Talk:Tim Noakes

message: I am worried about the inclusion of the criticisms of a non-expert on this BLP page. I refer here to paediatrician Alastair McAlpine, a ~34-year old former student of Noakes, who (Noakes claims) has a worrying history of stalking and harassment of Noakes (and other proponents of low carb diets, according to Noakes), and more importantly has absolutely no credentials in the field of nutrition. I move that his comments be deleted from the page. I notice that another editor tried to insert some balance and was rebuffed here. If no contrary opinion is expressed, I will delete his comments within a week or so. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Alastair McAlpine is a reliable source per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There is no need to do "personal research" into an author. But it's funny you claim he has no credentials in nutrition. Neither does Tim Noakes and the source you added Marika Sboros is a journalist and pseudoscience promoter. It's looks like you were trying to insert a false balance into the article and add original research.  Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Even leaving aside the question of the source, what is it issue here is a book review so not subject to BLP. On the other hand the OP's description of a person as having "a worrying history of stalking and harassment of Noakes" is a blatant BLP violation and may need admin attention. Bon courage (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. 1) the subject of a BLP may respond to attacks, so this is not "false balance". And self-published sources are allowed on BLPs, if they are by the subject himself, or at least they were the last time I checked the policy. Maybe you should check too? (Edit, from WP:BLP : "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" - it's a pity that you are not aware of policy). And as for saying Noakes has no credentials in nutrition, how about his DSc in human physiology (which is what sports science is essentially), and the publishing of several peer reviewed papers on the topic? PMID:37057184 PMID: 28053201 PMID: 34290045  PMID: 35215511 etc. And you cannot possible call McAlpine a "reliable source" when he has no training or qualifications in nutrition. and has published NOTHING in this field. And just look at his Twitter feed to see how he harasses low carb proponents. His lack of balance is self-evident. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Noakes' column is published in Medical Brief, is it not "self-published". Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, look at both sources. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Noakes' stuff on his own site is obviously self published, and using it to make allegation of criminality about a third-party would obviously be a serious BLP violation. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So you got that wrong, but you quickly raise another topic to cover your error, namely that to report what Noakes has said at his own website, without any challenge from the other party, would be a BLPvio. Nice try. Note that McAlpine has called Noakes an 'antivaxxer' numerous times, a totally false statement given that Noakes and his entire family, including grandchildren, are vaccinated. Calling someone an anti-vaxxer in the medical community is akin to 'pointing the bone' and is actionable, and would have been actioned if the two people involved lived in the same country, I suspect. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What matters to Wikipedia is what is published in reliable sources. Is there RS in which Noakes is called an antivaxxer? Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, can't you use google?  Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Seems like our article needs an update! Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful. The existing quote from McAlpine is in flagrant violation of  WP:BLPBALANCE where it is stated that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, "so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The source you cite is even more shaky, considering that mainstream scientific opinion on the origins of the Covid virus now admits that it could have been from a bioweapon facility in China.  So the initial rejection of that possibility has been reversed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The bioweapon stuff is a conspiracy theory with no support in RS (and plenty to describe it as a conspiracy theory). Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very poor edit from you. 1) Noakes simply posed the question, in a Tweet ffs, "Proven link between autism and early immunisation covered up?". For that single tweet he's been pilloried and with incredible undue weight, you've inserted it into his Bio. And 2) his suggestion that hydroxyq. is effective was based on a French study, since superseded. Again, an off the cuff comment on another area of medicine that he is not an expert in, but obviously had an opinion at the time, which no doubt has changed by now. If we are going to edit every bio to insert every tiny, outside-expertise comment every person makes, we'll destroy WP. And then you go further to source all this to an article that contests that the Covid virus could ever possibly come from bioweapons development, although more recently it has become an accepted theory. Wow. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: And there is PLENTY of evidence that the bioweapon theory is under serious consideration, eg  Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're spouting WP:PROFRINGE nonsense there, entirely made up. Follow the good sources. Bon courage (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of this quote do you not understand:"U.S. Department of Energy has shifted its stance on the origin of COVID. It now concludes .... that the pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China"? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does it mention bioweapons. The bioweapon stuff is extreme loon territory. A few people think it may have resulted from a lab leak because of too-many-bats-nearby or vaccine research gone wrong. But that's just fringe as opposed to max-crank. Anyway I've pinged WP:FT/N so hopefully some fringe-savvy editors will drop by. Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Extreme loon territory? Do you know what they do inside the Wuhan Virology Lab? So one would be insane to think China is studying bioweapons, huh? Talk about naivete! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just informing you that, according to RS, the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was a "bioweapon" is an extreme conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, once again, Noakes never called SARS-CoV-2 a bioweapon. He merely LINKED to an article that did. So using that news24 article as a source is the very definition of UNDUE. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't mention bioweapons (yet anyway), but it was you who wrote thew news source was "an article that contests that Covid virus could ever possibly come from bioweapons development, although more recently it has become an accepted theory. Wow." Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Probably best to do some WP:RFCBEFORE, maybe by raising at WP:FT/N. Meanwhile, I hadn't been keeping up with Noakes' sourcing, but what's all this ?? Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not drag red herrings into this. We are not discussing his off-the-cuff personal views on coronavirus circa 2019, delivered in a radio interview, which is not his area of expertise. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For a thread entitled "opinions of a non-expert" it seems jolly apt! In any event Wikipedia follows sources. Must look more at Noakes/COVID ... Bon courage (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions of a non-expert 

message: Does this open letter bear mentioning in the article? jps (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the publication that was based off the letter. jps (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just some members of the establishment "distancing themselves" from Noakes. We already know about this. And Noakes has extensively defended himself concerning that letter. It's going to clog up the article with repetition. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Here is another article that mentions this letter:  I think it is relevant and deserves inclusion. jps (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These are old articles. His recommendations have evolved since then. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources which indicate that with respect to these particular articles? Or is this just your own research? jps (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that article says he eats either no carbs or one Ryvita a day. In morte recent articles he has said several times that his diet allows 50 carbs a day. So things have changed.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While I see where he says he eats 50 to 75 g of carbohydrates, I don't see where Noakes identifies how his views have changed from his previous diets. Can you identify that? jps (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous article said "no carbs" or one Ryvita. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He is quoted as saying that he eats one Ryvita a day, indeed. Later he says he recommends 50 to 75 g of carbohydrates. That does seem to be a contradiction, so I would conclude that either he has changed his mind, he was misquoted, or he wasn't telling the truth at some point. But unless we have a source that explains this is the case, our hands our tied by WP:NOR. We go by what the sources say and I don't see any remarking on the differences between the one-Ryvita-a-day claim and the 20% the normal recommended carbohydrate intake recommendation. jps (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Letter 

message: I've refactored to make it flow more logically and to match the data in the infobox, which lists the Noakes Diet as what the person is known for. Some sources are still required, will fix that in the next few days. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that  is deleting information about Noakes as falling verifiability and therefore "irrelevant", even though other sources are available. Why? This is a story Noakes has told over and over again, a key moment in his life. If concerned about WP:V, why not put an inline template on it asking for more or better sources? Why the aggressive deletion of data when I have already stated some better sources are coming? This looks like tendentious editing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Add unsourced WP:PROFRINGE material to a BLP is not great. Getting accusatory when it's fixed is worse. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You've gutted the article. You've removed a key moment in a scientist's life, one which made him completely change course, and why he did so, and you've removed what the diet is about. People researching Noakes will now have to go elsewhere to find out what the Noakes Diet is, and why Noakes formulated it. You are basically sabotaging the encyclopedia. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a credulous fan site. There are WP:PAGs for a reason. Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Handwaving bullshit. Which PAG is contravened in describing the key moment in a famous scientist's life? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add that Bon courage is entirely within their rights to remove poorly sourced or unsourced content, particularly if it concerns personal information, and I would once again like to encourage everyone to assume good faith. Perhaps the information about the father dying goes better in the "Background" section? I'm not entirely sure Tristario (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, I think the restructuring of the article was a good idea, it's easier to follow now Tristario (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'll work the father story into the text tomorrow to avoid falling into WP:3RR traps laid for me. Noakes has repeated this story in almost every interview he's had, not only in the sources quoted below (there are others too), but also in podcasts and YT videos. Sources are plentiful. It was clearly a defining moment in his life, and since his own father, at Noakes's current age, was either dead or in extremis, he's increasingly convinced he made the right dietary choice. However, I think the article should also mention (suitably sourced) that he takes metformin in addition to his unusual diet, so that the tone does not become profringe. Full disclosure, no unreasonable claims, and more proof I am not trying to promote Noakes. And since this is a diet-specific factoid, it probably belongs where it was, in the Noakes Diet section. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk of "traps" is a further show of bad faith. I think the dead father stuff is admissible so long as Wikipedia doesn't imply that Noakes' ideas about cause and effect, or the need to avoid carbohydrate to prevent/manage diabetes are "correct" as a result; it may need some mainstream context to ensure his FRINGE ideas on this matter are clearly identified as FRINGE. And yes, we probably might want to mention that following Noakes' "damascene moment" diet switch, he progressed from pre-diabetes to full diabetes. Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page refactoring 

