to publicize, correct?
Re #5 - NOTNEWS#2 and #4 are the areas that I think apply. Again, if the sources don't indicate significance to Greger, we shouldn't.
Re #6 - No source indicates significance.
While Greger's appearance might be important to a work and belong in an article about the work, it doesn't mean that the reverse applies.
Okay, first regarding the two sentences you initially removed—your first reason was that they might need a high-quality independent source. Then, you shifted to citing the WP:VNOT policy. While the cited sources are primary, not all primary sources are considered unreliable. The three cited sources can be fully fact-checked; one even includes a video of Greger’s hearing and comes directly from a U.S. government website (.gov). I don’t understand why a government organization’s website is considered neither "independent" nor "high-quality".
WP:VNOT mentions Consensus, and reaching consensus requires "editing" or "discussion". Two editors, including myself, have already disagreed with your deletion. The Consensus policy specifically states, "Through discussion," yet you deleted the content without any discussion whatsoever.
Out of the 19 sources you removed, you only pointed out one—greatvalley.psu.edu—and gave just one reason for its removal, despite the fact that it could easily be replaced with a more widely accepted source like Rotten Tomatoes. In the fifth sentence of your explanation, you didn’t provide any evidence—just said, "I think apply."
Your entire argument revolves around "No source indicates significance." But consider this: a source confirming a person's appearance in a film proves their involvement. If such information is meaningless, why would that person agree to appear—not just once, but in multiple documentaries? If we follow your reasoning, many existing articles should have large portions of content removed. For example:
Works of Keith Floyd – This article lists multiple instances where Floyd appeared on BBC as a guest. The cited source only mentions his name. There are no additional sources proving these appearances were significant to his career, so should they all be deleted?
William Gibson bibliography – The Screen Appearances section only notes brief cameos. There’s nothing significant about them, so should they be removed?
George Orwell bibliography – Much of the information here is difficult to source, and often only mentioned once. If following your logic, this content is not important and should be deleted.
The information I’ve presented is in the form of a list, and lists are meant to document works, including film appearances. If this information isn’t important, why does it appear on the Wikipedia pages mentioned above? Don't mention about featured list, why has no one else removed?
According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, any information about living individuals must meet three core policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Out of the 19 sources you deleted, how many actually violated these three policies?
Additionally, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, is there any rule stating that a person’s confirmed role in a notable film—verified by a reliable source—should be deleted?
I don’t want to waste any more time arguing about this—no discussion, no guidance, no support, just deletion. If you truly believe you’re right in this discussion, then let others read and judge for themselves, from now until Wikipedia disappears from the Internet. At least two editors have objected to your decision, yet you still went ahead and removed all 19 sources. The New York Times, TV Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, and National Post is a "poor source" in 2025? Thank you very much. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that, rigorously applied, User:Hipal's precepts would lead to a much reduced Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; while we do want to write good encyclopedia articles and not indiscriminate bunches of info, I think not every plain fact included needs explicit external justification as to its relevancy. I think this article may need rearrangement, not deletion.Brianyoumans (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
