Nothing here is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and per WP:TPG
, talk pages are not a wild west. Please feel free to open a new section discussion specific content, based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog
) 00:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The bias in this article should be fixed quickly or people who do not read this "Talk Section" may be mislead. First, I must define my intention. I am not "pro-Paleo" or "anti-Paleo." I am pro-science. One MUST NOT fight pseudoscience with more pseudoscience. Taking on a subject with an obvious bias is actually harmful to science.
The writer of this article makes a reference (3) to a book called "Paleofantasy:" by Marlene Zuk. Which gives me concern that this Wikipedia article does not have an unbiased intent.
Problem #1: When you say, "Supporters of the diet mistakenly presuppose that... etc." Telling people what your "opponents" think without a reference, is a standard propaganda tool, however, it is not science.
Instead, if you were to say, "Many supporters say, "__X__.(1)" This is contradicted by a study that says, "__Y___"(2)" This would not show bias.
(1)&(2) = Are references to where you got this information.
Problem #2: This article later goes on to say, "The aspects of the Paleo diet that advise eating fewer processed foods and less sugar and salt are consistent with mainstream advice about diet." This means that the "Mainstream Advice" agrees with aspects of the Paleo diet. Logically, this contradicts calling it a "fad" diet, which the wikipedia article referenced defines as "Without backing by solid science."
Problem #3: The article has several unscientific arguments. For example, saying the theory is "promoted by..." is a standard pseudoscience tactic of dismissing a theory. Who promotes a theory is irrelevant to the discussion of the quality of the theory. This tactic attacks the messenger, not the substance of the theory. One could say, "The Big Bang is promoted by multibillion dollar scholastic institutions selling books and courses." The fact is that, "who" is promoting a theory doesn't make it more or less true. A theory either adheres to the scientific method or it does not. It is irrelevant who promotes it, or even how popular a theory is.
NOTE: The writer of this article also makes a reference to a "promoted book" called, "Paleofantasy:" by Marlene Zuk. Which at best is logically hypocritical.
Problem #4: The article is peppered with unscientific language. One of the many examples of unscientific language includes using the term, "Advocates for the diet" and juxtaposing that with "Others." For example, in the sentence, "Advocates of the diet argue that..., but others have countered that..." The term "Advocates" implies they are biased, while the term, "Others" implies they are just like you and me. If one must define these differences it is better to use equivalent terms, "Advocates" vs. "Opponents." However, it's better to avoid assigning a bias by large groups in the first place. For example, it is appropriate to say, "Adrienne Cognomen wrote..." However, "John Aliacognomen counters this by saying..."
Problem #5: The peer-reviewed references don't make sense or are questionable. In the second paragraph, both references (3) & (4) have problems. Reference (4) is an article on how diet did or did not play a role extinction of Neanderthals. It does not compare paleolithic human diet to modern day diet as the previous sentence implies. And Reference (3) is to the aforementioned book by Marlene Zuk. published by W. W. Norton & Company a NON-peer-reviewed publisher.
If I were to say, "This article sounds like it was written by a troll on a Reddit forum."
I would be both making an unscientific assumption about the writer and referencing a stereotype of a Reddit forum. (Where many articles are written by well mannered and well informed people.)
Integrity is the most important tool in the fight against pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Since mainstream science regards this paleo stuff as a load of hooey, Wikipedia reflects that faithfully and does not fall into the WP:GEVAL trap. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Alexbrn: The "Problems" I mentioned reference the Wikipedia policy you've highlighted of "Neutrality." Yes, it is "Fringe Science" and one should not give "Equal Equivalency" to these fringe ideas. However, it is vitally important that one does not combat fringe arguments by using false arguments, propaganda techniques, and incorrect references. This is critical thinking thrown into the toilet and it severally degrades the quality of Wikipedia. The article is written like a poor quality science blog or a bad science forum. It may give the writer and reader a smug sense of superiority, but they are false arguments all the same. Giving people a the emotional feeling of smug superiority is not what science is for. This argument style is bad for Wikipedia and bad for science.
The arguments defined in this article are the equivalent to a fringe thinker arguing, "Gravity waves propel space ships." and the reply from an educated scientist is, "You're breath stinks, so that's how much you know." Just because your on the side of the main stream scientist doesn't mean you can accept poor arguments as proof. These types of arguments don't help the cause of science, they don't support Wikipedia guidelines and they make the scientist seem as foolish as fringe thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not clear you understand the relevant Wikipedia policies. I strongly suggest you simply make requests for changes, clearly identifying independent and reliable references supporting the proposed changes. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- It could start at least to say that it's not a fake diet, but a diet we don't know enough about it, and doesn't exist yet in a correct form. It's just kicking an emotion away, an emotion for people trying to figure out how to remove the high amount of unusual substance in the modern common diet. People do look for a replacement of the current convenience diet, whatever the shop or supermarket sells. Calling the palaeolithic diet inferior to any other diet (which diet?) is snobbish. TudorTulok (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article starts with the word "fad" from the beginning and keeps the tone for the entire introductory section. TudorTulok (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
"Conflicting" may not be the correct way to phrase it, but as far as I can see, there is only one reference backing up the claim of "no good evidence" I don't think it is correct encyclopedic style for this to be written as if it is established "fact". All I am suggesting is that it should explicitly reference that the claim is made by a specific study, just as the claim that following the diet "may lead to improvements" is softened earlier in the same paragraph. These two claims are at odds and it reads weirdly not to explicity mention this. Similarly, the last sentence should also be clear that this is based on specific references, not established as fact.
Again, a single study has that conclusion and it isn't prudent for an article in Wikipedia to state it as if it is a definitive fact.
Anyway, I'm just trying to improve the article based on our polcies and guidelines. I'm happy to collaborate here on a mutually acceptable solution.