Jump to content

Talk:Atkins diet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrianZ (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 10 May 2007 (→Expert opinions: added more to the discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives:

Sources Needed

We all have the book handy and access to online sources. We have no sources for any of the material explaining the Atkins Diet itself. Please source as you update / revise this material to maintain a high level of accuracy and credibility. Thank you.

Original Research to be Removed

The paragraph "Many people incorrectly believe...he Atkins Diet is very specific in recommending lean meats" Is original research, unsourced, and contrary to the Atkins Diet. This information is often volunteered in response to claims that fat is bad for you by offering a "low-fat atkins" alternative. This is specifically stated in the book "There is no low-fat atkins". The point of the Atkins Diet is to eliminate sugar and maintain healthy blood sugar. Given food is sugar/fat/protein (excluding non digestable fiber), in order to reduce sugar intake, it must be replaced by increased consumption of fat/protein. Excessive protein, as stated in the book, is converted to glucose by the body (sugar), therefore a protein based diet is contrary to Atkins research. This section needs to be cleaned and sourced in accordance with the original Atkins research.

Heavy Bias

This article seems to be very heavily pro-Atkins. It goes so far as to call information about fat "propaganda", and the entire tone of the article seems to be heavily Atkins positive. I think this article really needs to be revised in order to maintain Wikipedia's impartial nature.

Cyberman has missed that the mention of "propaganda" is in the section titled "Views in Favor of the Diet." The organization of this article is problematic, as I have written before, but, from my perspective, the article is neither pro nor anti-Atkins, overall. Rather, it reports much material from both sides that is argumentative, and some of it simply amounts to this or that "expert" saying, for example, that the Atkins diet is dangerous. None of this is objective or impartial, yet it *is* true that people say those things about the Atkins diet and, to return to the point here, it *is* true that there is a great deal of information in our environment repeating the idea that fat is bad for you, and especially saturated fat, and, in the serious absence of scientific evidence proving this, the term "propaganda" does seem specially appropriate. None of which proves or disproves Atkin's thesis that saturated fats aren't a problem. --Abd

Could put something about how atkins revolutionaries thought the FDA food pyramid should be changed. --Cyberman 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low-carb theorists and dieters in general consider this, not just Atkins' followers. I'd recommend anyone seriously interested in this research how the Food Pyramid came to be formulated, and, especially, look for the science behind it. If you can find any. Just for starters, human beings are omnivores, and it appears we are designed to be able to survive in environments where protein and fat are plentiful, but not carbohydrates, and also in environments where the most available foods are high in carbohydrates. Which of these diets is healthier for us? Without having in hand good research on the topic, any recommended "Food Pyramid" has to be little more than, yes, propaganda promoting opinions. My doctor, astonished at the improvements in my lipid profile after a year on the Atkins diet -- which was not what he had recommended -- said, okay, you are low risk. But do be careful about saturated fats. I asked "Why?" He looked at me and paused. Then he said, "Religion." You can tell why I like my doctor. He knew that there was no science behind it and that he was only telling me what the preponderance of opinion of our time was *requiring* him to say, or else he could be sued. And then he took me to his office and showed me an old book published about diabetes in the 1920s, by the founder of a major diabetes clinic. On the first page it recommended a diet high in fat for diabetics. And why did doctors stop making that recommendation? Again, it's a fascinating story, but it has much more to do with politics and perhaps economics than about medical science. Saturated fat in the diet has never been shown to increase risk of dying from heart disease, and there is some evidence that, especially in the context of a low-carb diet, it may be cardio-protective. --Abd

Flaws in the nutritional approach

I've been on this diet for a few years now, (i know i shouldn't say diet since i read the original book) but I thought it would be a good idea to talk about some of the flaws people have which has led to the idea of it not being a true weight loss plan.

  • Aspartame intake (diet pop)

Many people I've met had tried Atkin's, so I surveyed them and asked what they took in. A good majority would sometimes say they took in aspartame. Of course I asked, "Did you drink diet pop?", "Did you use aspartame?" For what I understand aspartame should be treated to the carb amount like sugar, and shouldn't be taken in at all. Seeing as how sugar pop has much carbs, it's important to notice that it should take many grams of aspartame to replace that same flavor. --Cyberman 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contradict you, but a can of Coca Cola contains 39 grams of sugar, where Diet Coke contains just 131 milligrams of aspartame. This because aspartame is 180 times sweeter than sugar. The amount of carbohydrate in diet pop is so close to zero as makes no difference. --Stronimo 06:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a great impact on blood sugar though. --Cyberman 23:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. At first, the sweet taste acts on the CNS, hunger is reduced and the metabolism speeds up (this is normal to happen when the body was in a state of hunger and is now anticipating carbohydrate uptake). Blood sugar increases. But the carbohydrates don't come, and a rebound occurs. Metabolism (and thus caloric usage) slows, blood sugar decreases, and hunger sets in again and is actually reinforced (sometimes greatly, depending on timing). The livestock industry utilizes this effect by using artificial sweeteners as appetizers to assist in cramming. The idea is:
  1. Let animals develop hunger.
  2. Feed low-energy sweetened food.
  3. Wait until rebound occurs - this puts animals in a food craze.
  4. Then quickly feed large amounts of high-energy feeding stuff.
In other words, artificial sweeteners can be used to induce binge eating. Aragorn2 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ketosis

Is ketosis harmful to one's health? Maybe the headaches are just temporary until one is accustomed to this metabolic state. Are there any animals living in ketosis? What about carnivores? --DenisDiderot 12:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people assume Ketosis is Ketoacidosis. Keotacidosis is harmful. here are the definitions of both:

Ketosis: Short for Benign dietary ketosis, or BDK, this is a biological process that results when sufficient Glucose as a source of energy is not available from dietary carbohydrate and the body switches to primarily using Fat. Fatty acids are released into the bloodstream, then converted to Ketones, which are used by muscles, the brain and other organs. Excess ketones are excreted in urine.

Ketoacidosis: A state in which there is an abnormal accumulation of Ketones, which changes the body's PH to acidic. This usually occurs in diabetics whose Blood sugar is out of control, alcoholics and people in a state of starvation. Ketoacidosis is not to be confused with Ketosis, which is a perfectly normal function of burning Fat for energy.

Ketosis is not harmful at all and most humans that excersize are in ketosis and don't even know it. I would assume most mammals are in Ketosis as well. In porportion , they are much more active then us. I am not a biologist or anything, so don't take that last statement too seriously. It's just what I would assume. BrianZ 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


'Atkins expensive due to fresh vegetables' claim erroneous

Surveys conducted by Forbes found that the Atkins Nutritional Approach is one of the most expensive diet plans [5], most likely due to the emphasis on fresh foods such as vegetables & meats.

I don't doubt that Atkins is one of the most expensive diet plans, but despite the quote above (and BTW the www*forbes*com/business/2005/04/06/cx_lrlh_0406costlycalories*html linked Forbes articl] doesn't say anything about 'most likely due to...'), it is well-established that, whether you compare cost per calorie, nutrient or weight, protein is far more expensive than vegetables, fresh or otherwise. I've therefore removed the bolded portion of the above quote.--Anchoress 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (disabling link to clean up spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

how is it "well established"? A dozen eggs costs less than a comparable amount of asparagus, calorie-wise. I've added it back in.

If you google it, anonymous user, you'll find numerous favourable comparisons. The example you chose is one of the worst, as asparagus is one of the most expensive vegetables. I'm taking it out again. --Anchoress 08:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly more interested in flogging a vegan agenda than engage in an honest debate. Show me any vegetables that are, per calorie, less expensive than a dozen eggs?
Citing one example doesn't make the statement true. While eggs are cheap, meat, cheese and fish are not. I regularly see meat and fish above the $10 per pound range, but a whole head of cabbage costs less than a dollar. Beef tenderloin is a lot more expensive than asparagus- especially by, say, weight. Citing individual cases where protein is cheaper than a vegetable (and one of the more expensive vegetables versus the cheapest of proteins, btw) doesn't prove the rule. --Roy 14:31, 28 March 2006 (EST)

I moved the Forbes link down to criticism and added some context.TheronJ 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this:

Dieting Strategy -- Stop Diet Drop Out
Diet drop out, a significant problem for all types of diets, requires a new dieting strategy. Exchange it...and watch diet drop out rates plummet.

--Anchoress 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (removed link due to spam --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It needed a lot more than that. I removed around 75% of the links. They were mostly spam. --GraemeL (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed neutrality tag?

Someone added a disputed neutrality tag to this article. The tag *says* to go to the talk page to discuss it; whoever added the tag should justify the addition with examples/comments on the talk page.--Anchoress 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag, because Wikipedia procedure was not followed. Anchoress described the required process. Otherwise we cannot respond; I'd certainly agree that the article is defective, because, under arguments Pro and Con, it includes unsubstantiated assertions. I, personally, am not eager to remove some of these because, defective as they are, the arguments are indeed common. A better article would confront and analyze the disputes.

A tag placed as this one was, anonymously, with no discussion, is mere vandalism. --Abd April 15, 2006

"Views in favor of the diet' section is POV

The section "Views in favor of the diet" is clearly POV.

That section is called Views in Favor.

Restrict it to views in favor rather than trying to justify why these views are correct, and comparing the performance of Atkins to other diets.

"Diets high in fat do not appear to cause excess body fat, and reductions in fat will not be a solution." Why is this a View in Favor of the diet?

"better participant retention and greater weight loss...greater decreases in serum triglyceride levels" --Annals Of Internal Medicine. Quote out of context: "* After 1 year, these same patients still had more favorable triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on the low-carbohydrate diet than on the conventional diet. However, weight loss and the other metabolic parameters were similar in the 2 diet groups. The effect of the modest improvements in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels on the development of diabetes and cardiovascular disease is unknown. ... These findings are limited by a high dropout rate (34%) and by suboptimal dietary adherence of the enrolled persons."


"Yet, when studies are finally done to see what low-carb/high-fat diets actually do, they are at worst as effective as the recommended low-fat diets, and they do not, in fact, increase cardiac risk factors; indeed, overall, they lower them." But that is not a view in favor. They do not lower them. One quote taken out of context again: 'greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease' is the only quote supporting this.

The Views in Favor needs to have studies that show that Atkins is effective at its stated goal - long-term, healthy, weight-loss. There are no studies that show this. Making comparisons with other programs such as low-fat diets(why choose this as it is now out of favor anyway), are irrelevant.

The simple fact of the matter is that there has been no long term study favorable to Atkins. Even the most favorable short-term studies show that Atkins after one year is no better than other diets from a weight-loss view point, and each of those studies has said that longer studies need to be done before drawing any general conclusions.

So Atkin's weight loss: comparable to others Atkin's effect on health: unknown. Certain short-term benefits have been shown in small studies but the long-term effect is unknown, and the majority opinion is that Atkins is unhealthy.

(Unsigned - April/May 2006?)

The BrianZ - Tommac2 edit war

External Links Discussion - Asking for inclusion in this article

Referring to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid which I read each point:

I feel that links to support forums should be allowed. Granted, there are some sites that sell items on their site ala Atkins Diet Bulletin Board but they sell low-carb food, snacks and books.


--- heh ... or like atkinsalltheway who sells a line of atkinsalltheway products: www*cafepress*com/aatw 

 (disabled link for spam prevention  --Ownlyanangel 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, I sell items so that I can get what? 5% of the profit for site upkeep? Come on. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- BTW AtkinsDietBulletinboard*com does not sell lowcarb food or snacks ... and not really books although they have a link to amazon.com ...

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, you have a low carb store. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But most forums exist to help people on Atkins find out how to do it right. Without these forums people tend to follow a diet that is not Atkins and only what they think. In this case, all forums are actually reference material. Sure, Google-ranking is increased by pages that link back to "your" site, but most of these (support forums) sites don't prey on Atkins dieters for money with ads, we're there to help.

Picture if you will, an overweight individual visits this wiki article and does research. Where do they go afterward? On their own of course. Sure, they'll follow what their Brother/Sister/Aunt/Buddy tells them about Atkins but who knows if it's correct. Most forums have hundreds of members from all over the world that have studied the book and know what works and what doesn't. In this effect, I feel we, forgive the dramatic flair, are helping the world-wide obesity epidemic.

I run Atkins All The Way, I have many other forums that I compete with for traffic including Atkins Diet Bulletin Board, Everything Atkins, Low-carb Friends, etc. I want them here too. I used to be a member of Atkins Diet Bulletin Board and I found it on Wiki 3 1/2 years ago on this very article. The support forum community saved my life and I really hope we can reconsider giving the support forums inclusion in the external links section. (please read Tom) BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we are promoting our sites, I'm not denying it. But by promoting our sites we are helping readers further educate themselves, which is what an encyclopedia truly is. In essence, support forum links are content for this article and should be included under For further information.

I and every low-carber that is a regular visitor to any supoprt forum implore all of you to rethink this based on the content of this article. If you all decide that I'm full of crap and stick with the generic policy, I'll understand and maintain the article with you with that policy in place as a person that has been involved with the Internet world of Atkins for years. Without the knowledge I have PETA would be able to run rampant all over this article. BrianZ 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian ... if you believe this then why have you been going around and deleting bulletin boards that compete with yours? You made a big deal to have atkinsdietbulletinboard.com removed from the atkins diet site now you are asking for permission to have yours added? Whats up with that?

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, I remove every support forum link per Wiki policy, this whole discuddion thread I wrote is to include them all so I don't have to keep deleting them.BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your site has relatively few members and is not very active ... it appears to me that you are looking to use wikipedia to build up your site. That is not what this site is about.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, Don't tell me what this site is about, you add external links to your sites only and rarely provide content to articles other than that. The fact that my board is not very active or very large is something I like. I'm not going to get in a flame war with you about membership. I thas nothing to do with the fact that I want your site listed here along with mine. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site that you asked to have removed is an long term site. atkinsdietbulletinboard*com is one of the most respected atkins diet support sites with tons of information about the diet there.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, atkinsdietbulletinboard is one of the oldest Atkins Support Forums which I think it should be included. However, if I cannot add the suppor tforum that I run, none can. Allowing one to remain is heavy bias and is not NPOV. Which is Wiki policy. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that you have been removing atkinsdietbulletinboard*com on a regular basis and then add in a complaint when the site is added. Then ask for yours to be included.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, I think I've made myself clear above. Please stop posting your link for now and join me in trying to give low-carb dieters more information on Wiki instead of fighting me and making us look like children here. BrianZ 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Brian,

You are a spammer. When you and your crew didnt get your way you have spammed AtkinsDietbulletinboard*com now you claim that I am a spammer and to get your site included. I think you dont understand the point that if they let one site in then they need to let all of the thousands of atkins diet bulletin boards to be listed there. I think that is what they are trying to prevent.

Regards, Tom

Tom, please, if you read the whole discussion, you'll note that I talk about adding all support forums, not just mine. I'm talking about low carb friends, atkinsdietbulletinboard, atkinsalltheway, and any other diet support forum. The beauty of our sites is that they provide further information to people that are pro-Atkins that want a place to learn more. This is not a personal grudge and by you making it look like one, you are making our argument look dumb. Please stop. BrianZ 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, Yours is not even a support forum. You have very few members and like 5 memebers who posted most of the material there. You have a store that is selling gear. Please dont try to trick these people.

And please stop removing links.

Regards, Tom

BrianZ keeps removing links from this site. He removed the link to ADBB and now is removing the link to the Atkins Diet FAQ. This page is full of information about the most frequently asked questions about the diet. It surely is relevant and not spam.

Edit by BrianZ: Tom, the FAQ you posted is a link to your support forum. That also makes it against policy. The fact that you hid it should qualify you for status of vandal. If you have an FAQ that does not direct users to your site then by all means add it.

--I did not initially add this .. that is why it is not against policy ... it was added by others. Tommac2 

(This is why I think support forums should be added. There is alot of information available that you can't find elsewhere.)

Also, you can't have me banned for following Wikipedia policy on one of the most highly spammed articles on Wiki. BrianZ 06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to ask brianz to stop but he has issues with ADBB and is taking it upon himself to remove the links.

Can someone let me know what to do about this on my chat?

Thanks Tom

Personally I don't think a bulletin board should be linked from here. I also think the 'foodyoga' link (what does it have to do with atkins anyway?) should go, as should the 'atkins files for bankruptcy' link. Why not put all the links that really don't belong but that have advocates among editors in a section on the 'talk' page? And to answer your question, I don't think it's a bannable offense, I think you should ask for mediation since this is a content dispute.--Anchoress 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and 'tom', it's tough to go to your 'chat' to tell you *anything* since you NEVER SEEM TO SIGN YOUR POSTS. It's really, really irritating just so you know.--Anchoress 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I will try ... two questions ... how do I add a sig line in my posts? Or do I need to do this manually?

Secondly how do I challenge a content dispute?

Also I guess a third question is whose job is it to clean this up? It certainly shouldnt be brianz as he obviously has an issue with adbb.

Could you do me a favor and just go check out the FAQ page and maybe poke around at atkinsdietbulletinboard*com and if you then change your mind that it is appropriate could you add the link?

Also sorry for my wikipedia ignorance but before now I have never been involved in this kind of discussion.

Regards, Tom --Tommac2

Tom, sorry to take so long to reply. First, because of the nature of this project (Wikipedia), it isn't anyone's 'job' to 'clean this up'. There aren't moderators who make final decisions on content on a regular basis, even administrators don't do that. Editors are just expected to do their best to adhere to the policies and try to respect the conventions, and the community is expected to try to keep edits within the rules and suggestions.
As for talk conventions, it just makes it way easier to read (and reply to) your posts when you indent and sign (automatically with the sig button). It's NOT a rule, but a) it decreases the likelihood of impersonation, and b) it makes it way easier to figure out who said what when. So in the edit window, each : at the beginning of a paragraph indents a level, and the third blue button from the end inserts your sig and a datestamp.
I'm not an expert on WP, but as far as I know content disputes are resolved thru either WP:RFC or WP:RFM (wikipedia request for comment/mediation). That having been said, based on what I know about WP I really don't think you guys are going to be able to find a Solomon willing to come down on one side or the other; that's not the way WP works.
Good luck, and PLEASE try to sign/date your posts, because as it stands my only understanding of this issue is through reading your edit summaries, Tom, because I have no bleeping idea what you're trying to say in your posts, I just don't have the time or the patience to wade through and try to figure out what you said vs what BrianZ said.--Anchoress 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can someone go check out atkinsdietbulletinboard*com and if they feel it is appropriate then add it to the external links section.

Either check out the main page www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com or at minimum the FAQ page is really relevant : www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay*php?f=79

Thanks, Tom --Tommac2

more on brianz

OK ... was looking into this whole thing a bit further ... and here you go:

This is another piece of the puzzle :

BrianZ got his site removed because people thought it was spam

I guess he is bitter about a few things. So basically he had all of the legitimate sites removed because he wasnt allowed to spam his site all over the place.

This is my last edit on this particluar discussion (the one below was made earlier): Tom, I can't believe you excluded my site from the list of legitimate sites for Atkins support. That may be your opinion. But it's a low blow trying to make me look like a marketing tool selling a site and using wiki just for SEO. I run an Atkins site and I follow Atkins to a tee. I'm not at all what you think I am. Please read your email. If you choose not to then I'll just let you make an ass of yourself here alone from now on. BrianZ 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.153.88.7

User talk:204.153.88.7 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If what I am doing is against policy then delete everyone else's. These sites are all doing the same: 

  * Everything Atkins Diet Message Boards
  * Atkins Diet Bulletin Board
  * Active Low-Carber Forum
  * Atkins Diet Message Board
  * Atkins Support Group

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. If you're concerned with privacy, registering also hides your IP address. [RIR WHOIS lookup: America — Europe — Africa — Asia-Pacific — Latin America/Caribbean]


note that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:204.153.88.7

states:

User:204.153.88.7 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Username is now BrianZ please use that for correspondence BrianZ 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I've sent you an email at your yahoo account, please read it and stop the insanity. I hope anyone else that reads this understands that I talk about all support forum links not only mine. Tom, how would you feel if everyone elses support forum were added but yours wasn't allowed? I will continue to delete your forum support site as a Wiki policy-follower. I'm sorry but you just can't seem to understand where I am coming from. I have bee nthrough all of this before with Admins and I respect their policies but I choose to try and change them by going about it the right way BrianZ 06:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Brian please be mature here. Leave the links alone. Add your site if you think it is relevant. But dont remove others links.

We have the history down. You were asked to remove your site and now you are insisting that you have the right to judge which links are on this page. You dont! If an admin tells me that I cant have it here I will remove it. The link has followed every rule for external links and is exactly in the place it needs to be. I have not seen anything from anyone other than yourself that claims otherwise.

Again ... if an admin is reading this please help.

Regards, Tom

Brianz keep deleting links from this page.

The content is not against policy. The link was added by an outside individual and abides by all of the wikipedia rules and regs for external links.

In addition the links are 100% relative to the topic.

A spammer / vandal BrianZ keeps trying to remove these links.

Can you please ban his account!

Brian ... please stop removing these. We currently are in a content dispute and we can bring this up to the admins here.

Please stop removing the link. If it was against policy then it owuld have been removed.

If you think your site is valid then add it.

Let them decide what is wrong. I have never been told by anyone other than yourself that this link is not valid or in some way in violation of Wikipedia rules for external links.

Again pleading please stop removing links.

Regards,

Tom

this is the link for external link rules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links


which rule does the atkins diet bulletin board FAQ site break?

I'm not sure who wrote this, but I was told by several admins that adding your own site commercial or not to Wikipedia is not tolerated and is considered spam.

--- I am inserting here ... Tommac2 -- I did not add my own site #1 it was added by others #2 it is not a commercial site .... please stop removing valid links!

I was also told this includes forums. Once I understood Wikipedia's stance, I actively monitored the article for these links. I have received kudos for my work in maintaining theAtkins article. Therefore, I know I'm not doing anything wrong. My inital discussion points are based off the above article as a way to convince editors of this article to change their views for all support forums. For some reason, it was turned into a big argument. I am all for adding support forum links to the article but Wikipedia admins do not allow it.

--- Brain, who exactly is not allowing it. You are the only one removing these links.

I do, however like tommac2's idea of having a seperate page. Hopefully , this will remain and not be deleted by others.

I assume this issue is resolved. Please do not add links to the main Atkins Nutritional Approach article anymore. BrianZ 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Again!!! this is not a commercial site!!! and was not added by the owner. This site is 100% ok for an external links section!!!

BrianZ,

Stop removing the external links again.

ADBB is not a commercial site! and this site was not added by me. This site is 100% legit. It is exactly what is supposed to be added in the External Links section.

Regards, Tom Tommac2

I don't agree. I think bullatin boards should not go in. There must be hundreds, we can't include them all, so why should we include this one in particular? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Theresa. I'm just learning that Tom feels his site deserves to be here, but thinks I should just leave. I find it very interesting and I appreciate when another person besides me chimes in on this topic. BrianZ 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Brian please stop talking for me. This is not how I feel. Please dont quote how I think or what I feel or anything. It is annoying.

-- Threresa I dont feel that just mine should be added. below I have added some rules that could possibly determine which ones could be added. I think the ones that were here are fine. It seems that there were about 5 of them. They all have been there for about a year until BrianZ tried to add his and got it removed ( as he broke the external site rules and regulations by spamming his own site. ) From that point on he removed these other sites.

I dont feel that my site should have any special treatment ... nor am I looking to boost up its google rating as Brianz seems to state that I am doing.

All I feel is that the link was valid and within the rules of wiki and did not deserve to be removed. Nothing more nothing less.

I could fight the same battle for the other sites that were removed by brianZ because they are all leaders in for this community. What is sad here is that sites like the ones BrianZ keeps removing are the ones that help the most people on Atkins Diet.

I believe Brianzs standpoint is that if you allow one then you need to allow all of them. I agree with this to a point.

But as stated below there needs to be some rules. I dont wnat to create the rules and am trying to be unbiased about this. But here are some of what should be looked at:

1) The amount of information on these pages and the likelyhood that someone following the link will get more information or more likely to find the information that they are looking for. 2) The site is not self added ( Spam ) 3) ( This I may be biased about but feel it is something to be considered I think Brian feels differently but ... ) The site should be established. The reason I feel this is important is that it decreases the likelyhood of spam. A site that is getting a million visitors a year is less likely to be spam than a fledgling site looking to build a base. 4) non comercial 5) Free

That is my opinion. Again I could like about 4 or 5 sites that would fit in here. I personally dont think that Brianzs site qualifies but I could be convinced that it does. The reasons I dont andthe reason that Graemel removed it was because it was self added to promote his site. In addition it is not big enough to provide enough information. Again that is my opinion and really I dont care one way or the other about that.

Again my point here is that I feel the link to atkinsdietbulletinboard.com was wrongly removed by a frustrated BrianZ. I think the evidence is clearly there about his motivation.

I have not been clearly notified by anyone even BrianZ as to exaclty which rule the site violates.

I think that it is without question that the site can provide an abundance of information about the Atkins diet. Much more than would be feasable or desirealbe to have in the wiki.

Tom Tommac2


Tom,

I'm going to take the high road on this one and tell you that it doesn't matter who added it. Adding links to personal sites is prohibited on Wiki. You are adding the link to promote your site, your bulletin board is not the official Atkins site and you should not attempt to disguise it as such by creating links like Atkins Diet FAQ that link people directly to your site unwittingly.

You want links, I have some for you to read until the next time you berate me for doing what is right. Here's a link to policy against personal attacks, which you have made towards me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and also etiquette which we have both disobeyed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

Here's an interesting article on external links being against Wiki policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming Here's another. Pay close attention to number 11. Note that I have added a request to change the policy on support forum links on this page above.

I hope this information will suffice and I hope it enlightens you. I realize you want promotion, but it's just not something you can use Wikipedia for. BrianZ 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, another add, when we finally come to an agreement on this can someone please delete all this crap and just put a blanket statement about the policy? This subject has taken up way too much space on this page. :) BrianZ 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is currently in content dispute.

The issue is currently in content dispute. Brianz, Can you please leave it alone until a ruling comes through.

It is in the admins hands now. You can back off and lets see what happens.

Please stop removing links?

Also did you remove the link to the Bulletin Board page?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

Tommac2, please see the history of the article to see who deleted it. Even though there is no "content dispute" per se, I agree that this article has become unindated with drivel. Let's use common sense here: The best way to resolve this for now is to remove all support forum links until the "dispute" is resolved. If the Admins decide in your favor then we can add our support forum links and everyone else's. If they follow policy, then the article is fine as is. I will continue to delete your links until an admin tells me to ignore policy. If that happens, then I will add my support forum link as well. It has become clear to me that the reason you are continuing to spam your site is because you are unable to use Wikipedia's history feature and see that we are not in an edit war. You are in an edit war with Wikipedia policy. Thank you BrianZ 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, how is the issue in admin hands? Has an RFC or an RFM been filed? If so, you should link the relevant page back here on Talk so that the interested parties can contribute.--Anchoress 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


user: Xyrael has volunteered to act as a mediator for this dispute. He is a unbiases source and will work to resolve this issue.

Tommac2

100% cool, but just to be clear, Xyrael is not an administrator.--Anchoress 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to follow the rules of wiki for content disputes. the first said to talk to the Brianz. That obviously isnt going anywhere. Secondly to try to get an independant mediator. that is where I am at now. If we cant resolve it then we need to go to the next step from there. Tommac2

Also BTW ... Brianz is trying to slander me again saying that I am trying to pose as anotehr user because I am not logged in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.45.240.31#Your_IP_is_logged_here

I think this is just more proof that he is acting childish. Tommac2

__________________________________________________

You stopped using Tommaciejewski, I'm assuming because my entry on your talk page is something you don't want others to see.

As an admin of a bulletin board, don't you realize that Admins have the abilities to see exactly who does what and when? I found out the above information and I'm not even an admin. I'm sure that everyone reading this is laughing at us. (Bows) BrianZ 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Brian again, I am not a regular poster on wikipedia as my life is way to busy to focus on this project. I am here because I often surf wikipedia for information. I noticed that our link got removed and tried to add it back. I have never tried to hide or do anything malitious as you seem to want people to believe. All I want to do is to add the link back that you removed and keep removing.

The point here is that you have removed it for the wrong reasons Brian. The fact of the matter is that you removed it because you felt that since your site was denied by Graemel that you would find other sites and remove them. The fact that you have a grudge with ADBB ( I dont need to get into the details here ) fuels the fire.


Regards, tom Tommac2

Is the right thing to go to mediation or should I go to an admin?

Is the right thing to go to mediation or should I go to an admin?

At this point I am not sure which is best? If so who is an admin that would hear this issue?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

As I said above, in a reply to a previous question of yours (a few screens up), Admins don't really 'rule' on issues like this. You're doing the right thing getting a mediator, but you must understand that the mediator will not be 'ruling' on who is 'correct', s/he will be trying to achieve a middle ground of agreement between you and BrianZ. If mediation fails, if one or both of you has not been suspended for 3rr or anything else, then the issue will have to go to arbitration. Please check above for the longer post I made on the issue earlier today.--Anchoress 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that an RFM was filed yesterday HERE.--Anchoress 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom could you please answer my question above. A google search for atkins diet support group has 1,730,000 websites. Why should we include links to any bullatin boards? On what grounds should we include links to this particular one? Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Teresa,

The question here is why should it not be listed? It is not against wiki policy. I understand the dilema about having a million sites listed on wiki. But relevant site should be allowed. It is my opinion that if a site offers extended information about the topic then it should at least be considered to be listed.

Atkins Diet Bulletin Board is a leader in Atkins Diet information. It has 350000 posts and 25000 users. I am not saying that all of this is relevant however the amount of relevant information there is extrodinary. In addition it offers live help to those in need of losing weight. There are usually about 40-50 registered members on line at any one time.

This site is non commercial. It does not make money and is there to help support those that need it. You can see some of the differences from the before and after section on the page and through some of the testimonials.

In addition I am not spamming this site. It was added by others. I am just trying to protect it being on this site.

Again I understand the issue of having too many external sites but I really wouldnt even mind that as much as long as they were all relevant and useful and can provide information that would not be realistic to have on wikipedia.

A bulletin board is a better way to store mass information in discussion format than a wiki. I look at this type of information as an extention to what wiki offers and a perfect item to be added to wikipedia.

Now the tricky part is how to distiguish a leading / established site added by someone who thought it would be useful for those looking for additional information on a topic and for those sites that are looking to use it to get more traffic to their site. That is the harder question.

I feel that the following rules should exist and these are just some ideas:

1) Is the page relevant 2) Does it provide enough information on the page to be useful for someone to follow the link. 3) Is there enough information on the page that would not be practical to have it stored on wikipedia. 4) Is the site added by the owner of the site or is it being added by the community. 5) Is it free 6) is it non comercial 7) Could someone in need of help find help on this page above the help that wiki provides for example ... if someone did a search for Alcoholics Anonymous they would find a list of online resources and bulletin boards there ... check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Unofficial_A.A._sites_on_the_internet

one for example is: www*pluginthejug*com/

or sites like: stayingcyber*org/ ( not sure if these are good examples for AA as I am not a member but it at least shows precidence that other support forums exist on the wikipedia ) But my bigger point is that if someone needed help a forum where there are active people is a good place to find it.

8) Does the site violate any of the external links section

I can come up with more points but I hope you see why the site should be readded.

As one last point and I am sure you know this. This site was here for over a year. It existed as an External Link. It wasnt until BrianZ got rejected and went on his mass conquest to clean out other links that he felt were in a similar situation as his that it was removed.

I am not trying to add it but rather to replace the link that BrianZ keeps removing.

Thoughts?

Tommmac2

strange goings on

It would seem that a number of anon IP's have decided to come here and edit this article and add the disputed likn back in. They are clearly either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. We can't have this kind of shenanigens so I've semiprotected the article. (I reverted an anon first as adding the link was his only edit here on wikipedia). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are following the edit war please read the following

Guys,

I know this has been discussed adnauseum. But this is a must read to give you all a good idea of the history of these edits by BrianZ. Please read the following in its entirety. It is the discussion with Graemel about him not being allowed to post his site. Reading it after seeing all that has went on in the past few days is amazing. I will leave you all to your own conclusions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=53354796#Why_did_you_remove_my_link.3F

Then here is his next discussion with MonkeyMan :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyman#My_Atkins_Link

and Here is a list of his first posts to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060516180354&limit=50&target=BrianZ

The bottom is the oldest. Very interesting ... and I feel throughs a bit of confusion and a bit of clarity into the situation.

Tommac2

For further information, please communicate via the current mediation

Fellow Wikipedians, please disregard Tommac2's attempts to make me look poor. I will no longer address this issue here (You're Welcome :)) and will answer all questions about my length of membership at Wikipedia, My discussions with Graemel, and anything else you'd like to ask there. Please see the following link to the Mediation if you truly are interested in this matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet#Summary_of_Evidence

Again, I'm sorry for this discussion page becoming what it is and I realize that there is no place for such drivel. BrianZ 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking! I think user BrianZ should either appologize or be banned. Please read the following

I am very disturbed about the following discoveries. This was not personal BrianZ but I feel that this underhandedness should not be permitted.

I was writing this as I went along and did my reasearch so please read everything ... it is amazing and very very underhanded.


here is what I was writing when I made the discovery:


I know this has been discussed adnauseum. But this is a must read to give you all a good idea of the history of these edits by BrianZ. Please read the following in its entirety. It is the discussion with Graemel about him not being allowed to post his site. Reading it after seeing all that has went on in the past few days is amazing. I will leave you all to your own conclusions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=53354796#Why_did_you_remove_my_link.3F

Then here is his next discussion with MonkeyMan :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyman#My_Atkins_Link

and Here is a list of his first posts to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060516180354&limit=50&target=BrianZ

The bottom is the oldest. Very interesting ... and I feel throughs a bit of confusion and a bit of clarity into the situation.

One more piece of the puzzle. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060601144407&limit=50&target=BrianZ

Now here is an interesting piece. He went on his own for a few days ... writing some articles about himself ... then out of nowhere went in and removed the link ... it was not like it was new or anything.


Wow!!!!!! ---- this is the proof!!!! --- - seriously this time!!! Look at this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atkins_Nutritional_Approach&oldid=53352888 this is from BrianZ titled:

(cur) (last) 17:58, 15 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam)

Cleverly hidden as removing PETA spam ... he removed all of relative Atkins Links.


Now Note the following sequences from the history of this forum.

(cur) (last) 17:58, 15 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam) (cur) (last) 17:38, 15 May 2006 204.153.88.7 (→External links) (cur) (last) 17:38, 15 May 2006 Monkeyman m (→External links) (cur) (last) 17:36, 15 May 2006 Monkeyman m (rv to GraemeL.) (cur) (last) 17:35, 15 May 2006 204.153.88.7 (→External links - Why does it keep getting deleted, I'm just posting a link to a support forum.) (cur) (last) 17:33, 15 May 2006 GraemeL m (Reverted edits by 204.153.88.7 (talk) to last version by GraemeL)


Notice that there was 2 spam claenups by Graemel and MonkeyMan where AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com survived. This is through where Brian added his site got it removed and then Monkeyman dis a spam cleanup and it was still there. So it was not determined to be spam by monkeyman.


Then as above. Concealed as the removal of Peta. He deleted all of the relevant Atkins Links and then went on his crusade of keeping all atkins links off of this board.

I am speechles.

Regards,

Tom Tommac2

Summary of events. I will stop posting here but just want to make the history clear

This will be my last post in this discussion and I appologize for getting into all of this with BrianZ but I am disturbed about what I discovered today and just wanted to make it absolutely clear what has happened. The evidence is above and is very clear as to the series of events. The way I came about this evidence is that I was looking to see BrianZs first posts on WikiPedia. SO I went to his history and I was suprised what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrianZ

Here is the series of events I will keep it short and precise:

1) BrainZs 1st post to Wikipedia.org was to spam his site "Atkins All the Way"

2) Site removed and handslap by GraemeL

3) Long Discussion with GraemeL about why his site was removed ( Self adding and promotion of site ) -- Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com and other forums and sites still remained.

4) Disucssion with how it was unfair to have his removed but others stay with user MonkeyMan

5) Spam cleanup of the Atkins Diet section by MonkeyMan - Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com and other forums and sites still remained.

6) A simple edit of the External Links section with comment "Removing Peta Links" - this edit was really to remove all of the external links from the Atkins Diet site. Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com and other forums and sites removed.

7) A crusade about removing external links from all diet sites.

8) Accusations about me being a spammer and the following edit war.

All of this can be followed by looking at his contributions since becoming a member. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrianZ

I am appauled about this. This is not what wikipedia is all about.

I would like to see him banned. Or at least an appology from him. Am I overreacting?

Regards, Tommac2

Solution to edit war - proposal

All,

Sorry for breaking my last post promise but this is more of a query than a statement. I am creating a proposal to resolve this dispute the proposal is listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet#Brian_latest_solution_for_Mediation_-_Do_you_think_this_is_fair.3F

I would like to propose that a third party police the External Links section. My proposal would be for BrianZ and I to step away from this issue. The proposal that would be suitable on my end would be the following.

1) BrianZ stops deleting the External Links section.

2) Another unbiased member comes in and will police the External Links section for spam. They can delete as they wish for things that break Wikipedia rules.

Would any of you be interested in volunteering? Please let me know as this may speed up or mediation.

Regards, Tom --Tommac2 14:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Naconkantarti to discuss this here:

Brian, 

   Can we discuss this issue civally.  I have put the following on the table:

1) You step back and stop deleting links from the Atkins Diet Site.

2) We get in an unbiased third party that will police the External Links section. They can keep it clear of spam and if they decide that the current links there do not follow the wiki rules then they can do as they please.

Do you find this reasonable?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

I guess I'm left with no choice here. Congratulations on getting your advertisement listed on Wikipedia

Due to the fact that you weaseled your way by having the last edit before the article was locked, Policy has been averted in this case. It's a wonderful victory for spammers like you and I applaud you for being able to stick it out and find a way around common sense. I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles. However, external links on any page will never be something I take care of again. I have been completely and utterly victimized by the Wikipedia community that tells me it's good to police spam, yet I get blocked for protecting an article's honesty.
I still have faith in editors like me, that stand up for Policy on Wikipedia. I just wish them Godspeed in fighting spammers like you. I guess they are going to need it, because I know you will never, ever stop vandalizing Atkins Nutritional Approach, South Beach diet and Low-carbohydrate diet. You will never stop the multiple account spamming and telling your friends to post your link on the article, you will never stop deleting people's edits on talk pages and interrupting them making them unreadable. Maybe I just don't have the time or the fortitude to fight these massive battles against Vandals and spammers. From now on, I prefer to stick to the high ground and not let individuals like you drag me down to your level.
It's going to take a very long time for me to build trust in Wikipedia again, but I have seen many pluses, as a writer, for being here. They still outweigh the individuals with hidden agendas like you and I'll be damned if I let you dictate which sites I visit.

BrianZ 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

I removed several sites with advertising on them as part of the Wikipedia project to remove linkspam. Then I saw that there has been an ongoing battle over external links. Sites with advertising should not be added to this or any other page, with rare exceptions. In this case the Atkins company would get an exemption for this page only, because the article is about them. If I find the link elsewhere I will remove it.

I don't regard bulletin boards as linkspam unless they have advertising, so I have not removed them. However, generally they are poor quality links for Wikipedia and most should probably be removed. Pollinator 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the edit war left the article without a link to what proved to me, over the last two years, to be the absolute best ongoing source of information and discussion about low-carb diets and the science behind them. This would be lowcarber.org. The only excuse for excising this link would seem to be that lowcarber.org contains advertising. However, that a site contains advertising does not seem to, in itself, preclude links to it. I find no mention of advertising, per se, being prohibited in linked sites in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest
A link to a medical journal will often reveal advertising, as medical journals may be partly supported by advertising. Lowcarber.org is clearly advertising-supported, but the very extensive content and discussion comes from users, not the site itself.
Accordingly, my intention is, after allowing time for discussion, to restore that link.
I'll also note that the article is not "about the Atkins company." It is about the diet plan developed by Dr. Atkins. The bankruptcy of the company is irrelevant to that, having to do with business mistakes the company made, plus market vagaries, not with the diet itself. The article itself is problematic, violating many Wikipedia principles, but it will take a general reorganization to deal with this.
Abd 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the exact rules regarding this? and again why was Atkins Diet Bulletin Board removed?

Tommac2

As far as i am aware there aren't exact rules. Wikipedia does have some rule written down, but the general guiding principle for all policy everywhere on Wikipedia is does it benefit the encylopedia? If people feel the article is better off without the links then the links go, if people feel the article is better with the links then they stay. The wiki is in a constant state of flux and just because a link used to be on an article doesn't mean it always will be. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am fine with that. In this case atkinsdietbulletinboard*com was removed what appears to be advertising. While other sites remained. I am just curious why it was singled out as it is not a commercial site and probably holds the most information out of the sites that was listed. I wouldnt mind its removal if there is a reason or some sort of policy that it broke. But it seems like a somewhat arbitrary removal.

Again if it is the concensous for whatever reason that the site is inviolation of something, is hurting something, is opening a pandoras box, has nothing to add to this site etc ... I am cool with it being removed.

Again this site has been listed there for over a year. I feel that it contains tons of data that would not be feasable nor desirable to put all into wiki. It is free, non commercial ( the googleads that are there basically pay for the server costs ). In addition Atkins Diet Bulletin Board is a very respected site in the Atkins Community.

I would like to request that the FAQ be added as a link. www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79

Please take a look and I would request that it be reinstated. Its removal reason was for the advertisement I believe. If you want I can remove that however I would prefer not to go back to totally out of pocket payments for the site.

Please let me know Tommac2

Your link was removed because it contained advertising, therefore it is a commercial site. You were not singled out; this page had become a spam nest. Only in a few situations is it justiafiable to link to a commercial site. If you wish to get some administrators to review your site and rule it acceptable, you are welcome to try. One of them should then add it (NOT you) to ONE location only. You would improve your odds, of course, if you remove the ads. But it still would have to be an outstanding site where it is self-evident that the site's operator has real expertise, not just a POV to propagate. Pollinator 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the information. BTW : forum*lowcarber*org/ - has advertising and in fact a store associated with it and in fact is just a front to: www*lowcarb*ca and www*lowcarb*ca/store/products.html

I couldn't care less if the operators of lowcarber.org have seen fit to profit -- or at least to defray their expenses -- from their massive presence in the low carb community. The site has thousands of active users, including some of the best writers on the topic in the world. The site is *relevant*, clearly. Advertising and a related store are not sufficient to automatically remove a site from linking. (I've been reading lowcarber.org for two years and never even noticed that there was a store.... but there is certainly advertising, as there is on many such resources.) People interested in a topic should properly have access to resources widely recognized as useful, this is precisely one of the uses of links. And lowcarber.org satisfies that criterion. The advertising is unobtrusive, it is quite clear that the site is intended to support the exchange of low carb diet information (including, by the way, criticism of low carb diets), not simply to advertise or sell products; if the latter were the purpose, there would be much more advertising presence.
I had no opinion about atkinsdietbulletinboard.com, other than what is based on a brief review of it just now. It is also low on advertising. It has substantial user activity. It would seem to be appropriate for inclusion in a list of links of support groups.
Abd 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www*atkinsexposed*org/ links to: www*amazon*com/gp/product/1590560868/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/002-9772323-7974442?n=600460&no=%2A&s=books&v=glance


However I am not asking for these to be removed just showing that there are others that also have links.

Could you provide some admins that I could ask for inclusion?

In my opinion my site is very similar to forum*lowcarber*org/ but mine has less advertising. I only have the googleads while they have a whole store and products and everything and they also have the google ads : forum*lowcarber*org/forumdisplay.php?f=111

Again I am not asking that they be removed but just that AtkinsDietBulletinBoard*com be added as it is just as relevant.


Heh ... looking for a president. I did a search for : weight watchers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Watchers

and found: ( popups ) www*healthdiscovery*net/forums/index.php?referrerid=36019 ( tons of ads ) www*dwlz*com/restaurants.html (google ads ) www*alanlight*com/WWPoints.htm ( kind of an add portal ) www*intense-workout*com/weight_watchers.html

and kind of a spam to category Slimming World ... which is totally unrelated.

I am not suggesting again that I would like to see the Atkins forum get like that but these are far more focused on advertising than ADBB and much less relevant to their topic.

I have found similar results looking for Alcoholics Anonymous

Regards, Tom

As suggestion I would like to post a request to the admins to have Atkins Diet Bulletin Board FAQ added to the Atkins Diet Section.

The link is: www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79

What I would to be added is: www*atkinsdietbulletinboard*com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 Atkins Diet FAQ ]] - A list of frequently asked questions about the Atkins Diet.

I feel that this should be added because: 1) It has been linked there for over a year 2) There is an exceptional amount of useful and relevant information there 3) Page is free ... minimal adverts which all go back to site maintenance ( 1 adsense banner ) 4) It is one of the leading pages in the community. 5) Does not violate any Wikipedia External Links rules

I am amazed by the amount of energy that has been wasted in these edit wars, mainly between two persons. I'd say that after resolution of this dispute, both had better stay away from this page for the sake of their own health.

Looking at the page version at the time of locking, I'd personally remove all the forum links.

Of the other links, the following should go out:

  • The Atkins Diet Debate (popups)
  • Weight loss through dieting (excessive ads)
  • Atkins Files For Bankruptcy (excessive ads) - One could mention in the article that Atkins Nutritionals went bankrupt in 2005 after the waning popularity of the diet.

(Clarification 16 Jun: The above is my humble opinion, that can be considered as a vote. I won't lose any second of sleep over it whether any the links stay there or not.)

Han-Kwang 09:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with everything yousaid, Han-Kwang. I actually stopped reading both editors' posts almost two weeks ago, it just got soooooo tiring. Talk about a war of attrition.--Anchoress 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with everything as well. I've been away from the article since it was full protected because I realized that arguing just made me look badly and I really wasn't getting anywhere by discussion. I apologize to you all for putting you through the mess and I'm glad policy and/or reason is prevailing here. I still refuse to edit the article anymore and personally, if my link ever appears on this page again, I would hope that you delete it again.
Also, would it be possible to archive the arguments on the external links, it's embarrassing to Wikipedia. I think it still needs to be seen because it's inevitable that it will happen again and being able to see the argument would stop future edit warring, but to be out in the open seems bad.BrianZ(talk) 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, You are so funny. Dont you realize they are talking about you too. And that you began the entire edit war thing. Tommac2

I've placed a request for unprotection. Can the involved persons please refrain from adding and removing external links and let more neutral editors sort that out? (And no sockpuppets, please ;-) Han-Kwang 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, if the war starts again, it will reprotected in a second. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C2 and Edge weren't just gimmicks

Please replace the weaselly text

(These products seem to have been little more than marketing gimmicks designed to capitalize on carb-consciousness. Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, both of which have been available for decades, contain no carbohydrates.)

with

Unlike the sugar-free soft drinks Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, which had been available for decades, these new drinks used a blend of traditional sweetener with the diet drinks' artificial sweeteners to offset some of the allegedly inferior flavor of artificial sweeteners. These "half and half" drinks declined in popularity as soft drink makers learned to use newer sweeteners to mask the flavor of aspartame (or completely replace it) in reformulated diet drinks such as Coca-Cola Zero and Pepsi ONE.

--Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 04:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please switch category

I renamed Category:Diet and Food fads into Category:Diet and food fads to comply with capitalisation conventions, but I am not able to move this article into the new category since it is protected. I would appreciate if an admin would do it for me. Thanks. Haakon 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done that to facilitate the deletion of the category.--Commander Keane 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Spam Clean-up

This is the second time in 2 days that I have had to come in here and clean up the spam on this page. I know many of you think that this is just a talk page....but the rules still apply. So after all the links were restored....I decided to come back and leave the links, but just disable them, so no one could click on them. Please dont revert back to the changes. As it is, this page is already way too long and needs to be condensed and/or archived to save bandwith. But to put back those sites will only bring me here to clean up again, so lets try to leave it where it is, a happy medium. And if you still think it doesnt matter beause its a talk page, please go over Wikipedia's rules on spam. --Ownlyanangel 10:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where to find this specific Wikipedia rule? The closest I could find is: Wikipedia:External_links which explains what is acceptable on article pages. It also explicitly says: If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.. Han-Kwang 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownlyanangel is mistaken, there are no rules about spamming on talk pages for the simple reason that google's nofollow is applied to all talk pages. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Fallacy

Under the section on criticisms, this stage has the statement:

"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a PETA-connected organization which is opposed to the Atkins diet, has noted that in East Asian countries such as Thailand or Japan, the average person's diet consists of mainly carbohydrates such as rice and noodles, yet these groups have very low rates of obesity. The average Asian person is also thinner and slimmer than the average Westerner. This example seems to contradict the Atkin's claim that low-carbohydrate diets help to lose weight."

How does this example contradict the claim that low-carbohydrate diets help to lose weight? Perhaps it would contradict a claim that ONLY low-carb diets allow people to lose weight, but I don't believe that Atkins has ever made such a claim. Clearly low-carb diets CAN help to lose weight - there are plenty of examples of people who have had this outcome. The logic of this claim would be similar to the following:

"Foods such as pretzels and French fries, which happen to be low in sugar, are extremely tasty. This example seems to contradict the claim that high-sugar foods like cookies and ice cream are tasty."

Furthermore, as the issue is weight LOSS, how would the example of high-carbohydrate Asian diets - in which, presumably, people don't LOSE weight, but rather never gain weight to begin with - be relevant?

Utter illogic

"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a PETA-connected organization which is opposed to the Atkins diet, has noted that in East Asian countries such as Thailand or Japan, the average person's diet consists of mainly carbohydrates such as rice and noodles, yet these groups have very low rates of obesity. The average Asian person is also thinner and slimmer than the average Westerner. This example seems to contradict the Atkin's claim that low-carbohydrate diets help to lose weight."

The supposed contradiction does not follow in any way from the evidence adduced. Who wrote this garbage?

It was probably a paraphrase of a position that the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" has taken. Said committee must have missed some basic concepts surrounding energy expenditure in human beings. ;)

Merger Discussion

No - Low-Carb Revolution (television show) is not solely about the Atkins Diet. The article should be expanded and not merged into this one. --BrianZ(talk) 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mergefrom tag from the article. There has been no discussion on this merge, other than my emphatic "no", and it has been up for 7 days. (I said in my edit summary it had been 21, but it was a mistake.) BrianZ(talk) 22:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins Diet

I am doing a project on the Atkins diet in Biology class can anyone help me here?

What do you need to know that's not in the article? Frankg 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankg, the author of the question is the vandal that placed the "Afterlife Maintenance" phase in the article. I think if he was serious he wouldn't have vandalized the page. --BrianZ(talk) 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I didn't even catch that. I was the one who reverted the afterlife thing too! :) Thanks. Frankg 16:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone substantiate claims about Asians?

Currently, the last paragraph in the Criticism subsection says that Asians "show similar rates of heart disease" and "a huge percentage of Orientals suffer from anemia". Can anyone give a source for these claims? Rosemary Amey 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of research and found that heart disease is less prevalent in Asia (citation added to article) and sumo wrestlers fatten up on a flesh-based stew called chankonabe, not rice. Rosemary Amey 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good or bad

ok, i'm doing a project in health class about diet plans. so all of you people that are disscusing give me your final decision. Good or bad, expensive or worth it.

You can find various testimonials on the Web from people for whom the diet worked, and for whom it didn't work. That would probably be a good place to start. Frankg 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Net Carbs to Net Atkins Count

The material about how net carbs are calculated is outdated and partially incorrect, so I have removed it. Atkins Nutritionals never claimed that sugar alcohols are not absorbed; they said that they have a "minimal impact on blood-sugar levels." More importantly, Atkins is now well into transitioning to a different, and more scientific, method of counting net carbs. From their website:

Until recently, Atkins used the subtraction method on its package labeling. New science has shown that this old method provided accurate results in most, but not all, cases. Many other manufacturers started using similar net carb terminology while using different calculations and formulations with different types of carbohydrates and failed to validate their numbers, which led to speculation about the validity of net carbs in general. In order to evaluate the real-life effects of foods on blood-sugar levels, Atkins has pioneered a new clinical method to determine the Net Atkins Count. The new Atkins testing method has confirmed that the vast majority of Atkins products will carry the same carb count information as before.
Here’s how it works: A group of people who have fasted have their baseline blood-sugar levels measured. They all eat a certain food product and each subject’s response is tracked. The data reports actual measured increases in individuals’ blood sugar. An average blood-sugar response across the group of people is then obtained. This is the Net Atkins Count, which expresses this clinically validated number and distinguishes it from terms previously used, such as net carbs.
Atkins products are presently in the process of shifting to this new system; during the rollover, some labels may still show the old net carb icon.

Also, contrary to what the deleted text said, the nutritional information label on all Atkins snack bars consider the bar to be one serving, not multiple servings. — Walloon 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do..

Is to clearly list the foods that are allowed on the Atkins diet.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.254.65 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Expert opinions

Here's a list of expert opinions critical of Atkins: [1] Given the controversy over this lucrative diet marketing, the criticism section really should have more links.--Shtove 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shtove. The link you provided is to atkinsexposed.org. This is a site created by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) the PCRM are a group of vegetarian doctors, funded by PETA to dismiss the Atkins diet due to the false idea that Atkins is all red meat and potatoes. These are the kind of biased anti-Atkins edits that have made this article incorrect in the past. If people who know about the Atkins diet and are Pro-Atkins can't really edit this article so that it remains neutral, then groups like this should be treated the same. I don't care how many links you find that are anti-Atkins, I can find the same, if not more, that are Pro-Atkins. Should we include them all? No, it would make this article ridiculous. I'm not yelling at you, just setting you straight. Not many people are aware of the PETA fronted organization called PCRM and the fact that the justice department has a file on them due to their tactics of posting their agenda in a medical fashion so as to make people believe they are legit. BrianZ(talk) 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link of my own [2] Do yourself a favor and look at about us on atkinsexposed and you'll the head of PCRM runs the site. These bastards are tricky. Here's a link to Wikipedia's entry for PCRM Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "PCRM features on the Quackwatch list of questionable organisations." hmmm :) Do we really want their opinion included? BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atkins_diet&oldid=129825917"