The Founders Intent (talk | contribs) |
The Founders Intent (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 312: | Line 312: | ||
::::Please don't misrepresent the situation, nor disrupt the discussion. Thanks! --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::Please don't misrepresent the situation, nor disrupt the discussion. Thanks! --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Please try to stick to the article and add something of substance. Thanks. --[[User:The Founders Intent|<font color="green">'''''T<small>HE</small> F<small>OUNDERS</small> I<small>NTENT </small>'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Founders Intent|''PRAISE'']]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions|''GOOD WORKS'']]</sub> 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
:::::Please try to stick to the article and add something of substance. Thanks. --[[User:The Founders Intent|<font color="green">'''''T<small>HE</small> F<small>OUNDERS</small> I<small>NTENT </small>'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Founders Intent|''PRAISE'']]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions|''GOOD WORKS'']]</sub> 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
We've already been doing that, so when are you planning to add some? --[[User:The Founders Intent|<font color="green">'''''T<small>HE</small> F<small>OUNDERS</small> I<small>NTENT </small>'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:The Founders Intent|''PRAISE'']]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions|''GOOD WORKS'']]</sub> 01:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
Revision as of 01:46, 21 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)
Wikipedia 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 PRAISE 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. Wikipedia 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 PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- You only go to administrator when other methods fail. I have taken the Barrett claim to Wikipedia: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)
- "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 Wikipedia: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 [1] I fail to understand what WP:NPOV has to do with it. All Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard talk Barrett does not meet WP:RS regarding Weston Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 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)
- 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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 PRAISE 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: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)
- No. I expect editors will follow WP:TALK and other relevant policies and guidelines instead. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 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 PRAISE GOOD WORKS 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
FTN discussion
A discussion on this dispute has been started at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Huh?
|
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)
- By saying Barrett claims are correct despite Price clearly referring to the things Barrett said he ignores is having Barrett trump Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one is saying the Quackwatch claims are correct on all points. Can we stick to discussions on what people are actually proposing? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Right and the discussion is regarding Barrett as a reliable source on the quality of Price's work--something that has been shown to be not the case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No one is saying the Quackwatch claims are correct on all points. Can we stick to discussions on what people are actually proposing? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- By saying Barrett claims are correct despite Price clearly referring to the things Barrett said he ignores is having Barrett trump Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:18, 18 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)
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)
I think I may have found Weston A Price's obituary in the New York Times but the problem is it costs to find out and there is no information saying when the article was published in January 1948.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Some more searching produced Dental items of interest, Volume 70 which in addition to appearing to having some details provided us with another reference: Forman, J (1947) "Tribute To Weston A. Price, DDS" Journal American Academy Applied Nutrition 1:2, 3-4 (Summer) 1947. The Forman article also appears in Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, American Academy of Nutrition, American Nutrition Society 1951--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Saw the thread on WP:FTN, thought I'd contribute from an uninvolved perspective:
- Price's theories appear to fall into WP:FRINGE territory...(modern foods lead to TB...wha?). While they may or may not have been particularly FRINGE-y in his time, they sure are now.
- Quackwatch is generally considered a WP:RS for WP:FRINGE topics, so I don't see why that wouldn't be the case here as well. Cherry picking quotes as has been attempted in threads above are unconvincing.
- This article is in desperate need of independent sourcing from WP:RS. A quick lit search shows that almost all the current notability of this man is in the context of his theories as promoted by the foundations he is associated with. I would seriously consider redirecting this page to the foundation page if more independent sources are not found on him.
- We have to be very careful that we do not turn this into a WP:COATRACK for his theories. As far as I can tell, modern research has basically ignored his work as a basis for understanding modern nutrition or dentistry, so I don't see why we would want to go into great detail here about them, unless we find WP:RS that does so.
- As an aside, the first ref is published by Bion Publishing which appears to be owned by the author[2] and is therefore a WP:SPS and probably not a WP:RS.Yobol (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Several points here.
- Price's actual points were that poor nutritional balance due to modern foods resulted in lower resistance: "It is important for us to keep this picture in mind in its relation to the high incidence of tuberculosis as we read succeeding chapters and find the part played by modernization in breaking down the defense of individuals to infective processes including tuberculosis." (Chapter 3) Last time I checked good nutritional balance as assistance to disease prevension was still main stream.
- I found on online copy of The Journal of the National Dental Association, Volume 5, Issues 5-12 (1915) which states "The Research Department conducted by The Research Institute of the National Dental Association, Cleveland, Ohio; Weston A. Price, M.S. D.D.S President" The Dental cosmos: Volume 59 - Page 1244 (1917) confirms Price as "head of the Research Institute"
- As demonstrated by other references Price was not the only one to hold views that nutrition and over all heath were connected.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that nutrition (or specifically malnutrition) has an effect on the immune system is "mainstream"; I also am pretty sure that the particular theory that modern foods like chocolate leading to drastically higher rates of TB is quite fringe today (unless someone has some modern research lying around saying that...)
- A much better source than the one we have for that information.
- Again, the question is not whether "nutrition" has an affect on health, but whether his theory that modern foods have an affect that matters here. Yobol (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Modern" being foods of the 1920s and 1930s ie little if any supplemental vitamins added as is the case with current foods. This is the key thing we must remember about Price's work. In his time "modern foods" did not have the large number of synthetic vitamins added to them that foods today do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- This confusion is essentially what Hans pointed out about Barrett's unfortunate criticism. It confuses the claims made by those who are co-opting Price's conclusions in a contemporary setting with his own historically situated research. Bruce is raising some rather fundamental issues here that cannot be ignored.Griswaldo (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another issue is that Price belonged to what is called the Culture-historical/Historical Particularism/Boasian period of anthropology and archaeology which felt that modern civilization would quickly wipe out these ancient peoples and their way of life and every possible detail worth noting had to be recorded before the end came. (Trigger, Bruce (1989) History of Archaeological Thought pg 148-195) This resulted in a kind of noble past mentality where these "primitive" cultures where thought to have lived a harsher and yet better life than modern man.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a talk page about the article, not a forum for venturing off into a discussion of "synthetic vitamins." If his theories are not fringe for that time, there should be plenty of contemporaneous scientific articles/reviews that corroborate his theory that the 1920s/1930s diet with chocolate and canned vegetables can lead to immune dysfunction to the point that tuberculosis is significantly higher. I look forward to seeing those WP:RS as I find that theory to be, how should I phrase this...unlikely. Yobol (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Does Price actually say that or is that your own reading of what he says?
- "The individuals in the modernized districts were found to have widespread tooth decay. Many had facial and dental arch deformities and much susceptibility to diseases. These conditions were associated with the use of refined cereal flours, a high intake of sweets, canned goods, sweetened fruits, chocolate; and a greatly reduced use of dairy products." (Chapter 3)
- In other words Price was saying it was a combination of things. Price also brings up another point true in his time and not so true today:
- "Modern commerce has deliberately robbed some of nature's foods of much of their body-building material while retaining the hunger satisfying energy factors. For example, in the production of refined white flour approximately eighty per cent or four-fifths of the phosphorus and calcium content are usually removed, together with the vitamins and minerals provided in the embryo or germ. The evidence indicates that a very important factor in the lowering of reproductive efficiency of womanhood is directly related to the removal of vitamin E in the processing of wheat. The germ of wheat is our most readily available source of that vitamin. Its role as a nutritive factor for the pituitary gland in the base of the brain, which largely controls growth and organ function, apparently is important in determining the production of mental types. Similarly the removal of vitamin B with the embryo of the wheat, together with its oxidation after processing, results in depletion of body-building activators."(Chapter 16)
- "The data available on the subject of soil depletion and animal deterioration are so voluminous that it would require a volume to present them adequately. When we realize the quantities of many of the minerals which must enter into the composition of the bodies of human beings and other animals, we appreciate the difficulty of providing in pasture and agricultural soils a concentration of these minerals sufficient to supply the needs for plant growth and food production [...] For example, a high-milk-production cow from southern Texas on a certain low mineral pasture will run behind her normal requirements about 60 grams of phosphorus and 160 grams of potassium per day."(Chapter 20; nearly entire chapter is about soil nutrient quality and its effects on food)
- "Many foods and feeds are now regularly supplemented (enriched) with vitamins. The purpose is 1) to make up for the losses which occur during processing (revitaminization, 2) to even out the natural fluctuations and 3) to enrich foods with low vitamin contents to insure and adequate supply (enrichment) (Friedrich, Wilhelm (1988) Vitamins Page 27)
