Talk:Weston A. Price Foundation

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incompleteness Feeds POV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Bruce Fife redirects here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "How the Weston A. Price Foundation Began" interview link? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PPNF 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quack Watch 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Breaking the quote down for verfication

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Yobol (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism in the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "that is associated with numerous diseases"

message: I'm not sure why this material was removed . --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So that level of detail doesn't belong, but this needed expanding? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: tuberculosis, typhoid fever, life-threatening

message: As pointed out by  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)
replies: text: That is pretty blatant! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Anyone want to justify any of the changes in any way?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What does either have to do with the foundation? --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored previous version

message: 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)
thread_title:  Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sally Fallon Morell 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Well it doesn't seem odd to me! In fact, I was expecting it! And in response to the allegedly not , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with criticism references, and biased wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sourcewatch is not an RS.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding "many problems Fuhrman brings up" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Weston A. Price Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified