Talk:John A. McDougall

why this article is here

There was a Wikipedia version of this article, but it was heavily biased against the subject, incomplete, and with inaccurate information. It labeled his work as a fad diet, and also implied that he was not respected as a physician. I believe this is blatant bias on the part of Wikipedia editors...A mainstream 'knowledge' view such as that presented by Wikipedia editors is not always correct. It should not be the job of an encyclopedia to ram a particular viewpoint down the reader's throat. I think what we want to do is present all the information about a topic in a fair and balanced way so that the reader can make a reasonable judgment. That is what I am trying to do here. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2023 (CST)

Definition suggestion

I have no problems with the edits to my admittedly, very spartan initial definition. However, I'm wondering if we can add the term 'starch' to the current definition. It's unique and a key aspect of the work of Dr. McDougall. Such as like this: American physician and best-selling author promoting a low-oil, vegan, starch-based diet. Cheers, Jack S. Byrom (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2023 (CST)

I want to read one of his books to get more of a feel, and I will but that will take me some time. In the meantime, fix the definition how you think fit. BTW, Wikipedia also has labeled macrobiotics as a "fad diet". The very term "fad diet" is from a book written by regular people who were not even nutritionists, and they use that term like a weapon in WP to dismiss anything they don't like. I like your explanation above. Pat Palmer (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2023 (CST)

thanks Pat, I don't know how to edit that definition. But I can wait until you get more information.// yes, many years ago, I remember reading in a favorite cycling training book of mine how dangerous or weird a macrobiotic diet was. It was pure baloney and propaganda, but it made a huge impression on a young man. It looks very reasonable to my scientific eye these days. [there aren't very many fish left in the seas.]// yes, Wikipedia weaponizes its policies against any kind of idea that is even slightly out of the mainstream, often using a scientific reductionist philosophy. Some of the primary exponents are people like Michael Shermer, an acknowledged expert reductionist, who has published many articles with Scientific American, and other major publications. Wikipedia should not be promoting this viewpoint above others. // I think the problem with encyclopedia entries on nutrition is that nobody knows what the heck to believe! Industry influence runs rampant over American nutritional ideas. But the science is solid, I think. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2023 (CST)