- So the destruction of vitamins and minerals via possessing Price saw as well as variations in vitamin and mineral has been countered today by addition of supplemental (ie synthetic) vitamins. Again we must put Price's work back into the time period he made it--few if any supplemental vitamins being added to processed food and that processing wrecking total havoc on the vitamin and mineral content of the food being processed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he compares the rates of tuberculosis between "modern" and "primitive" societies and blames the increased rates of TB on a modern diet. I'm not here to discuss vitamins. Please present WP:RS that back up his theory that "modern" foods leads to TB, since you say his theories aren't fringe.Yobol (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- So the destruction of vitamins and minerals via possessing Price saw as well as variations in vitamin and mineral has been countered today by addition of supplemental (ie synthetic) vitamins. Again we must put Price's work back into the time period he made it--few if any supplemental vitamins being added to processed food and that processing wrecking total havoc on the vitamin and mineral content of the food being processed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Biography
I see a lot of back and forth about Barrett on this page, but in reading the article that's the least of the problems. The most obvious problem is a lack of biographical information. Only the first three sentences have any conventional information about the events of his life. Rather than focusing on criticisms from others, we should first give our attention to the person we're writing about. Even cursory research into his life shows he traveled to remote spots to study primitive nutrition. We simply say he studied them. Its omission is an oversight that's more important than reporting on what Barrett says. More important, too, would be reporting on his "marginalization". Considering that there are three foundations devoted to him, we can surely do better at reporting the basic facts of his life. As for his ideas, that'll inevitably be split between this and the foundation article. However if we ever write an article on the book it would become the most logical place for an extended discussion of the ideas. Will Beback talk 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree with what you're saying, however the problem in the criticism section is the validity of it. To me, criticism of someone's work should be handled with care. We shouldn't put it in there unless it adds value to the reader and is properly supported. Barrett appears to assume bad faith on the part of Price as well as incompetency, and doesn't provide any quality supporting evidence of his claims. Barrett uses himself as a reference to support most of his paper. If Barrett were a wiki author, wouldn't we consider this WP:OR? Look, if there is legitimate criticism of Price's work, let's see it, and I would support it's inclusion. Will, you make good points but we still have to resolve the Criticism section. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Someday, yes. But there are more pressing problems with this article. Since the criticism issue is contentious, working on less contentious issues is likely to be more productive anyway. Will Beback talk 09:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is material out there--the problem is it is so old that it is not easy to get to.
- Forman, J (1947) "Tribute To Weston A. Price, DDS" Journal of the American Academy of Applied Nutrition 1:2, 3-4 (Summer) 1947. in Dental items of interest, Volume 70 and Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, American Academy of Nutrition, American Nutrition Society (1951)
- Possible obituary in the Jan 1948 New York Times
- "The Life and Work of James Leon Williams" By George Wood Clapp pg 101 reveals Price was Chairman of the The Callahan Memorial Award Commission and on December 5, 1922 gave its first medal to Dr. James Leon Williams
- There is a maybe in Contributions - Scripps Institution of Oceanography: Issue 366 "One of the finest tributes to Weston Price is contained in the 1947 Annual Review of Bio-Chemistry", Volume 15, page 353
- "A younger brother, Weston A. Price, dds, mbsc, of Cleveland, a well known pioneer in this field became president of the American Dental Association." (Gullett, D. W. (1971) A history of dentistry in Canada)
- "Weston A. Price was awarded the silver medal for his contribution on "Diet and Dental Caries" at the Cleavland session of the American College of Orthopedic Surgeons" (Delta Sigma Delta-Desmos, Volumes 42-43, 1936
- It's annoying that the key sources that could clean up this article are so hard to get to--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- So do you have any idea how we might include it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- First, I am going to try and get a hold of the Journal of the American Academy of Applied Nutrition (later Journal of applied nutrition) and see what it says. If we are lucky it may give enough details to go forward. I found this by the way: "Weston A. Price dies in California on January 23", Journal of the American Dental Association. 36 (April/May 1948) 416
