Talk:Weston A. Price

message: If there are issues with citation, please discuss them here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  15:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote "evangelistic rather than scientific” doesn’t appear in the text cited in citation 25 4.1.41.2 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The PMC link was "odd", but the doi () clearly shows this citation. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation issues 

message: Is there any effort to improve the article so that the banners may be removed?  Since the banners have been up awhile I am thinking of removing them unless the reasons for them are made clear.  Lambanog (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added to the banner yesterday, and you removed it. How soon would you like the improvements to occur before you remove banners? What do you mean by a while? Like several hours maybe? I don't appreciate your change, given I requested a discussion here about citation issues. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  12:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on the banners placed on this article. 

message: WP:OR has been used to keep relevant quote by Weston Price but per WP:NOTOR:
"Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research."
"Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources,"
This removing of a reliable source quote from Price himself because it might be read a certain way is clear a violation of WP:NOTOR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the umpteenth time, find a secondary source. Adding random quotes from primary sources to come to, or synthesize a conclusion that no secondary source has mentioned is the very heart of WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:NOTOR, Yobol.  There is NOTHING OR about what I am putting it.  OR is no more a magical censorship hammer than BLP was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You may disagree, but numerous discussions on this page, and at numerous noticeboards disagree with you.  I'm not re-litigating this discussion all over again because you can't drop the stick. Yobol (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time WP:NOTOR has been references so your claims are bogus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All the editors that have concluded your additions are WP:OR are experienced editors with thousands of edits, and years of experience here. If by some chance this essay were to somehow allow your material into this article (I do not wish to get into a pointless argument about what the essay does and does not allow - I only care about what our policies and guidelines allow), it would be a problem with the essay, not the multiple editors who disagree with you. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming something doesn't make it true.  The fact that the material I am putting in is referenced with a direct quote from Price himself on the matter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So find a secondary source that says it is important and it goes in.  He's written thousands upon thousands of words.  They don't all deserve space in the article.  Find a secondary source that says why this quote deserves WP:WEIGHT. For the love of God, stop edit warring the same material into the article. Yobol (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was published Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers this means that Price's comments about his own works had to go through a peer review process.  All the Root Canal stuff is based on Price's self-published Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic and so far except for one article on his 1925 "Dental Infections and related Degenerative Diseases" paper there I have found nothing commenting on his work regarding the subject after 1923 and yet Price did write about the subject...in 1939.  Remember NPOV is a key point of Wikipedia and certainly Price's own comments regarding his 1923 work is important even if both sides want to focus on just the 1923 work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're saying a quote, by Price, from a book that Price himself authored is a secondary source for that material, you really, really, REALLY need to review what a secondary source is.  If you want to add the quote, you need to demonstrate through secondary sources that it deserves WP:WEIGHT in the article. For the millionth time, this has been ongoing for over a year now. FIND A SECONDARY SOURCE. Yobol (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yobal, you are clearly ignoring WP:primary which states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."  Furthermore, since it is Price's own words regarding his earlier work and is an exact quote it would fulfill the "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" requirement of Primary.  Also Primary source admits "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one."  Price cites and comments and builds on reference other than his own works in the work the quote comes from which would put the work as a whole in that gray region between primary and secondary.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSTS and WP:SYNTH. You have a remarkable way of ignoring objections to your arguments, and to argue against straw men. Yobol (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NOTOR a direct quote is NOT SYN ("Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources.") while an interpritation of that source would likely be SYN.  Certainly per WP:NPOV Price himself would be the ultimate authority on how his 1923 work turned out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I've escalated this to RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Direct_quote_by_subject_of_biography_.28Weston_Price.29) to confirm the RS nature of the book by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weston Price and WP:NOTOR 

message: In case anyone missed them and is interested, there's a discussion at RSN and a request at EAR. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for help in other venues

message: I propose trimming down the "Selected works" section to Price's most notable works. Wikipedia is not a CV; other scientists do not have extensive lists like this, so this proposal is to bring this article in line with the community norm in this regard. Yobol (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my understanding of the widespread consensus as well. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected works