Talk:Feingold diet

message: Would you accept this as a second paragraph for this page? (citations to be added properly of course)
:Although popular with parents, much of the research on the Feingold diet has been disappointing.   The scientific panel convened by the National Institutes of Health in 1982 reviewed all of the research then available and concluded that "these controlled challenge studies do not appear to have addressed adequately the role of diet in hyperactivity." [NIH pg. 163]   Even today, although the scientific consensus is that the eliminated food dyes do affect behavior [Nigg 2014, Stevenson 2014], research on salicylates and preservatives is still lacking. Shulae (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEDEs are meant to summarize what is discussed in more detail in the article body, so getting body content would be a first step. But we'd need sources relating the research to the Feingold Diet. Alexbrn (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean I should edit the body of the article first? Be happy to.  As for relating the sources TO the Feingold Diet, please clarify.  Shulae (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I mean that is what would need to happen. However, I'm still not convinced: I mean text we insert needs to be backed firmly by a source and not imply things about the diet that cannot be found in good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that good sources must always be used to back up statements.  As I understand it, a "good source" is considered one published in a peer reviewed journal.  Not all, however, are equally good.  Am I allowed to comment on a source?  I don't mean an opinion, but pointing out something factual, like whether their numbers add up correctly? Shulae (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course (on Talk anyway). Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise? 

message: Under "History" - I have clarified Dr. Feingold's actual professional history, since he was far more than "just" a pediatrician/allergist. I can cite his biography page in Wikipedia or the Feingold Association's biographical page at http://feingold.org/about-the-program/dr-feingold/bio/, but if you prefer a history book, I will get the citation. I am writing while on a trip across country, and I didn't bring all those books with me. 
Also, I might as well ask in advance:  Is it okay to quote from his own books or papers to describe the original Feingold Program, or do I have to quote only what somebody else said about it? In a similar vein, may I quote the Feingold Program Handbook if describing some detail of the actual Program? Shulae (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PSTS. Primary sources can be used, but with care since articles should be based on secondary sources. This is usually decided case-by-case but I'd say any quotation from a primary source must be unexceptional and hung off something in a secondary source to establish that it's WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page edits 

message: JamesWatson (?) seems to think that I am supposed to limit myself to making suggestions for you to change this page since my interest causes a COI.  So let's see how that works.
Under Effectiveness it says "In general, as of 2014 there is no evidence to support broad claims ..."
: Obviously, you can't say "as of 2014" when you are citing a book published in 2013.  Most likely the book only includes studies up until 2012 at the latest, but I don't have a copy and can't prove that.  To give him the benefit of the doubt, I did a PubMed search but Tomaska appears to have published no studies himself on either food dyes, additives, or adhd in any year.  Therefore, kindly change that phrase to "as of 2013" Shulae (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for making the correction.Shulae (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Can you explain why the term "broad claims" is appropriate here:  "there is no evidence to support broad claims ..."   It appears to be a statement less about truth and more to establish that particular POV as inarguable and to quash any minority view.  Like, if I give you evidence such as an animal study that shows tartrazine induces anxiety, aggression and hyperactivity in rats at ordinary human doses, that study indicates a connection but it is not a "broad" claim.  Using words like that seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia although I don't know the Wikipedia term for it.  Can you enlighten me?Shulae (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  What source says it "indicates a connection" ? And how do we even know the study was sound? Inexpert dabbling in primary research takes us straight into WP:OR territory. The WP:WHYMEDRS essay is good on this. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not arguing for using any particular study -- there are lots and lots of them, as a matter of fact. Each is a piece of the puzzle and if you put them all together you  have quite a good picture. What I am saying is that the use of the term "BROAD CLAIMS" is inappropriate.  It means that any future study, review or analysis can be termed "not broad enough" .... in other words, it is a qualifyer without any real measurable meaning, used to prevent any discussion. It should be removed from the sentence, which can then be followed by the minority opinion (which I will be happy to give). Shulae (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  What you may not know is that the early studies (those reviewed by Kavale) and most later ones, too, used tiny amounts of "challenges" -- either because they didn't know any better and were told to use that amount by the Nutrition Foundation, or because they themselves wanted to make sure they got no results.  Imagine studying aspirin but insisting that only a half a baby aspirin can be used in any studies.  You would conclude that aspirin is useless.  The Ward 1990 study, for example, used a HALF a mg of Yellow 5 ... that he actually got measurable results is astonishing, but then he was a chemist and not a psychiatrist.  Yet he was criticized for getting "small" results ... suppose he had used 50 mg or 100 mg ... even in 1978, the FDA was very aware (yes, I have their 2000-page report) that kids were eating up to 300 mg of food dyes per day.  Yet no study has EVER been done on that amount.  So ...  you got a bunch of stupid studies with teensy amounts of dye and no amounts of salicylate and ignoring the preservatives altogether ... and yet they are making "broad claims" ... I don't think that they have the right to be making ANY claims, personally.  Of course, that is my POV. Shulae (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not our job as amateurs to "put them all together": that is WP:SYNTHESIS. There is the sound of an axe being ground here and this is not directly relevant to the Feingold Diet (unless sources say so). As I have written several times now, some of this may be relevant to our Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. If changes get made there, then our brief summary of the state of research can change here as it is in WP:SYNC with that article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll go over there.  Are you the admin / editor for that page too?  How do editors get assigned? Shulae (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  Visited your blog, BTW, and I'm very impressed by your photography. Shulae (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: In the last sentence of this section, the word treated is in Scare quotes (aka hostile quotes), as follows:  not just the subject being "treated"   The source cited, Kanarek (2011), used the word treated only once, saying "Feingold treated hyperactive children with a diet..."  This is straightforward, without the sneering sense imparted by hostile quotes.  I am requesting in the interest of NPOV, please remove the hostile quotes. Shulae (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technique 

