Talk:Weston A. Price Foundation

Talk cleanup

The issues on this page seem largely resolved, so I moved them to /Archive 1. Argonel42 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Incompleteness Feeds POV?

The last half of the article (from Sally Fallon heading onward) is rather sketchy. It omits ALL mention of Fallon/Enig research into soy and the myth that it is a "traditional food". Strangely, the foundation's "anti-soy" stance is mentioned in the Criticism section but we see nothing in the article itself about their views on soy!

The Campaign for Real Milk section includes extremely general statements pro and con: "This is an excellent example of government bias" is a comment, not a coherent viewpoint. Similarly, "raw milk is dangerous" calls for specifics; otherwise, it just sounds like fear mongering in a supposedly neutral WP article.

IMO, it seems odd that Enig has her own WP page but Fallon does not. Martindo (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very odd, indeed. The best course of action may be to work on expanding her section with the goal of forking when there's enough content to merit its own page. Argonel42 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT the real milk section, I feel it is fine the way it is. Any more attention risks charges of undo weight. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Bruce Fife redirects here?

The relation between Bruce Fife and this article is unclear. Is there any info in wikipedia on Bruce Fife, the author of books Saturated Fat May Save Your Life and The Coconut Oil Miracle? --Turskah (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

His connection to the WAPF seems loose at best (4 hits on their site). I propose removing the redirect. Argonel42 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fife is one of the Weston Price keynote speakers, he heavily promotes and advocates using saturated fats and coconut oil to "lower cholesterol". Do a search on coconut oil on their site and you'll find hundred of articles advocating the same thing. Woofenstein (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but if he's not a member of the foundation or employed by them, and he's not mentioned in this article specifically, then readers won't know what to make of the connection. If there's not enough connection for a mention in the article, then there's not enough connection for a redirect. Why not just create a stub for Saturated Fat May Save Your Life (book), assuming it received some press coverage when it came out, and just use that? Ocaasi ^c 11:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

While I have no particular suggestions as to how to improve it (besides "write something better"), the criticisms section is currently structured with a clear lack of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.142.3 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Two things to consider, that might help you identify the problem:

Are the sources reliable and being used in a neutral manner?

Are there other important points of view that are not being presented? --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way even remotely? They are criticisms, a group of facts and/or statements made by the group's detractors. In what way could you make the article more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.82.228 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 August 2010

Looks to be a vegsource.com attack, which lists itself many times in the citations for criticisms. Appears to be highly biased and subject to removal.67.209.225.167 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"John Robbins has written a critique in which he reviews the history of the Weston Price Foundation and provides evidence that Weston Price had recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet (contrary to the position of the Price Foundation which recommends animal products)." Dairy is an animal product. According to this statement, Price recommended dairy to his family; yet it also says that this is somehow contrarty to the position of the Price Foundation, which recommends animal products. Thus this statement is inherently contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.221.222.130 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think having a criticisms section is fine, especially in an article about an organization with non mainstream views. That being said, I removed the criticisms of Price himself as this article is not about him. Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"How the Weston A. Price Foundation Began" interview link?

I'd like to submit a link to an interview with Sally Fallon Morell, President of the WAPF, that I think would be a helpful addition to this page since this information isn't found anywhere else, even on the WAPF website. I now have a transcript of this interview available for your review to help you decide if this should be allowed on Wikipedia or not. If this is something that can be submitted, I'm aware that I'll first need to change my username due to a conflict of interest. Thank you, KellyKitchenKop (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If the WAPF doesn't think it's useful enough to put on their own website, why should we? Yobol (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It only just came out last week, but that's a good question. I'll ask them. If they do add it, can it then go up here? Who decides this stuff? KellyKitchenKop (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can add information, as long as it meets our various policies and guidelines, which are unfortunately, daunting in number and scope. A sentence or two about why this group was founded would probably be reasonable to add given the right context. Yobol (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PPNF

I started Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. It still needs work, but if anyone would like to help, that'd be great. Ocaasi ^c 11:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

I removed the year-old banner tag because at the moment over half the refs are non-primary sources. Colincbn (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with primary sources isn't the percentage used, but how they're used. When used without other sources, they're usually a problem. --Ronz (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything controversial is being presented as a fact using only primary sources, then yes absolutely that is a problem. Also the bit about Sally Fallon Morell currently only has a primary source for her credentials. That is troubling. I suggest removing the stuff about her academic history if a secondary source is not forthcoming. Colincbn (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Should she even have her own section? It seems odd and is not like any other article I've seen. Better to mention that she is the president with a wikilink it a Sally Fallon Morell page (even if it's just a stub). There definitely should not be a section in this article about her. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Quack Watch

I removed the sentence claiming that QuackWatch says the Weston Price Foundation's claims are contrary to current medical understanding. Firstly, it doesn't belong in the introduction. Secondly, Quack Watch and Stephen Barrett represent powerful interests in the pharmaceutical and medical supply industries that gain great advantage from calling anyone and anyone a pseudo scientific "quack". Thirdly, the contributers to the Weston Price Foundation's, many of whom are PhD researchers, scientists nutritionists and physicians, go to great lengths to publish articles that include the latest original research and exhaustive data from large and small scale scientific population studies to support their claims and guidelines and greatly expand our knowledge and new findings relevant to Price's original research. It's actually quite a challenging and daunting task to read many of their well sourced and thorough articles. Mary Enig, co founder, was the key researcher who discovered the deleterious health effects of Trans Fats effecting major, but still insufficient, diety reforms. Weston Price are far from being Quacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremoz (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a reliable source for fringe medical topics. WP:WEIGHT requires all significant viewpoints be expressed, including those of quackwatch. Yobol (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a "fringe medical topic"? I expect you mean any science that doesn't conform to elite interests? If you want a rounded article then add a section as to why you think fat soluble vitamins, cholesterol, saturated fat are not good for you and why their dietary guidelines are wrong. To reduce science to "quack or no quack" "myth or no myth" without naming scientists who hold these position or giving support and citations to relevant research then your addition provides nothing informative.

Wikipedia is not suppossed to be a bloggers soapbox71.182.183.198 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a highly regarded website for information about fringe medical topics, of which this is one. If you want to add information from reliable sources, by all means add them, but do not remove sourced information. Your opinion of the website is just that; your opinion. The website has been discussed many times before, and the general consensus is that it is reliable for our use in these purposes. Yobol (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OMG <facepalm> --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of above statment. I will kindly inform you again. QUACKKWATCH is a personal website with personal views. It is not a dependable source. If you want to criticize the science that please include info and site sources that are not self interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremoz (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It was an understandable response to your bad case of "I Don't Hear You!". Repeating your opinion of Quackwatch doesn't change the consensus that it has a role to play here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Sources matter, your opinion does not. Quackwatch is a RS for Fringe medical topics. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While I think the IP is totally missing the point by claiming quackwatch is controlled by special interests, I also have to say I agree that it does not belong in the lead. Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. It is a personal website and putting it in the lead seems to give it much more weight than it deserves. Please don't get me wrong, when someone starts talking to me about "crystal healing", "chakras" or "Pyramid Power" I often point them there. I like what he says and between quackwatch and skeptiod.com I have all the ammo I need to de-rail homeopathy snake oil salesmen. But it is still not peer reviewed and not nearly reliable enough for the lead in my opinion. Also in looking at the site all the discussion I found there on Weston Price was about the man not the foundation. So I have doubts about its relevancy to this article.Colincbn (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Quackwatch in the lead. It is relevant to the section about Weston Price (which is where it is sourced, as the foundation purportedly basis its theories on Price's). Yobol (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of activity around this over the last few hours, I don't have a problem with the current layout. Colincbn (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes there has, one newish editor edit warring, as (s)he is doing on another article as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the discussions above, I don't understand the recent edit-warring over sourced information [1]. --Ronz (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch belongs in the article but not in the lead, nor in the section on the foundation itslef. There is a criticisms section for this kind of info. Adding the same peice of information multiple times is POV Pushing. Colincbn (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your opinion. I've restored the material and tagged it. Let's discuss further. If the ips continues to edit-war (I'm assuming it is one person using a dynamic ip), I'll request the articles be partial protected to stop the disruption. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Again with the tags? Look it is not disputed, we all agree Quackwatch has in fact criticised them. And it is not "dubious" as there is no doubt. It is just in the wrong place. We have the exact same info in the criticisms section already so there is no need to lace the article with it. Colincbn (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to expand on the criticisms section go right ahead. I'm sure there is no lack of solid reliable material that calls the foundation's goals into question. But don't pepper the article with it as that just becomes an attack against them, which is not what we are here for. Colincbn (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol's last edit (as of this post) seems perfect to me, it keeps all info without pushing a POV. Colincbn (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't particularly like "criticism" sections, and prefer both criticism and praise to be placed in relevant sections describing each goal/view. Segregating criticism away from the actual discussion of their views seems artificial to me, but I don't feel strongly enough about it in this case to edit war over it. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with that too. As long as we remove the criticisms section along with incorporating it into the rest of the article. The only problem I see is the amount of criticism vs. information. In a case where criticisms are a significant percentage of the information available, as in this case, separating it out avoids overloading the rest of the article and crossing over into non-NPOV while being able to retain more of the information. Colincbn (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unable to verify Real milk purpose

I couldn't verify the following from the reference provided: "By eliminating the legal requirements for pasteurization and convincing consumers pasteurization is unhealthy, supporters of the campaign believe smaller farms will be able to compete with larger industrial farms, and the quality of milk will rise." Could someone provided quote(s) from the source, if I'm overlooking them? --Ronz (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

[2] Quote: "Pasteurization laws favor large, industrialized dairy operations and squeeze out small farmers. When farmers have the right to sell unprocessed milk to consumers, they can make a decent living, even with small herds". The rest of the article talks about the quality of milk being better when it is unprocessed. You could put a "Primary" tag on it, but as this is just to say what their stance is, not that the stance is correct, I don't think it is needed. Colincbn (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be WP:SYN to me. Is there a better source we can use? --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not from multiple sources, it is one source therefore it is not synth. It is paraphrasing if anything. Remember we cannot just copy what they say on their website as that is a copyvio. Colincbn (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A simple case of failing verification and original research then. I've updated the tag accordingly.

To clarify, I don't believe the information quoted from the article above verifies the information in the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR?? Are you serious?? Do you actually read these policies at all?? The quote above says exactly the same thing it is being used to cite: which is what the W.A.P. foundation thinks about milk. There is no OR nor Synth involved, it is a simple case of stating what their stance is. Colincbn (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the cite is not being use to verify that pasteurization is bad or anything ridiculous like that, just that they think it is, which they do, as stated on their website, which we are citing. Are you claiming "By eliminating the legal requirements for pasteurization and convincing consumers pasteurization is unhealthy, supporters of the campaign believe smaller farms will be able to compete with larger industrial farms, and the quality of milk will rise" is wrong? Because they do, you can tell because they say so on their website, which we are citing. Colincbn (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Colincbn, I do not see a synth problem here. Maybe Ronz can elaborate on what part is violating synth. Yobol (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Breaking the quote down for verfication

"A simple case of failing verification and original research then." I'm breaking up the quote into four parts. Please provide quotes from the source that support each part. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• supporters of the campaign believe "By eliminating the legal requirements for pasteurization"

  "Pasteurization laws favor large, industrialized dairy operations"

  That fails verification and appears to be original research. Needs a better source that actually says what we are claiming. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• supporters of the campaign believe "and convincing consumers pasteurization is unhealthy"

  "Pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, kills beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies, increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children, osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer. Calves fed pasteurized milk do poorly and many die before maturity."

  That also fails verification and appears to be original research.

  From that quote, they're saying that it is less healthy, not unhealthy. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• supporters of the campaign believe "smaller farms will be able to compete with larger industrial farms"

  "When farmers have the right to sell unprocessed milk to consumers, they can make a decent living, even with small herds."

  Once again, it fails verification and appears to be original research.

  Without better sources, it needs a rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• supporters of the campaign believe "the quality of milk will rise."

  "Today's milk is accused of causing everything from allergies to heart disease to cancer, but when Americans could buy Real Milk, these diseases were rare. In fact, a supply of high-quality dairy products was considered vital to American security and the economic well being of the nation."

  Fails verification and original research.

  Better sources, please, or a complete rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There. Plus arbitrarily breaking that up into separate parts is ridiculous anyway. I suspect you want to use WP:SYNTH but that is only for combining Multiple sources. Nor is this WP:OR because we are not making any statements other than what the W.A.P. foundation's claims are, and they are entirely within the source provided. Note for the last section I was going to copy over their "Real Milk is..." headers but they are images so I used a quote from a sub-page of the site, but honestly are suggesting they don't think "the quality of milk will rise" is 100% clear from the the page? Colincbn (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Ronz is being a tad overly strict on application of policy here, but I have re-written the section to more closely tie into the wording from the website, and removed primary material that didn't add significantly to the understanding of their position. Yobol (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he is just doing the same thing he always does and should be topic banned for obstructing the article. I mean is he seriously claiming that those are not their exact stances? Or is he just taking part in very elaborate trolling with drive-by tag vandalism thrown in? Colincbn (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, having collaborated with Ronz on other articles, he/she has a very strict interpretation of policy, one that I think he/she applies too stringently at times, but I have always found them to have the best interests of the project at heart. I would try to avoid personalizing any disagreement with them, even if you find it frustrating. Let's just get back to working on improving the article. Yobol (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this goes beyond "interpretation of policy" into "not understanding policy" and using that lack as a weapon to the detriment of the project. There was absolutely nothing "OR" about the previous version and we all know it. But whatever, your current version is much better anyway. I did add more juxtaposition between disease outbreaks pre & post pasteurization and shortened the FDA section though. All that info is in the linked "milk debate" page as well. If you want to get rid of the criticisms section I am fine with that as long as the info gets folded into the rest of the article. Colincbn (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there's some clear problems here in understanding and following WP:FOC, WP:AFG, and WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Yobol's rewrite is fine. Is there anything important or essential that has been removed? --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

The lead should summarize the rest of the article, yet although criticisms of the organization make up a significant part of the body text they are not mentioned in the lead. I'm thinking a new paragraph that says something like:

"The foundation has been criticised by medical and health experts for purveying misleading information and failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence"

With the same refs we used for the criticism section etc. Colincbn (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the sentence above. I also think we should expand the first paragraph on the foundations activities though. Colincbn (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Yobol (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"that is associated with numerous diseases"

Are we presenting "that is associated with numerous diseases" properly? Seems to be a borderline NPOV/MEDRS problem presenting the material in this manner. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well "Supporters of this campaign believe..." precedes that so no it is not an NPOV nor a MEDRS problem. We are not saying it "is associated with numerous diseases", just that these guys believe it is. If, for some strange reason, we wanted to say it is related we would need a whole boatload of refs to support that, and we probably couldn't find them as it goes against all scientific evidence on how those diseases work (which is why we would need them in the first place; it's all very elegant really). Colincbn (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about the campaign, let alone the supporters of the campaign. Looks like coatracking. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

tuberculosis, typhoid fever, life-threatening

I'm not sure why this material was removed [3]. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The material on specific diseases is in the linked article that is actually about the raw milk debate for one. Second there are "many" diseases that get transmitted by raw milk, much more than only those three. The removal of life threatening was because the ref does not seem to make a distinction between life threatening diseases and non-life threatening diseases for its figure of less than 1% for rates of milk related transmition of disease in 2005. Colincbn (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So that level of detail doesn't belong, but this needed expanding? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent attempts at rewriting and changing pov of article

Sorry for reverting without an edit summary.

This rewrite, though better than the previous one, still changes the pov of the article drastically without changes in sources (other than improper removal of sources) nor any apparent understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Ronz, your preferred version is blatantly POV; and I'm going to nuke it again. (Below, I'm trucking in an exchange from my talk page so that everyone else can follow along. RedPen requested it, so here we are.)--66.41.95.121 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(Removed copy of Template:Uw-advert2 placed here --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

1. Citing a notable organization's descriptions of itself is not soapboxing when they describe the aims of the organization (such as the meanings of masthead logos, positions on various subjects, etc).
2. I will reiterate a statement I made in an edit field the other day: a notable subject (which the Price Foundation is) is a verifiable source for its own rebuttals to criticism, and such provides a lacking balance to the "Criticisms and Rebuttals" section which was previously devoted entirely to criticism save a single rebuttal reference. Rebuttals are not "promotion" when they counterbalance criticism in a 50/50 ratio (which my edits sought)
3. De-POV'ing a blatant slam-job article does not constitute "promotion". It constitutes restoring balance. Your preferred edit contains, as the second sentence of the article, and in the lede: The foundation has been criticised by medical and health experts for "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence" -- this is incontestably POV; and I have little doubt that you sincerely believe that such phrasing constitutes "objective prose". Certainly the articles of other notable organizations on Wikipedia do not begin this way, and for good reason. For example, the second lede paragraph of the article on, say, the New York Times, is not a sounding-board for critics to chastise that newspaper's numerous journalistic ethical breaches. Any why not? Because Wikipedia would be a shitty encyclopedia is all articles began that way.
4. You will note that I have not deleted any link-still-active criticism references, even though the majority of them are from non-notable militant vegetarian blogs. -- I consider this to be more than fair, and indeed outright conciliatory in that, if I really had a plank up my butt, I could harshly apply Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability requirements, and blot them.
5. Per above, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for crap-tons of piled-on, unaddressed criticism blatantly masquerading as a legitimate article (particularly when much of said criticism comes from authors whose books were negatively reviewed by the WAPF, without the article mentioning such). I.e., if criticism from John Fuhrman is acceptable, then it is also acceptable and arguably provides necessary insight to note that said criticism came after his book was negatively reviewed.
6. The edit you prefer presents the WAPF as an outfit at the far fringes of nutrition and opposed by (implication: vast majority) "medical and health experts" (a clunky, undefined and specious term) -- yet the WAPF has a good number of nutrition-field PhDs on its board -- surely they would qualify as "medical and health experts" as well ("Our 'medical and health experts' vehemently disagree with your 'medical and health experts'!" etc). In addition, several of the linked subjects, such as Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy and United States raw milk debate, indicate that -- while not yet necessarily mainstream -- opinions in accordance with the WAPF's are gaining traction (and in some cases, government agencies are backing down from earlier hard-line stances).

Consequently, I have undone your revert. ...If you would like to discuss which particular facets you consider unacceptable to you, let's discuss them on a case-by-case basis.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page and actually gain consensus before you attempt to restore. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessary to remove blatant POV or any other nonsense contrary to Wikipedia quidelines.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Balance

In my most recent edit, there are seven referenced criticisms and six referenced rebuttals. -- Tell me that's not fair.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to provide some sort of "fair debate" - the article must present what mainstream academic views say about the subject of the article in proportion to which they are held. If the majority of mainstream academic sources cover the subject as quackery, then the article should too. see WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

1. If you had ONE "mainstream academic source" (let alone a majority of them) accusing the WAPF of "quackery", you'd already have it linked. (Instead there is a reference to Quackwatch, a web-site written by a guy who's not a scientist. If you've read the already previously-existing rebuttal to that article, you'd know that the Quackwatch guy (who's normally quite good) was completely full of beans and obviously shot his mouth off after making some erroneous assumptions. In the meantime, very smart guys (such as Chris Masterjohn are writing for the WAPF; and everything he writes constitutes utter scientific demolishment of whatever's in the crosshairs -- no really: go read the guy).
2. You've apparently missed the fact that I'd retained all of the working critical links (although I did collapse the redundant references to sour-grapes Fuhrman). I simply removed the "position spamming" of critics which encompassed the bulk of the article prior to my edits.
3. The FDA is a corrupt, incompetent whore to Big Ag and Big Pharma....but I digress.
4. Contrary to your assertion, there is no hard requirement that Wikipedia articles present either "current academic majority opinion" (however that is defined, which I observe it is not) or an organizations views. It's simply ideal that BOTH be stated, because, well, they would be shitty articles otherwise. It is not ideal that an article on Subject A be dominated by the viewpoints of Subject A's critics.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV / WP:V / WP:RS / WP:SOAP it is an ABSOLUTE requirement that Wikipedia articles present the "current academic majority opinion" about the subject of the article and not be an advertisement for the organization. There is ZERO room for negotiation about that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The word "academic" does not appear in any of those four guideline pages.
2. Seven critical references are more than enough. An objective synopsis of critic positions (rather than rambling "sound-bites") is preferred. Even the most casual reader will immediately ascertain that the WAPF's positions run counter to the official FDA recommendations and low-fat dietary advice from the current medical establishment.
3. The article is about the Weston A. Price Foundation, not its critics. The article does not exist to help John Fuhrman sell books.
4. I consider it hilarious that you've added a POV tag to the article now, but thought the 95%-weighted-toward-criticism earlier version represented balance.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following sentence to the lede: "The WAPF's positions generally run counter to current US government recommendations and dietary advice from the current medical establishment." -- In my opinion this should satisfy your desire to make it immediately clear (at the top of the article) to the "lazy reader" (who won't read the rest of the article) that the WAPF is anti-establishment, while satisfying my desire to keep the article objective and neutral.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinions which differ from the scientific consensus. You do not have the "right" to ensure that this article treats them as seriously as it does the consensus of the scientific community at large. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They weren't being treated "seriously"; they were being treated objectively. It is FUCKING OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH A BRAIN that, if an article mentions that a group's opinions are opposed by the government and/or medical establishment -- that said group is not regarded highly by them. Once that is made clear, further elaboration (read: soap-boxing for critics) detracts from the PURPOSE of the article, namely describing its subject. Reiterate: the focus of the article is the WAPF, not its critics. (Any blithering idiot can click on links to the FDA and segue into the FDA's dietary advice, etc.)--66.41.95.121 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Protect or block?

I think we're wasting time here. The rewrite is grossly biased to the point of being grandiose. The ip involved is clearly using this article as a battleground to promote his personal views. Let's just revert the article, and either protect it or block the ip. Then we can wait and see if the ip can take a step back and demonstrate an interest in improving this article, or just continue to disrupt Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Who's this "we", Kemosabe? Aside from a few fly-bys, you and I are the only guys in here right now. Speak for yourself without resorting to logical fallacies.
2. "The ip involved is clearly using this article as a battleground to promote his personal views." -- Good, God; is the hypocritical irony of your own statement lost on you?--66.41.95.121 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So you agree with the accusations, and respond that others are behaving similarly? --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I imagine it's not wise for the IP to be engaging in an edit war as both 66.41.95.121 and Mike18xx. [4][5] --92.4.165.211 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I vote for the protection and/or IP block. I do not want to see Wikipedia become a soapbox for fringe science.Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 04:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The ongoing science behind, say, saturated fats or the merits of a diet rich in such fats (and so on) is hardly "fringe". I.e., see Mary G. Enig, PhD -- she's the co-founder of the group, and is hardly anybody's charlatan. So, it's not like we're dealing with snake oil hucksters or homeopathic fraud here. Great care should also be taken to date the criticism references; i.e., the medical community is, while still dragging its feet here and there, beginning to come around. IOW, a criticism from, for example, 2005 over something the WAPF said a year earlier, may no longer represent a consensus medical establishment viewpoint in 2012. In just the last five years alone, a lot of research has gone into the toxicity of improperly prepared grains and other plants (leading to a host of health problems in vegetarians with diets heavy in multri-whole-grain breads, etc).

....BTW, I tried introducing the word "fraud" to the homeopathy article with a crap-ton of references, and other editors jumped all over it for being too incendiary. Oh, you should have heard 'em: they were aghast that it would damage the neutral reputation of Wikipedia to call a bunch of lying scammers lying scammers. Obviously none of those tenderfoot editors had seen the steaming pile that this article was last week.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently no more action is needed here, since after four sequential efforts on the 15th, Ronz reverted all his edits back to my last one.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't know about that. You've clearly violated WP:SOCK, by logging into your registered account to enact your fourth revert while giving the impression on your talk page that your IP and account are unrelated. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and requested temporary, partial protection of the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

<chuckle> Yes; it'll be quite fun to watch a little more traffic come in here to compare and contrast your anti-encyclopedic edit versus the good one. Now you're reduced to clutching at this last, desperate straw rather than actually dealing with improving the article on a point-by-point basis. And you haven't rejoined any of the logic posed for altering the article away from the blatantly POV "critics' soapbox" it was previously (i.e., just above, mentioning Enig, or farther back noting that some of the criticism refs came from vegetarian blogs which fail notability, etc). --Mike18xx (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

As pointed out by 92.4.165.211 (talk · contribs) above (20:53, 15 September 2012 and 16:10, 16 September 2012). It appears that the ip and Mike18xx are sock puppets. The evidence he found is old, but it is confirmed by this and this. I'm requesting 66.41.95.121 and Mike18xx be blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is pretty blatant! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to justify any of the changes in any way?

Seems that editors would rather turn this article and talk page into a battleground, but if anyone is interested in putting that aside and trying to justify any of the edits in a manner that takes into account WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV, I'm sure editors would like to hear such justifications. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ronz, your version had half the lede devoted to critic soap-box sound-bytes. YOU are the only editor here who apparently thinks that's not a really crappy way to write a purportedly unbiased, objective encyclopedia.--Mike18xx (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So you personally feel that the sourced information in the lede was problematic in some way? That's it? Then we revert and work on the lede! --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored previous version

I've restored the previous version, folded in the tags and changes unrelated to the rewrite, and cleaned up the See Also section a bit including adding some entries from the rewrite that didn't seem extremely off topic. The See Also section could probably use a better review though. Much of it seems too off topic.

Does anyone want to discuss NPOV problems, particularly in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this entire article is unduly biased. Does this article even mention that Weston advocated lacto-vegetarian diet and not the diet promulgated by this foundation? Or that board member and anti-vegetarian writer Stephen Byrnes died of a stroke at the age of 45? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 03:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What does either have to do with the foundation? --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation

An article which may (or may not) be related to this one has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. Thincat (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sally Fallon Morell

The section on Sally Fallon Morell does not belong in this article like this. Would anybody be opposed if I just moved the whole section into a new Sally Fallon Morell page? I am assuming that since she has written several books and started a fringe nutritional movement that she will pass notability but if not then so be it. We can link to that page at the first mention of her name in this article. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E i dont think she is notable outside of her association with the foundation. does she actually meet WP:AUTHOR? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed before and we couldn't find sources demonstrating any larger notability. --Ronz (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If she is not notable then the page will be deleted per WP:AFD and it becomes the department of somebody else's problem. At least we'll get the section off this page. It just doesn't seem to belong here. The section is mostly about her and not about her work with the foundation, and none of the other co-founders have a section or are even mentioned. It sounds like she's getting undo weight on this page, only with headlines. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's save some time. If we cannot find sources now, call it all off and leave this article as is per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with criticism references, and biased wording

There are big problems with the current lead lending undue gravitas to the referenced critics: First, John Sheehan (of the FDA, quoted in the Wall Street Journal reference) is not a "medical and health expert" (he is bureaucrat without any medical or scientific degree; in fact, his only apparent expertise regarding food at all appears to be a background in middle-management at a pizza cheese supplier. The second reference is to John Fuhrman, who is a family MD (an honorific of lesser stature than the MS and PhD in Nutritional Sciences held by Enig). As another editor noted above, Fuhrman's criticisms occurred ever receiving a negative book review from the foundation (a fact the article should mention to maintain neutrality). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.174.188 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about undue wp:weight because Enig is clearly embracing wp:fringe science. And of course Fuhrman is an MD -- a board-certified family physician -- who specializes in nutrition-based treatments for obesity and chronic disease which makes his credentials far superior to Enig's mediocre ones. However, I do feel it would increase the value of the article quite a bit if neutral language were added to the lede describing more precisely the diet advocated by WPF. The WPF is mostly known for its stances on diet and nutrition and therefore that info should be right in the lede. That way the readers can decide for themselves. I am currently looking for a good secondary source to quote for a summary but if anyone has one handy then please go ahead and put something in. Cheers, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fuhrman "specializes in nutrition" as if Enig doesn't even though it's the precise field of her masters and doctorate? Have you read the Price Foundation's negative review of his book? You really ought to, as he's quite "fringe" himself.--108.174.58.172 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It seems a little odd to me that not long after Mike18xx/66.41.95.121 is blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry on this page after arguing about criticism in the lede, another IP, 76.17.174.188, geolocating to the same location (Minneapolis), with the same ISP and arguing the same case appears. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem odd to me! In fact, I was expecting it! And in response to the allegedly not Mike18xx, I would point out that Furhman is an MD from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world, and a practicing doctor. Enig was at one time an important pioneer in the fight against trans-fat, but she is not even a licensed nutritionist anymore, her work has been criticized by the New England Journal of Medicine, and she has lost credibility by becoming associated with fringe nutrition groups, which are based on the now-discredited "findings" of Weston A. Price.Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

More even-minded editors will be interested in the full text of Enig's reply to what can only be described as a smear job by the NEJM (a journal not totally above reproach). Her critique of the review is supported by two others with published letters, one from an M.D., the other a Ph.D. ...in other words, the science on the issue is still quite contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.58.172 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You can find 2 "scientists" who say that climate change is not happening either, but that dont mean "the science on the issue is still quite contentious." Its not. Mainstream science on these issues is quite clear. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest picking a better topic for your analogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.58.172 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, scientific consensus is scientific consensus and fringe theories and deniers of consensus are fringe theories and deniers of consensus and need to be treated as such. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the sockpuppets are back. Request partial protection if it continues. --Ronz (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears this article expresses opinions against Weston Price Foundation

Why cannot the authors describe a group or organization in plain English? Is Wikipedia a forum to express opinions against a group? I think the article is poor quality and had to refer to the Weston Price Foundation websites for better information on the meaning and purpose of the group. Sad day for Wikipedia. I could care less about the FDA, Dept. of Agriculture or other opinions from "medical experts". These opinions are not grounded in science. They are policies decided by powerful bodies. They are nothing more than that. Once one engages the scientific literature, the truth of the low saturated fat, low salt, high processed grain diets is clear. It is a failure and Weston Price Foundation is one of the few places to act as a watchdog on these supposed regulating agencies and their weak policies concerning "dietary guidelines" (whatever that means). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You can "not care" all you want. However, reliable sources like the government agencies are what Wikipedia and our articles will be based on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, RS that contain verified scientific evidence is what the articles are based on. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The article's phrased this way: "The foundation has been criticised by medical and health experts for "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence".[2][3]"

So why does an article on Weston A. Price Foundation need to vaguely state a critic's opinion with proper specifics? Or is there an editorial agenda surrounding these opinions? Since these are secondary sources then the specific primary critique is lacking, and I cannot evaluate what it is exactly these agencies object to. The statement is just a vague labeling. Please defend the statement to make the explicit critique known. Without due respect to the details here (at least one major one), Wikipedia appears to be on a mission to defame rather than enlighten to the facts at hand. The findings of Weston A. Price around the globe of various isolated cultures cannot be refuted as they were observations documented with detailed photographs and notebooks. But the advice based on those diets is not evidence based on facts? How can a successful diet of many "primitive" peoples not be worthy of our esteemed agencies? This contradiction is really more confounding when you read Pubmed and find little to support the agencies myths about "Low-fat" or "Low-salt" or "high-carb" being more optimal than higher-saturated fat recommended by WAPF. In any case, there are no consistent studies on the former agenceies positions nor are there consistent studies against WAPF. Hence this statement is meritless in the Wikipedia article, making it quite poor in quality. But I am sure I am not in the minority as someone recently researching WAPF. Shall we rewrite it to reflect reality?

This is seriously a joke. Click on reference [2] and [3]--the Wall Street Journal and a vegetarian blog (http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_dietary_myths.htm). Come now. Not a single shred of documented studies. And I am on what the first paragraph of this thing. Any critical mind will see the article is fluffy now and the agenda appears vegatarian or something to that effect.

This fluff gets worse when you then investigate Fuhrman, who reads like a snake-oil diet book hero himself:

"Joel Fuhrman is featured in the documentaries A Sacred Duty (2007), Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2009), Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead (2010) and Vegucated (2011).[5] In 2011, Fuhrman launched 3 Steps to Incredible Health!, a sixty-minute PBS pledge program that addresses the crisis of obesity and chronic disease plaguing America."

Overall like all nutrition discussions on wikipedia we have vested interests controlling a message without published, scientific facts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply:

Medical claims should be supported by medically reliable sources.

Fringe theories should be treated as such.

This article and talk page are not venues for promoting editors' personal opinions or original research.

Please be exceptionally careful on making claims about living persons, even in article talk pages, per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz. Yobol (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

as do I. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply observed in this case reference [2] and [3] are not reliable since they are not third party scientific studies using Weston Price Guidelines. Hence they are opinions not based on Science or Facts, which would be excepted by any legal body. That is my problem. The head of the article uses a vegetarian blog to refute WAPF, which also appears to be a conflict of interest. Why not prove your points with a reliable source that studied the WAPF diet guidelines? For example, show me a controlled study of practitioners of the diet relative to the "sanctioned" health professional diet. If WAPF is fringe or as unsafe as reference [2] and [3] purport, then we should have plenty of data. Problem is saturated fats are not unsafe as has been stated in PUBMED over and over in more than a dozen recent articles. This is my problem. Look at the Table in Saturated_fat#Association_with_diseases. The gig for saturated fat is dated and not proven in controlled study after study. Good saturated fat is not unhealthy and has zero risk of disease. The "health officials" held in high regard in this case against WAPF are wrong. WAPF holds the high ground--according to case after case in the accepted Wikipedia-reference world, e.g. PUBMED.

Logically, the article head piece contains strong claims by a couple of individuals who are not scientists with any research experience in the WAPF diet in controlled scientific studies. Thus it remains extremely weak and based on opinion not SCIENCE or FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.196.117 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 December 2012‎

Reversing the burden of evidence from WAPF to others as you are asking is in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, and assumes that since some saturated fats may not be as unhealthy as previously thought, then WAPF dietary advice must be correct. This assumption is original research. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss fringe dietary theories and our personal interpretations thereof. This page is to discuss specific, reliable sources that specifically talk about content directly related to Weston A. Price Foundation and how we can create a better article about them. Anything else is inappropriate and will be removed per the talk page guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not doing what you are saying. I am showing the weakness of the claims against WAPF, which make the article poor in quality, since Science has shown the dominant view to be false on the point of Saturated Fat--a major tenant of the WAPF diet formerly refute by these so-called experts. It is not original research. It is the research of Weston Price who observed good fats were not unhealthy in all races from around the world. Recent studies (see Saturate Fat wiki) show that this position is not fringe at all in fact. Why the negative press on WAPF when most of what they say follows sound nutritional advice as far as I can tell. Only a couple of unknowns have spoken out and they seem to be overly represented as negative claims against WAPF which shows the POV is slilted.

That is my beef and most anyone doing the legwork will see similar problems with the writing so far. I can see other readers came to similar problems in their reading. The POV is too harsh given the facts around nutrition as it stands in the current literature. The purpose of WAPF is to highlight the complexity of the PUBMED literature as it pertains to nutrition. That is what we need more of in light of this one example I mention, saturated fat.

So can we improve the tone.

I am not against critique, but the opinion here is too strong it appears and isolated in view.

So is that clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring WP:FRINGE and actually reversing the burden. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither Vegsource blog, Fuhrman, nor a some non-scientific bureaucrat in the FDA have made credible claims against WAPF, i.e., supported by actual science or data, and it is questionable whether they are qualified to make these claims and are reliable sources. There is nothing particularly fringe about WAPF either, since they publish extensive research from the recent PUBMED literature on findings regarding nutrition issues. What proof is there that they are fringe from published studies showing their advice is wrong.

We are not talking about UFOs here as the tone would have us believe. We are talking about diets that have existed in real cultures for long periods of time.

At this point I see the writing will not reflect these issues in a logical manner, and I do not think my understanding here is odd or fringe either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.196.117 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again these comments either ignore or outright misrepresent WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS. You're reversing the burden and making assumptions that are unsupported. I can't imagine anyone agreeing to making changes to this article based upon such arguments. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Point 1. You are making claims against my logic without specific example. You are not considering that these very rules you state I violate are subject to wide latitude and judgment either.

Point 2. Fuhrman is not reliable as a critic of this WAPF group considering he profits ($$$) through the sale of his diet books which are opposite in their ideology from WAPF in certain ways. Since you may not know then I will spell this out; Fuhrman makes a nutrient ranking system (which underweights nutrients in meat and dairy) to promote a veggie only diet in the main. Oddly, fuhrman himself knows that Vegan diets are deficient in DHA, vitamin D, vitamin B12, iodine, and taurine, and yet he does not include these micronutrients in his ranking system since they would weight animal products suggested by WAPF to be "good foods." WAPF states important nutrients are best obtained from meats and dairy as shown by PUBMED studies. Finally, Fuhrman's POV is not based on actual controlled scientific studies and is hence "Fringe" with no support with PUBMED articles showing Fuhrman's diet is efficacious in raising children or healthy adults that are fertile.

I learned long ago that when money is involved, the criticism tends to be taken with a grain of salt. Fuhrman is not a reliable critic here. That is in plain sight for the critical reader, and the head piece should take care in weighting his critical view of WAPF given his books assert a counter position. Fuhrman's diet is not FDA's macronutrient guideline.

So you can refute a fringe group with a fringe position and that is a reliable source in this case.

I tend to see a monetary conflict of interest where fringe POV is used to critique a fringe position.

Surely you can see this is the case now that I spelled it out.

This is the problem with Fuhrman's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by ip

[6]. Really?! These are blatant NPOV, OR and FRINGE violations. Details below: --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The foundation has been criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA" vs "The foundation has been criticised by medical and health experts" Might be worth discussing. Has it been already? --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem editorially that Joel Fuhrman is a singular person. The FDA's spokesperson is not necessarily a medical or health expert since he lacks appropriate educational credentials. Why not be specific about who is saying what when an exact quotation is used? It is not clear why the source of the statements against WAPF is hidden.

I vote that these experts be named as they are and where they originate as any good piece of new journalism would do. 128.32.166.162 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• "though more deaths were reported from pasteurized milk..." "and the FDA's own source data shows..." "However, the soybean is listed on the FDA's poisonous plant database." WP:SYN violations: In each case, advancing a position not advanced by the source itself. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Joel Furman and the FDA describe its critics. The other item is deliberately vague.

Most of the data I was using was not WP:SYN. The fact that the soybean is on the FDA poison plant database is notable and relevant.

The article by the international Genomics foundation is notable and relevant.

John Robbins' article is based on an incomplete review of Weston Price's work -see below.

The only item I added which is WP:SYN is the MSNBC article, which I removed.Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I asked you at the start of this to take it to a noticeboard. I'll start with FRINGE noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FTN Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edit

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weston_A._Price_Foundation&diff=533465593&oldid=533445136

summarized available evidence that controverted, rather definitively, the narrative being pushed in this article. I feel that WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV is being used in an unjustified fashion to bash this organization. My edit did not violate WP:NPOV, as it included the derogatory statements from Fuhrman and the FDA in the beginning of the article.

There are three items that the WAPF has that are "controversial", but supported by evidence.

1) defense of saturated fat:

On this, it is important to note that a meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Beef fat (in comparison to a corn oil diet) prevents alcoholic liver disease in the rat.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2646971

pancreatic carcinogenesis in rats is promoted by unsaturated but not saturated fats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2572741

Dietary saturated fatty acids reverse inflammatory and fibrotic changes in rat liver despite continued ethanol administration: PMID 11602676

They also reverse fibrosis in alcohol-induced liver disease in the rat: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9397995

On Cholesterol - 2 meta analyses connected low cholesterol to an increased risk of hemmoragic stroke: PMID 8898804, PMID 9851379

A meta analysis noted that Lowering cholesterol concentrations may increase mortality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2144195

Low levels of cholesterol are associated with increased tendency for impulsive behavior and aggression and contribute to a more violent pattern of suicidal behavior. PMID 12648892

Lower cholesterol is significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer mortality: PMID 21899411

There is an inverse association between serum total cholesterol and cancer mortality, especially for liver cancer.: PMID 19544528

Raw milk: An article in the International Milk Genomics Consortium, while expressing ambivalence about raw milk, nevertheless stated that pasteurization can "destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health", and noted raw milk's protective effects against allergies in children. This is in no way a fringe source: http://milkgenomics.org/newsletter/the-evidence-around-raw-milk

The FDA's own source data shows that for Listeria contamination, raw, unpateurized milk had 3.1 cases, pasteurized milk had 90.8 cases, and Deli meats had 1598.7 cases, thus going against its stated claims. You can cry WP:FRINGE all you want, but the fact is that FDA data is inconsistent with its recommendations: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/RiskAssessmentSafetyAssessment/ucm185291.htm - scroll down to "Summary Table 4, Per Annum Basis"

According to a recent Lancet study, driking Raw milk gave protection against Athsma and allergies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11597666

The CDC reports 2 deaths from raw milk between 1998 and 2008 (some evidence suggests that this was actually from Queso Fresco cheese: http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2011/february/19/power-numbers-war-over-raw-dairy-how-cdc-came-admit-death-wasnt-categorized)

The fact is though that their premise that this means there is a greater danger from it than from pasteurized milk can be refuted. To refute it, I am not using the WAPF, but instead a MSNBC article noting a greater number of deaths in just one instance in one year from pasteurized milk: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22561188/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/toxic-milk-blamed-deaths-miscarriage/#.UPcTP1HKM00

There are many more, but this is just one example.

Also, when considering outbreaks, it is important to note the condition the cows are in. Studies have shown that grass fed beef is virtually free of pathogenic E. coli bacteria. Factory farmed cattle are fed grains rather than grasses, and this changes the acidity of their digestive tracts. The acidity increase promotes the pathogenic strains of E. coli: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9733511

The Raw milk of organic pastures, for instance, had no traces of E. coli: http://organicpastures.com/pdfs/Recall%20Lab%20Results%20A7%20L%20Analytical%20Laboratories%2011.21.11.pdf

It is important to note that Raw milk has structures in it that actually kill some pathogens, like Listeria: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC183971/, http://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=30025&local_base=GEN01-CSU01

Soy: The soybean is listed in the FDAs poison plant database, where studies showing concern can be found. This contradicts their official stance, but facts are facts: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/plantox/textResults.cfm - search "soybean"

I also corrected the John Robbins item. I wrote to the PPNF, and they noted that the letter they hold copyright over was selectively misquoted by John Robbins. They will be restoring the letter to their website, but it can be read here: http://www.ericsons.net/207/weston-price-letter-to-nieces--nephews

Note that it contains the following statement: "All marine or sea foods, both fresh and salt water, are high in minerals and constitute one of the very best foods you could eat. Canned fish such as sardines, tuna or salmon are all excellent; also the fresh seafood such as oysters, halibut, haddock, etc. The protein requirement can be provided each day in one egg or a piece of meat equivalent to the bulk of one egg a day."

The whole letter was before Price undertook subsequent research after which he further modified his position.

Price's later work, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, is in line with the recommendations of the WAPF.

I fear that some editors are abusing WP:FRINGE as a means of not allowing evidence that controverts establishment nostrums, even when these can be shown to be false.Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Recent_edits_by_ip. In addition:

Cherry-picking information violates NPOV, rather than being a method to meet NPOV.

Presenting scientific information to further a minority position while disregarding scientific consensus is by definition a violation of NPOV and FRINGE.

This is not a forum for anyone to advance their own personal beliefs.

So I take it you were editing from the ip addresses here and on Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation ? --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP mistake won't happen again. Regardin studies - I didn't put all the ones I listed here in the article, I just put them here to prove my point. I don't think the soybean poisonous plant database item is a violation of WP:SYN. Also, the majority position was kept. The MSNBC article may be problematic, and might violate WP:SYN, but I don't think the other items are. At the same time, it notes that more deaths occurred from pasteurized milk in a year than raw milk in a decade.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

what you appear to be doing is improperly using the talk page as a forum to make a case. stop. this page is for discussing article content and article content can only be based on what reliable sources have specifically stated about the subject of the article - anything that does not specifically talk about Weston A. Price Foundation is not legitmate and can and will be removed from the page per the talk page guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

regarding "many problems Fuhrman brings up"

These are addressed in the following sourcewatch article: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Health_of_indigenous_meat-eatersPottinger's cats (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is not an RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

John Robbins statement

I wrote to the PPNF, and they noted that the letter they hold copyright over was selectively misquoted by John Robbins. They will be restoring the letter to their website, but it can be read here: http://www.ericsons.net/207/weston-price-letter-to-nieces--nephews Note that it contains the following statement: "All marine or sea foods, both fresh and salt water, are high in minerals and constitute one of the very best foods you could eat. Canned fish such as sardines, tuna or salmon are all excellent; also the fresh seafood such as oysters, halibut, haddock, etc. The protein requirement can be provided each day in one egg or a piece of meat equivalent to the bulk of one egg a day." The whole letter was before Price undertook subsequent research after which he further modified his position. Price's later work, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, is in line with the recommendations of the WAPF.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More original research to discredit criticism. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that Robbins misquoted, and that Price's later book is not in accordance with what Robbins says. I won't bring that up in the article, but as a compromise, I request the right to state - " though his later work argueds that a diet with meat and high animal fat supplemented by vegetables and minerals provides optimal health.", which is an accurate summary, and in no way WP:FRINGE - Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Update: to avoid WP:SYN - I have countered this with a secondary source.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing: You're trying to undermine critics with your own research. That's original research, a pov violation, and in cases like this a fringe violation as well.

Is Robbins being misleading? Again, it's your personal opinion. The solution is not do original research to respond to Robbins, but to look closer at the material from Robbins.

Finally, this article is not about Price, but the foundation. Your reliance on the foundation to rebut criticisms just makes a better case for the criticisms that the foundation ignores the science and treats Price as somehow infallible. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous offerings from secondary sources were a violation of WP:SYN, so this was my other option.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably better to stick with the option of discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence"

I went to go check the source of these quotes that were formerly in the lead because it was unclear from the sentence if these were the views of the FDA or of the MD. Obviously it matters a great deal who has said the foundation is "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence." But when I checked, I did not find the quotation in the only RS to be cited --- the WSJ article. So, I decided to rewrite this lead sentence to conform to the reliable source. The FDA has criticized advocacy for raw milk. In addition, the link to the MD provides a self-published source which is fine for basic information about himself but not for claims about third parties. His views would need to be sourced in a reliable secondary source. I have no idea if one exists. Whatever is done, editors should WP:STICKTOSOURCE and only use reliable, secondary sources. Jellypear (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RS in "criticisms" section

I am not going to put a horse in this race but I also noticed that there are few reliable, secondary sources in the criticism section. Editors should review the guidelines for WP:SOURCE and WP:SELFPUBLISH as they relate to information about third parties in particular so as to avoid WP:FRINGE. Aren't there any newspaper articles or - ideally - peer-reviewed publications that express these criticisms rather than relying on websites and other self-published pieces? Wikipedia expects that your sources are from the former rather than the latter. Jellypear (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Look a bit further. There are few reliable, secondary sources about the organization at all, plus we have editors here consistently trying to make this article into an platform to promote this organization and it's opinions. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if there aren't any RS the alternative should not be to use web pages and other self-published material. To avoid the appearance or possibility of WP:FRINGE, it's better to not include criticisms if they can't be reliably sourced according to wiki guidelines. What about the papers that the members of the organization have been publishing? Shouldn't there be some rebuttals by other scientists in those same publications? This would be the best kind of thing to put in this section. I'll let regular editors of this page hash that out. I was just passing through and wanted to make mention that this section needs some more reliable sources. Jellypear (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at The Guardian piece. It looks like there are some more criticisms in there that can be drawn out rather than relying on non-RS for this section. Also, what about any book reviews? Just a suggestion, but this area really needs to rely on WP:RS. Jellypear (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to have someone looking into this in such depth.

No comment on my concerns that the RS problems are across the entire article? Nor that the article is heavily edited against WP:SOAP? --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject matter to comment on WP:SOAP or even WP:UNDUE. It doesn't seem to me that there are any exceptional claims being made that are sourced to their own materials...just descriptive stuff about their organization and viewpoints. I have seen this on many wikipedia pages. But claims about others always need to be sourced in reliable secondary sources that is why I suggested using the Guardian piece to flesh out the contrarian viewpoint. There seems to be some material there to work with that could reveal that viewpoint but also allow editors to maintain WP:NPOV. Good luck. Jellypear (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Weston A. Price Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090715082914/http://westonaprice.org:80/basicnutrition/dietguidelines.html to http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/dietguidelines.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090714112607/http://www.westonaprice.org:80/knowyourfats/index.html to http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary Worthington cite problem

Ronz reverted a fairly old edit of mine; I figure I should start a discussion.

The Mary Worthington article "Fighting For A New Freedom Of Choice" can be found on the website of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (here) and it indicates it was published in an online newspaper The Bulletin based in Columbus, Georgia. I could not find the article there, but they don't seem to have archives. I don't know why I didn't find this last May, but I had only been editing for a few weeks then—but my comment questioned whether the cite was correct in linking to the Philadelphia-based newspaper The Bulletin (newspaper).

Also, while a url is not required for a cite, a cite without a url cannot have an accessdate.

What's the next step? The url mentioned above falls more into the category of a press release and primary source, so it's not as reliable or independent a source as if it had been published in a newspaper (which may raise some questions about how much reliability we attribute to some sources). It's the only ref supporting that subsection of the article. It would be most parsimonious to delete both the ref and the now-unsourced subsection, but perhaps someone wants to find another supporting ref? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding with such clarity and detail. First let's get the citation fixed. Does [7] work? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as the quality of the source, I'm not sure. I don't know who Worthington is. I assume a local contributor to The Bulletin, though I can only find mentions of her writing a few other articles, like "Halloween Candy May Be Tainted" 200810-29.

On the subject of publishers, what do you make of http://archive.is/dxKE3 ? I doubt it's a coincidence that two authors with the same name are writing articles for newspapers with the same name during relatively the same time. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to let it stand as you have it now in the article, since we have the url pointing to the content being cited and at least some evidence that it was published somewhere. It could be that staffers at the legal defense fund linked to the wrong Bulletin.

What's this archive.is site? Is that the one that archives in spite of robots.txt? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the source. If it is mirroring a press release then I'd say remove the section.

I don't recall seeing archive.is previously, it's just something I found while trying to figure out who Worthington might be. This is old, but suggests it's a useful archive: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_104#Replacing_WebCite_citations_with_archive.is_citations--Ronz (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: revisited this page today for other reasons and looked at this Mary Worthington cite once again. The way I see it, thebulletin.us site formerly belonged to the Philly-based revival paper, but went dark in 2009 or so and then the current Georgia-based online paper picked up the domain. So we should point the citation back to The Bulletin (newspaper) (but not to Philadelphia Bulletin) and not drag the current thebulletin.us website into the mess. Your other Worthington find makes this the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence and it will have to do until someone wants to dig through offline archives for a more complete verification. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)