Talk:Orthorexia nervosa

message: Delete this article. Do it. Dirty acting going in wikipedia by marketing prospectors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.150.184 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The archives show people have been whinging about this article since it was made, and its high time someone actually pushed back.  Guess what?  If you think this article is dumb, you either a) didn't actually read/understand it or b) are someone who has this disorder!  Look, the article makes it clear that there is a difference between real healthy eating and pathological dietary restricting, specifically when the restrictions are not based on spirtuallity or medical problems, are not scientifitically sound, and lead to malnutrition or other health problems.  Diets you do for your health that make you sicker are not healthy!  And sufferers are usually delusional into thinking they are healthy, just like anorexics think they are a healthy weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.40.252.2 (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with you, 156.40.252.2, but just a reminder (both to you and the original poster) that talk pages should not be used as a discussion forum. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: An IP comment playing the 'shill gambit' angle wants to delete a well-cited article on a fairly hot topic in health science cirles?  Yeah, I'm sure someone will get right on that.  Trilobright (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this clowny article paid by McDonalds or something

message: Can I point out the term "orthorexia" has been used in the journal "Men's Health"?81.140.1.129 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be useful.  Link?Legitimus (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.menshealth.com/health/a21600497/orthorexia-signs-symptoms/ Birdsinthewindow (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Defending this aritcle

message: This website gives the date when Bratman introduced this term as "1997" but I have read a website that says that Bratman coined this term in 1996. Would somebody who is in the know about these things put in the correct date, please?Carltonio (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bratman claims he coined in 1996 but it was not in a published work until 1997.  His claim is plausible, but only attributed to a primary source (Bratman's personal website), so not really considered as reliable for our purposes.  To remain objective, it is preferred to stick with secondary sources.Legitimus (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 1996 0r 1997

message: This is regarding this revert:
 Hello. First of all, please carefully review the message about editing with a conflict of interest I left on your talk page. I say "please", but this is not a request, this is in accordance with Wikipedia's terms of service. Your username matches the publisher for the source you are adding, which strongly indicates that you are editing on behalf of that publisher. There are many very serious problems with this which need to be addressed. You should not be making any edits at all until you have resolved this issue.
In addition to COI/spam issues, there are other problems with these edits. The use of the DSM-5 is inappropriate, since it does not mention orthorexia nervosa. The use of sources to support claims which are not directly made by those sources is WP:SYNTH, and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Additionally, the lengthy, extensive use of this single source is not proportional to WP:DUE weight. This is why COI edits are so difficult to assess. If a reliable, independent source is not citing these criteria as important, than it's not up to us to do so. 
Additionally, the number of people who attended a conference doesn't directly suggest a high demand for information, unless this is explicitly stated by reliable sources. Using blogs to pad-out this claim is unacceptable. Wikipedia has higher standards for sourcing medical content, per WP:MEDRS. Blogs should almost never be used at all, and only with care, attribution, and a very good reason. This edit doesn't qualify. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edits. 

message: There's an odd line at the end: "However, these epidemiologic studies have been critiqued as using a fundamentally flawed survey tool that inflates prevalence rates.[12] Scholars have questioned both the reliability and validity of the ORTO-15.[25]"
Just above that, it was stated that the study concluded that there is no substantial risk or correlation of orthorexia with nutrition students vs other students; therefore even with the most expansive possible definition, which is overly expansive to the research community, still nothing is found. I think perhaps the critiques might refer to the "insignificant 4.2 percent" being even too high, but that's not obvious from the phrasing, and the insignificance has already been highlighted, after all. Or maybe they refer to other studies that haven't been mentioned.
Should I just remove the line? SilverbackNet talk 21:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing line at the end