Talk:Weston A. Price - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 18 October 2010 (restore my comment - please stop removing content from this talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:42, 18 October 2010 by Hipal (talk | contribs) (restore my comment - please stop removing content from this talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Dentistry Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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)

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)

Hans did say something just like like that and I do agree with him. Barrett is out of his field on this, and is confusing the historically situated mainstream with current fringe cruft.Griswaldo (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Quackwatch shouldn't be used for info on history and it isn't. It is acceptable as a skeptical viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

His skeptical viewpoint is entirely irrelevant and completely WP:UNDUE. If Barrett was criticized during his day that might be of interest. Likewise historical developments in his field which discredited him in turn would also be of interest. A known skeptic writing about him nearly a century later is completely irrelevant. What is the legitimate reason for maintaining this material? You have not explained why it's there.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. From what I can tell, Price is most notable for his foundations, and the use of his research to support fringe theories. The Quackwatch ref is all we currently have on the latter. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you corroborate that with some evidence please -- that his notability comes from contemporary pushers of fringe theories. His ethnographic dental research was mentioned in a popular book by Michael Pollen (or someone like that), if I'm not mistaken, and it had absolutely nothing to do with people today supporting fringe theories. Do you mean the Weston A. Price Foundation, which was founded in 1999, and clearly not by the then half a century dead Weston Price himself? As you can see the Foundation has its own entry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that it can be shown via Price's own book that Barrett's claim of "he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition" can be disproved and Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources clearly states "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I say the Barrett article has no validity as a reference here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a reliable source for a skeptic viewpoint, that's in part why we have an article for both Quackwatch, Barrett, and NCAHF have articles here.

In response to Griswaldo, one simply need look at the articles that link to Weston Price. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the historical figure. I'm sorry, but most people don't live in a world of fringe sciences and amateur debunkers. Wrapping up a historical figure, who has no direct connection to this, in that contemporary context is completely UNDUE. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The "wrapping" is being done by the foundations and others. It's our obligation to report it per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is our job to mention the foundation, as we already do. That's it. What was mainstream in the sciences at any given period may be drastically fringe today. If I name foundation after some historical scientific figure from any part of history and start promoting theories based on their dated scientific conclusions that doesn't all of a sudden become a notable part of the historical figure's own narrative.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making progress. Our disagreement seems to be in proper weight. As I said earlier, I see the Quackwatch ref as a placeholder for better sources on the topic. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"maintain the appearance of good faith"

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)

No. I expect editors will follow WP:TALK and other relevant policies and guidelines instead. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And I expect editors to follow the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Per WP:QS and WP:SPS ("Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.") and the fact that quotes from Price's book invalidate some of Barrett's claims I see no merits in this as a reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FTN discussion

A discussion on this dispute has been started at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price and Stephen Barrett in their own words

If the claims regarding Price all had references I would have less issue with the article in question but the fact is other than the focal infection theory there are no references backing up any of the claims. In fact searching through Price's book shows some serious errors in Barrett's claims.

Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."

Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)

"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)

"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)

"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)

The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases on them so how can Barrett claim Price is ignoring these things without a single reference backing up that statement? Better yet since Price published through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (who was publishing textbooks like Modern Practice in Dermatology back in the day) while Stephen Barrett is self published with the majority of his claims unreferenced how can we say Barrett trumps Price regardless of how old Price's work is? The logic here just doesn't hold.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this just looks like more WP:OR and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT WP:OR and WP:BATTLE to point out possible inaccuracies in unreferenced claims in what amounts to a blog. If Weston Price's theories regarding nutrition and tooth decay where wrong then where are the papers refuting those theories?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is OR and BATTLE.

"how can we say Barrett trumps Price" No one is saying that, thankfully. Let's not waste time pretending otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding better sources

While is it is mainly on the foundation that bears his name Black, Jane (2008) The Great Divide Washington Post August 6, 2008 provides one paragraph on Price's actual ideas. It's not much but it is better than nothing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories: