Revision as of 17:37, 15 October 2010 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,835 edits →NPOV?← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:58, 15 October 2010 edit undoThe Founders Intent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,094 edits →NPOV?Next edit → | ||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
:::I don't see any such conclusion there. | :::I don't see any such conclusion there. | ||
:::I think it would be best to keep the content in the article while it's being discussed. --] (]) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | :::I think it would be best to keep the content in the article while it's being discussed. --] (]) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Anytime criticism is to be added to an article, there should be a rational benefit to be gained. ] becomes problematic when edit warring over questionable content occurs. Now BG has a proper discussion going on as cited above, and all are welcome to participate. However, I think it is proper to err on the side of caution (lack of criticism) when the content is questionable. It can even be moved to the talk page for continued discussion. The rule should be that criticism is only included for good reason and with good sourcing, in order to maintain the appearance of good faith on the part of Wiki. --]<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:58, 15 October 2010
Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Dentistry Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Alternative views Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
comments on "criticism" section
Is the Web site Quackwatch (referenced in Criticism section) really a reliable source? Seems like an opinion page to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.82.44 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like some nobody with a blog attempting to contradict a world traveler? A keyboard isn't a certification. --24.218.62.223 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Price-related "historical perspective" section of controversial commentator Stephen Barrett's essay, with its almost entirely unreferenced and opinionated statements, only contains 2 refs about dental infections (for the rest of the article, 9 out of 15 references actually point to other essays by Barrett himself, many on the same Quackwatch site). Moreover, Barrett's essay only relates to the very first sentence of the "criticism" section. Nowhere does Barrett talk of "racial bias" and, for that matter, I don't recall racial bias entering into Price's work either - he was simply pleased to find heathy people, whether they were black, white, red or brown, and learn from them. Price's theory was that industrialised foods were causing problems, and so his inquiring mind led him to seek out places and cultures where such food had not penetrated the local diets. Far from having any bias as to race, Price reported what he found after seeking out people who fitted his "unsullied traditional diet" criteria from wheresoever he could find them: "sequestered villages in Switzerland, Gaelic communities in the Outer Hebrides, Eskimos and Indians of North America, Melanesian and Polynesian South Sea Islanders, African tribes, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maori and the Indians of South America." The "criticism" section is (apart from the low-quality essay ref) unreferenced and uninformed with regard to Price's publication Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, in claiming "facial features have more to do with genetics than diet" - obviously the writer had not contemplated the fact that Price photographed and studied genetically similar people from the same or closely related communities who had lived on traditional or industrial food, and in one case was even able to study twin brothers with different long-term dietary preferences. The "racial bias" statements appear to be personal opinion and are not supported by respectable citations, and thus may contravene WP:POV and WP:OR. The entire article of course needs more polish and citations, but have removed the "criticism" section as its only ref is poor quality and the rest is unsubstantiated and makes POV statements while ignoring Price's evidence. Bezapt (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages embraces pseudoscience. This uncritical look at Price and the Foundation proves that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.3.15 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I find these sorts of statements peculiar, since this is an online encyclopedia. It doesn't embrace anything. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed the Norwegian skull reference. A couple problems with it. It's synthesizing original research. The study is only about Norway and Price was not focused on Norway. Further, Price would probably say the Norwegians are a good example of a native people with ample access to nutrition and thus one would not expect to find crowding ie the research confirms his theory, not contradict it. I would concur to add the cite back in if it directly contradicted something Price said about Norway. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Barrett's article conveniently ignores the fact that at the time Price wrote his book there was a lot of research going on regarding the idea of a connection between nutrition and tooth decay that showed there were something there:
Agnew, M. C.; Agnew, R. G.; Tisdall, F. F. (1933) The production and prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association, JADA 20; 193-212.
Anderson, P. G.; Williams, C. H. M.; Halderson, H.; Summerfeldt, C.; Agnew, R. (1934) Influence of vitamin D in the prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association 21; 1349-66.
Bennett, N. G.; et al. (1931) The influence of diet on caries in children's teeth. Special Report Series - Medical Research Council, UK No. 159, 19.
Day, C. D.; Sedwick, H. J. (1934) Fat-soluble vitamins and dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition 8; 309-28.
East, B. R. (1938) Nutrition and dental caries. American Journal of Public Health. 28; 72-6.
His Majesty's Stationery Office, London. (1936) "The influence of diet on caries in children's teeth. Report of the Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease".
McBeath, E.C. (1938) Nutrition and diet in relation to preventive dentistry. New York Journal of Dentistry Dentistry 8; 17-21.
McBeath, E.C.; Zucker, T.F. (1938) Role of vitamin D in the control of dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition 15; 547-64.
McBeath, F.C. (1934) Vitamin D studies, 1933-1934. American Journal of Public Health , 24 1028-30.
Mellanby, Edward (1930) The relation of Diet to Death and Disease; Some new investigations BMJ Apr 12, 1930 pg 354 ((Edward Mellanby was the discover of Vitamin D)
Mellanby, May C. Lee Pattison and C. W. Proud, (1924) "The Effect of Diet on the Development and extension of caries in the the teeth of children" BMJ Aug 1924 pg 254
Mellanby, M. (1937) The role of nutrition as a factor in resistance to dental caries. British Dental Journal, 62; 241-52.
Tisdall, F.F. (1937) The effect of nutrition on the primary teeth. Child Development 8(1), 102-4.
So contrary to Barrett's implied idea that Weston Price was some sort of maverick, his ideas were very mainstream for his time. --BruceGrubb (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- After running into "Metabolic Disturbance in Relation to the Teeth" by Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. from the laboratory of Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York Delivered November 3. 1933, which says
- "The findings of the Agnews, Boyd and Drain, Eddy, Percy Howe, Hanke, Martha Jones, Marshall, McBeath, Klein and McCollum, May Mellanby, Price, and others show that dental disorders may be greatly reduced by a proper adjustment of the diet. Some of these investigators maintain that a lack of vitamin C is principally responsible for the activity of dental caries (Howe, Hanke). Weston Price regards vitamin B and mineral salts as the important elements in a caries free diet. Some believe that the lack of vitamin D is the offending factor (Mellanby). Finally, a disturbance in the cal cium-phosphorus balance (which includes vitamin D) is the factor to which most recent investigators point as being responsible for the high activity of dental caries"
- I have to ask did Barrett do any degree of real research? Where is the research that shows any of these ideas was wrong? Barrett certainly doesn't provide it. I am seriously questioning using him as a reliable source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Criticism section Part 2
I've removed the juxtaposed information about the medical research of the time per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You also removed a quote using such reliable sources such as Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association. Claiming that quote is OR and NPOV is insane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Talk does not superceed WP:NPOV and the fact is the quote from a DDS from the Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery was deleted along with the rest. The plain fact is we have a psychiatrist making dentistry claims when this and similar papers of Price's time period show that there was a great deal of supportive research in reliable sources of the day there was thought to be some sort of connection between nutrition and tooth decay and modern medicine agrees that this does play a role.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for not continuing with your previous line of discussion that violates WP:TALK.
- You appear to be making a rebuttal against Barrett. Misplaced Pages is no place for such disputes per WP:BATTLE, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I originally placed the tags directly above the disputed content, and have moved them back to that location. I think placing the tags at this location is more helpful than at the section header. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Talk does not superceed WP:NPOV and the fact is the quote from a DDS from the Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery was deleted along with the rest. The plain fact is we have a psychiatrist making dentistry claims when this and similar papers of Price's time period show that there was a great deal of supportive research in reliable sources of the day there was thought to be some sort of connection between nutrition and tooth decay and modern medicine agrees that this does play a role.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have to ask why by WP:RS is the word of a non-specialist on what amounts a blog being taking as criticism especially when most of his claims have no references. In fact the only thing that does have a reliable reference was Price's position on focal infection theory and the 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley pages 136 throws doubt into that statement as well as it admits that the idea never really died and that more recent research indicates that there may be some merit to the theory. Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 goes even further: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."
