Talk:Weston A. Price Foundation

Talk cleanup

The issues on this page seem largely resolved, so I moved them to /Archive1. 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)

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)