message: "In common with other elimination diets, the Feingold diet can be expensive and boring, and so difficult for people to maintain."
While sounding negative, the sentence means nothing. All food costs money, and you can get tired of hamburgers, too.  Also, there is quite a difference between an oligoantigenic diet that allows 5 items total and the Feingold diet which allows all kinds of food and plenty of processed foods, restaurant foods, candy, ice cream, soda ... you name it, there are acceptable brands, even in vending machines.  
So ... the article does not specifically prove anything about the Feingold diet -- and we are not talking here about any other diets.  
Why no proof?  Because there isn't any.  No study has ever tested the boringness or expense of using the Feingold diet.  This is just somebody's opinion.  Or is POV okay as long as it agrees with the "broad picture" of the page?
This sentence cannot be fixed and should be removed.  Since I am not an official editor any more, please just remove it. Shulae (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that's all your original source to further a pov not in the sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Granted.  But just because somebody published an opinion without proof, does that give us the right to say it in an encyclopedia as if it were true? I would not object to saying that the author of that paper assumed the diet would be difficult, boring, and expensive.  But to say it like a fact, we should know it is backed up by at least some proof, and there is none. Shulae (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a typical application of WP:FRINGE. Opinions from independent experts analyzing fringe theories are generally acceptable. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sentence under Effectiveness 

message: Please remove the word controversial from "the controversial autism researcher" as it is WP:LABEL. Shulae (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source given is the paper by Rimland himself.  I have never heard of him referred to as controversial -- except, perhaps, in the very beginning when he was the first to claim that autism was not caused by "refrigerator mothers" as mainstream medicine then believed. Is there any compelling reason to discredit him? Shulae (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If the material related to this article fits what's discussed in Bernard_Rimland#Conflicts_with_medical_opinion, then I can see why the label is being used. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point; his view of thimerosal as one of the causative agents of autism is controversial.  The article by him on this page, however, has nothing to do with autism or mercury; it is an analysis of Kavale's review, which he was well qualified to write. Using that label is an attempt to downgrade his contribution. Shulae (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the review was written in '83, I'm not clear why the label is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I believe the controversy over mercury did not begin until 1999 or later.  The label is an attempt to discredit or diminish Rimland, possibly because he doesn't agree with Kavale & Forness. It would be really great if you were willing to just remove that word "controversial" from the sentence (my history with the diet apparently creates a technical COI, so I am not supposed to edit anything directly, I'm told.). Shulae (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The two sources are nothing alike. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rimland (Contentious label) 

message: Please remove the quotes around the word "treated" in the last sentence under Technique WP:SCAREQUOTES. Shulae (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe use a different word altogether if there's a problem using it without quotes. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article by Kanarek actually refers to the child being treated.  Straightforwardly using the word.  Whether or not the treatment works, he is still being treated and the added scare quotes are an inappropriately added sneer.Shulae (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You suggested using a different word to avoid the quotes.  How about this, which is closer to, but a little shorter than, what Kanarek actually wrote (p.387):   Feingold stressed the importance of adherence to the diet by the whole family (for support), and that the individual sensitive to food additives would avoid them for life. Shulae (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scare Quotes