- So it is Barrett who is using out of date references (1951 and 1982) to make a claim not supported by current textbooks published by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. Explain to me how Barrett is a reliable source in the light of this evidence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It's beginning to appear like an edit war. If this continues it may become necessary to elevate this to an administrator. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT GOOD WORKS 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You only go to administrator when other methods fail. I have taken the Barrett claim to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F with the relatively simple question--is a psychiatrist's claim on what amounts to a blog regarding dentistry valid especially when one of his claims is not supported by current textbook material?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- This just appears to confirm my concerns. Again, this is not a place for original research in order to respond to criticisms, attack critics, etc.
- Repeatedly referring to Barrett as a psychiatrist borders on WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the Institute for Science in Medicine and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. " (Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch. This is a quote straight from quackwatch.com itself which he heads! He himself lists himself as a psychiatrist despite the honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association and teaching health education at Pennsylvania State University for two years. Mind telling us how this is OR?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one mentioned OR in this context. I mentioned BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since he himself on his own site calls himself a "retired psychiatrist" this is allowed under WP:SELFPUB. Also WP:SPS is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources: In some circumstances, self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications(sic).
- The "in the relevant field" part is the sticky one as the article in question involves both nutrition and dentistry.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is that you're presenting him here on this talk page and in other discussions as if this is his most relevant expertise in authoring this article. It certainly is not. In doing so, you're echoing his critics, hence WP:BLP and yet more WP:BATTLE concerns. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the way the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F is going the claims of WP:BLP and WP:BATTLE do NOT apply here--there is nothing to show that Barrett has the needed expertise for what amounts to largely unsubstantiated opinion regarding the quality of Price's work to be usable in an article about Weston Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is that you're presenting him here on this talk page and in other discussions as if this is his most relevant expertise in authoring this article. It certainly is not. In doing so, you're echoing his critics, hence WP:BLP and yet more WP:BATTLE concerns. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one mentioned OR in this context. I mentioned BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the Institute for Science in Medicine and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. " (Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch. This is a quote straight from quackwatch.com itself which he heads! He himself lists himself as a psychiatrist despite the honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association and teaching health education at Pennsylvania State University for two years. Mind telling us how this is OR?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The criticism section really doesn't belong in the entry. Isn't the real criticism of contemporary proponents of holistic dentistry who are using Price as a source? That doesn't belong in the entry on Price. It is odd in general to put in contemporary criticism of one individual for expressing views close to a century ago which were mainstream then but not now.Griswaldo (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree though the Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. paper and the references in the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine article can be moved into the biography section to allow a reference to a what looks to be a major school of thought by Price and his contemporaries.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
NPOV?
In regards to this revert I fail to understand what WP:NPOV has to do with it. All Misplaced Pages articles do not contain "criticism" sections "per NPOV". Barrett's criticism is not notable, and indeed its rather odd and out of place. Ronz can you please explain why this belongs in the entry, and more specifically what NPOV has to do with it. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, having a "Criticism" section is problematic. As pointed out in the RSN discussion, we need better sources. Until we do, there's no reason to remove the Quackwatch ref. I see it as a placeholder until we can expand upon the topic. It represents a significant viewpoint, and so removing it violates NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Per Griswaldo and Hans Adler on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard talk Barrett does not meet WP:RS regarding Weston Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any such conclusion there.
- I think it would be best to keep the content in the article while it's being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Per Griswaldo and Hans Adler on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard talk Barrett does not meet WP:RS regarding Weston Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anytime criticism is to be added to an article, there should be a rational benefit to be gained. WP:GAME becomes problematic when edit warring over questionable content occurs. Now BG has a proper discussion going on as cited above, and all are welcome to participate. However, I think it is proper to err on the side of caution (lack of criticism) when the content is questionable. It can even be moved to the talk page for continued discussion. The rule should be that criticism is only included for good reason and with good sourcing, in order to maintain the appearance of good faith on the part of Wiki. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT GOOD WORKS 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class dentistry articles
- Low-importance dentistry articles
- WikiProject Dentistry articles
- Start-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles