Talk:Benjamin Feingold

Content sources

The biographical content on this page comes from the Feingold Organization's website, but I believe that this does not violate copyright, as I used the facts presented there without cutting and pasting, and gave a link to their website. Much of the other information comes from "quackwatch.org". It was released (on request) under the GFDL. --Slashme 05:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shulae's edits

Hi Shulae! I did not revert your edits because I think that your point of view should not be heard, but some bad, polemical, non-encyclopedic edits had been made before you started. Please try again! --Slashme 06:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section lifted from the Quackwatch site is hostile and slanderous. This is not a matter of opinion -- they certainly cannot prove any of their points. To make themselves look credible, they cite studies alright -- but, for example, they cite the Rowe & Rowe study as proof that only a very few children responde to the diet. Well, now, I have actually READ the study and 75% of the children responded to the diet, and more than 86% of them deteriorated upon challenge with a single coloring. Nevertheless, whether or not Quackwatch is accurate, this is a BIOGRAPHY page. Dr. Feingolds BIOGRAPHY belongs on it. All this detail about the Feingold diet does NOT belong here. I was the one who tried removing it; unfortunately, I am a beginner, and perhaps did not do it correctly. I would be happy for guidance.

Oh -- one more thing. I do have a nice picture of Dr. Feingold but I do not know how to provide it. It is currently on our website and you have permission to use it. Please find it at http://www.feingold.org/bio.html ... I also have a picture in color if you prefer. Please let me know how to send it.Shulae 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert. Someone else made a whole lot of bad edits before you arrived, so it was an impossible task to sort out what was what. Please try again, and forgive me for the unilateral revert. As for posting the image: Check the help pages on uploading images and wikipedia image formatting --Slashme 07:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph

I have added a sentence to the top of the quackwatch.org sections. I had painstakingly edited all the paragraphs to make them factually accurate, but you removed it. I had previously removed all the paragraphs about the diet -- they don't belong on a biography page anyhow. But they came back. It seems everything I do to this page is reversed. Perhaps I am not doing something correctly? Please advise. Shulae

The edit you made was non-encyclopedic in tone. Let me quote:

This is marvelous - yet the scientists with ties to the drug companies and the additive companies would have you believe it is the DIET that doesn't work if it cannot be undone by a small amount of a single challenge of their choice.

That is polemical in tone, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See below for my suggestions on how to achieve consensus. --Slashme 07:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Hi Shulae!

You appear to be an advocate for the Feingold association, and well versed in the subject matter. Your inputs are useful, and we need to balance out the article. To this end, I have created a project page containing your edits at Benjamin_Feingold/Objections where we can work on a new version of the article. In the meantime, I have placed a tag at the top of the main article warning users that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. I don't have much time to work on the issue at the moment, but I think that the fastest way to get the biographical article sorted out and neutral would be (as you seem to suggest in your commentary) to create a page on the Feingold Diet as such, and link to it from this article. Please note that I am working in good faith, and I also want to get a balanced view in Wikipedia. --Slashme 07:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

easiest suggestion

Hi Slashme,

I doubt you can easily combine the point of view of both the Feingold Association and the Quackwatch organization into anything reasonable, since their entire intention is to vilify the use of alternatives. Notice on their own website http://www.quackwatch.org that the page you have in your encyclopedia in in their "quackery" section. It is not a neutral article; it is not a factual article; it is not an honest article.

My suggestion would be -- since this is a biography page -- to limit the information on it to biography. Why is all this other information necessary anyway? Certainly in his long life, this is not Dr. Feingold's main contribution to society. How about the fact that he worked under the man who coined the term "allergy?" It is hard for us today to remember a time when we didn't know that people have allergies -- and in large part he is the person we can thank for enlightening us. His work on fleas and haptens showed that there is more than one kind of allergy. Low molecular weight chemicals (like flea venom and synthetic colorings) cannot cause allergy on their own, but only in combination with larger proteins. In some cases, allergic complexes are formed (IgG reactions) and in others pharmacological reactions (side effects as in drugs) happen. I do not know enough to write in depth on any of this, but would have to refer you to his textbook on allergy. If you read Dr. Feingold's book "Why Your Child is Hyperactive" written by request of Random House, what is surprising is that rather than sounding dated after 30 years, it actually reads like prophesy. He described the recent (at that time) changes in the American food supply and predicted what would happen if we continued down that path. We did, and what he foretold has materialized exactly as he said. It is a scary thing to see.--Shulae

Hi Shulae,

I have followed your suggestion, and moved the sections on the Feingold Diet to a new page, and also moved the project page to Feingold diet/Objections. I will now proceed to strip that page of most of the biographical content.

I have also removed the POV tag, as most of the contentious matter should now be at the new page. Please check that you agree with this. If you don't agree, feel free to replace the tag and discuss. --Slashme 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

photo of Dr. Feingold

I have uploaded a photo of Dr. Feingold. My apologies that I do not know how to insert it into the text at the right of the first paragraph, where I would have chosen to have it. Perhaps someone else can move it? Shulae

OK, thanks for the photo! I have fixed the formatting. One down on the todo-list, two to go. --Slashme 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for slashme

Hi David,

I think that simply removing most of the information not biographical, and leaving just the one paragraph describing the conflict is a big improvement.

If you could possibly make one more improvement on that page, I would appreciate it. Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) and National Attention Deficit Disorder Association have no connection with Dr. Feingold and really do not belong on this page at all. Of course, they do have connection with ADHD and should be on those pages. Would you mind removing them from here? Or explain to me your reasoning for keeping them on? If it is because they are part of the controversy, then they would belong on the Feingold diet main page, still not on here, I would think. It is not a matter of balance; the Feingold website is uniquely belonging to Dr. Feingold, so it has a place on the biography page.

The NIH statement is from the 1998 consensus development conference, long after Dr. Feingold died, so it is not really connected to his biography, but leave it on there if you want. I will have more about it on the main article page ....

No problem. When I split the pages, I didn't check again to see what relevance they had, so I just left them in by default. --Slashme 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The odd thing is that the conflict is really not IN the scientific circles any more .... the scientists all made their point (the diet works) and the Powers That Be all made their point (they are ignoring it) .... so that's where it stands scientifically. In all the new "Abnormal Psychology" textbooks in colleges, where they used to say that the Feingold Diet was refuted, now the diet is not even mentioned -- like it never existed. The research is totally ignored. I guess that is what they do when they have no argument, but accepting it as a treatment will cost them a whole lot of money .... this is not facetious -- if a nonmedical DIET works for 75% of the kids, then who, pray tell, is going to buy all the Ritalin etc. that the drug companies have prepared? And who will need all the special schools that keep expanding? Indeed, the additive companies themselves, and the manufacturers of "fun" foods might go out of business - maybe our whole economy would collapse?

Jawellnofine.

Well, Wikipedia is doing a marvelous service (to the children, maybe not to the economy) by allowing this information to become visible here. Do not be surprised if you get pressured to refuse; that has happened before.

Well, we'll have to leave it up to peer review. If other editors come up with serious objections to the material, we will address them on the article page. If people come up with frivolous objections, we can address them on the talk page.

I will continue working on the Feingold page, including all the critic's claims too. I will do my best to be encyclopedic and cover all sides, and I will trust that you will notice any lack thereof.

I'll do my best, but it's not really my field, so I might miss stuff. But as Eric Raymond said, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." --Slashme 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload a couple of pictures -- and I did it already once, but forgot where to do it. Help? -- Shulae 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the upload place -- did it, hopefully correctly.

Meanwhile, I saw the categories for births and deaths 1900 and 1982 ... and Dr. Feingold is listed under Feingold diet/objections instead of his name. Could not edit. Is there a way to fix that? Thanks -- Shulae 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake. That came from the [[Category:1900 births]] and [[Category:1982 deaths]] tags that I left on the page from the Bio. --Slashme 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

It's been a long time since I did any editing and I am pretty sure I have not done the citations correctly. I have been studying the various pages of directions but think I probably need some specific advice here. In particular, I have used the links to a discussion of each of the reviews cited, from where the reader can get the full text but I think this may be irregular. Please advise.Shulae (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly this article is about the person Feingold, and not the Feingold diet which is another article. Your edits were based on the talkingaboutthescience.com, which is a fringe self-published web site and so an extremely poor source. Any claims about health effects need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your problem - talkingaboutthescience.com was simply a convenient (for me) way to access the articles that I wanted to cite. I will cite them directly. That section is about how he developed the diet, which is the main reason he is even remembered; the description of the diet itself was only changed because it was incorrect according to his own description. Well, I hope you like it better next time ... I'll probably still need some help with the citation format but please don't just take everything off. The information is solid.Shulae (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information was about the diet, and seemed to me highly-dubious and at odds with the sources in our Feingold diet article. I await specific biographical information backed with good sources, with interest. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I had removed all information about the diet itself, per your earlier advice. When you say his work had "no good evidence" based on a 35-year-old analysis of the very early studies, this is about him, not about the diet - and it is practically slander since they were not the only opinion at the time. I gave proper citations of META ANALYSES both from the time of Dr. Feingold and later. I have all the full texts of these articles and will be happy to share them with you. Just let me know how you would like them - I can give you links & passwords, or can email them to you directly. The progress of science didn't stop with Kavale & Forness.

(2) You are right that what I wrote does not match the Feingold Diet article ... that article is wrong, too, and that is my next project. I have been asked to correct it by Dr. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

(3) You also revoked the changes I made in the external links for Dr. Feingold's biography and archive of studies. I am assuming this is just an error. Check them yourself; the old links, currently back on there, don't work. The Feingold Association updated their website and so these old links are broken. Do I need to put them in again, or can you just UN-revoke them?Shulae (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the external links. The science behind Feingold's notions was settled long ago, yes. This article is about the man, notthe diet, and any limited information about the diet here must be in WP:SYNC with the main article where we point out what the currently accepted scientific knowledge on this topic is. If you are working as an agent of some other person WP:COI and WP:MEAT may be a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1)It is not true that "the science behind Feingold's notions was settled long ago." I have been studying the science on this subject for decades. Forcing what must be your personal opinion on the article is against Wikipedia guidelines and is akin to slander ... and by the way, I am not an agent of anybody, but I do happen to be acquainted with a number of scientists working in this area. Shulae (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(2)You did not FIX the external links. You removed all but the link to the Feingold Association with the comment that only one link is needed. However, since almost all the biographical information on this page came originally from the biography page on the Feingold site, it might be a good idea to have accepted the corrected link. Of course, there is a link to his biography from that home page if that is good enough for Wikipedia. However, the archive of his publications is not connected directly to that home page, and as it is the only such archive in existence, it would have been nice to include a link to it in his biography, as was surely originally intended. I can't believe you decided to remove the links rather than accept my corrections.Shulae (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source is already in the refs we don't need an EL. It's not a reliable source for science in any case, so not a good EL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what an "EL" is but I suppose you mean "extra link?" Are you seriously saying that the list of his publications is not a reliable source? It is a list of publications with the links to most of the full texts of what he published, beginning with his studies on fleas. How could that possibly be not reliable? Does anybody else on here have an opinion? Shulae (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid that site as we must shun "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". See WP:ELNO. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shun? SHUN???? See on Scientific Objectivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) -- '"Objectivity should not be confused with scientific consensus. Scientists may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view"'

You have also violated NPOV, according to the Wikipedia guidelines on the NPOV tutorial on information suppression. See at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

   A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.
   Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
   Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
       Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
       Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
       Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
       Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
       Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
       Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).

Even the APP journal Grand Rounds had an editorial in 2008 in which they wrote about the 2007 McCann study:

    the overall findings of the study are clear and require that even we skeptics, who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong.

There is a plethora of research on diet and behavior that shows a strong connection, and there is no reason short of blind prejudice to assume that anything somebody said in 1982 still holds true.Shulae (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we're not going to be basing this article on old/discredited research or using fringe publications to big up fringe positions. Yes we do follow NPOV (the actual policy, not some obscure user essay). For information about reliable medical sources please see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that Kavale & Forness (1983) is more up to date than the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2008? Or L. Eugene Arnold - psychiatrist at Ohio State U who was asked by NIH to examine alternative treatments for ADHD, which he published in the Journal of Attention Disorders (1999)? or Laura Stevens of Purdue University, who published "35 Years of Research" (2010) in Clinical Pediatrics? Aren't they WP:MEDRS enough? No matter how wonderful Kavale & Forness were at writing meta-analyses, they only had limited studies to work from. There have been FOUR DECADES of research done since then.

I am also astonished that you think the tutorial we newbies are supposed to study is an "obscure user essay." Well, I was planning to prepare a list of studies and reviews for you with a quote from the conclusions of each .... but I think instead I am going to look up some "obscure user essay" by Wikipedia on how to resolve this sort of thing without a lawsuit.Shulae (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essays (such as the NPOV tutorial) are not policy, as it says at the top of them, so there's no point quoting bit of them as if they are. For NPOV we are obliged to reflect the balance of sources in WP:RS, and for RS on the topic of the Feingold diet's merit we use WP:MEDRS. The 1983 review is of historical interest as it marks the end of the debate specifically about Feingold's diet, which has since passed into the realm of the dubious. For current accepted knowledge on the relationship between food additives and ADD we use good sources in our main Feingold diet article - and no, stuff from 1999 and 2010 is too old for that purpose; we ideally want strong secondary sources from the last 5 years. This article is about Ben Feingold the man, and not about the diet. Any (limited) information on the diet must be in WP:SYNC with the main diet article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 1983 review is of historical interest - because it is very old. However, on what do you base your conclusion that it "marks the end of the debate?" That review examined 23 studies from the 1970s, many of which were funded and/or designed by the food additive industry itself (via the Nutrition Foundation), and most of them had already been judged to be inadequate studies of the diet by the NIH Consensus Development Conference of 1982. Shulae (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feingold's diet seems not to have garnered any respectability since then. As I said, we state the current state of knowledge in out FD article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Ben.Feingold.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]