message: "He recommended that people eat between 25g and 200g of carbohydrates a day."
2012: "I’m not saying eat no carbohydrates; I eat 50 grams of carbohydrates a day. Most people eat 300 to 400. You need to run 20km a day to justify that. If you’re only running 10km a day, drop it to 200 – you’ll lose a few kilos and you’ll run faster."  Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Carb recommendations

message: I'm a bit nonplussed at the deletion of data sourced to Biznews. Biznews is owned and run by Alec Hogg, a respected journalist in South Africa (see his Guardian articles here ). It's not as if the data itself is controversial or likely to be challenged, and it can be sourced elsewhere if needed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Their coverage of covid-19 seems very questionable Tristario (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We could argue about this, but since the deletion you made was of data that can be lost without much harm to the article, I don't think I'll bother to re-insert it with a different source (and there are others). But the problem with the current edit is that it loses the connection between Noakes witnessing his father's appalling death and his own subsequent diagnosis, and the eureka moment of realization and change of course. That narrative is missing now. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We do roughly include that information, I think we should be careful about giving too much weight to "narratives" like that though. Better to keep things impartial and to the point Tristario (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. As it stands, his father's diabetes is simply noted as a sort of arbitrary fact that some future editor will probably delete as irrelevant. Re-read it as if you knew nothing about Noakes and his motivations. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see what you mean. Maybe the wording could be improved. But I think care should be taken to make sure it's written in a conservative and impartial manner, I'm concerned about the appropriateness of describing things like "eureka" moments in wikipedia articles Tristario (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made as neutral a rewording of that passage as I can. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biznews as a source 

message: The mention of Noakes's book on diet was deleted with reason given as "promotional". This holds Noakes to a different standard than other low-carb proponents like Gary Taubes and David Ludwig (physician), whose books are not censored from their pages. Let's be consistent. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of mention of Noakes's diet book 

message: (also moving this since I put it the wrong place? I think?)
I'm new to editing Wikipedia (or rather, have been gone for a decade and have totally forgotten everything I knew); I wandered in, saw a sentence that didn't make sense why it was there, and I tried to fix it. I'm not sure my source is particularly high quality, but I found *a* source for his father's job  and then also included the information from that source that it's why he's trying to tell people about his beliefs about diet. I hope I've written it well enough, but if I've majorly messed up, I'm sorry about it! Kalany (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to clean up a sentence, realized I might have stepped in it 

message: An older version of this article incorrectly attributed Eduard Grebe's opinion piece mentioned under the Controversies heading as having been published by News24. 
The piece was written for GroundUp News, and it is the original publisher (check the time stamps, not just the date). News24 frequently republishes GroundUp articles, which are under a Creative Commons license, as explained on the GroundUp Wiki entry. The News24 version explicitly credits GroundUp. 
GroundUp is a reputable news agency and has won multiple awards for their work, so I don't understand what user "Dumbassman" means by "stronger" in his reason for reversing the change. 
Surely it makes more sense for the original source to be cited, rather than a republisher? SnickerdoodleRat (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eduard Grebe OP-ED: GroundUp or News24