- The American College of Dentists Otto W. Brandhorst (1971) has similar details.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- So do you have any idea how we might include it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice job hunting down some basic biographical information [3]! --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks and it was a pain going through snippet after snippet to get that much.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's looking better already. Will Beback talk 09:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Price's general theories
Well let's discuss these basic concepts. In the third paragraph under Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price basically says that these isolated tribes or villages of people in his studies did not suffer from the dental issues of those people on the "western diet" (i.e., processed food, high sugar, etc). Well is this not supported by Dental caries#History in the third paragraph? Cane sugar in the western world saw an increase in tooth decay, which seems to confirm Prices's findings. Did Xylitol exist in the food supplies of the people Price studied? I'm just asking the question here. How fringe was his ideas, and how much is supported by modern science. Is that why we need to flouridate water? If you don't change the western diet then you have to solve dental issue another way (e.g., flouridation), right? Could it be a nutritional issue as Price claimed? If we change our nutrition, could we possibly stop using flouridation? Correlation does not guarantee causation, however that doesn't mean it can't indicate a cause. Can we find sources that support Price's theories? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fiddling around with the Dental interest article (snippet views), I managed to get this:
"On his vacations each year, Dr. Price traveled throughout the world studying the dental and physical condition of isolated tribes which had not, been exposed to modern, refined diets. These studies resulted in numerous scientific papers and books, the most famous of which is "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," published in 1939 and now in its fourth edition. His interest in nutrition dates from 1894 when he began to consider diet as a prime factor in the cause of tooth decay. Calcium Metabolism drew Dr. Price's attention in 1925 when he became active as a student of nutrition. Convinced that it was better to study why healthy people were healthy than to study disease, he began his travels to the remote areashealthy people were healthy than to study disease, he began his travels to the remote areas of the earth, searching out primitive peoples untouched by civilization."
- This fiddling coughed up another resource: Washington State dental journal: Volumes 13-16 (1948)--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hope we can continue making progress. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was able to pull the amount of material Price collected on his little project: 15000 original photographs, 4000 lantern slides (about half of which are hand colored) and a library of strip film lectures. From there I got to "introduction of the "Civilized diet" of white flour, sugar, and other refined foods into the eating habits of these once isolated tribes, has brought its inevitable concomitants, dental decay and general physical degeneration." before I couldn't get any further.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- General comment: we really should be limiting how much material we place about his work unless they are particularly notable; this is an article about the man, not his work nor any of his books. We should mark the highlights of his career and seminal works that have been discussed (contemporaneously or not) but not go into any great detail about them unless we have WP:RS that do so too. I would also note that contemporaneous reviews of his work are fine, but I would expect most readers here when looking for information about his work would also equally (and probably more than equally) want to see how it has stood up to how modern understanding of dentistry/nutrition. If such WP:RS do not exist, then it is a good sign modern dentistry and nutrition does not place any significant emphasis on his theories, and neither should we.
- As an aside, this talk page is not a place to get into a discussion about his theories. There are aspects to his work that are probably not WP:FRINGE, and parts that almost certainly are (i.e. modern foods -> TB). A complicating factor in this topic is that his views are being used now to promote fringe nutritional theories, which I think needs to be spelled out more clearly in this article. Yobol (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- We must be very careful that we don't read things into Price's work that aren't really there. Remember that during and after Price's study vitamins were being discovered and what they did was being worked out. While the first synthetic vitamin (D) was made in 1927 it was 1933 before the next one (C) came to be (Chemical & Engineering News) and the native peoples Price studied likely didn't have access to synthetic vitamins for most of his study. For the purposes of his study nutrition = food and due to the way "modern" (1920s and 1930s) food was prepared for long distance transport many natural occurring vitamins were destroyed.
- This brings me the modern foods -> TB misconnect you keep making. It should be 1920s and 1930s food -> poorer nutritional connect than native foods -> greater susceptibility to TB. Today, US National Institute of Health is currently doing studies on the relationship between Nutrition and Tuberculosis (Nutrition, Immunology and Epidemiology of Tuberculosis). Take a good look at what vitamins they are testing: retinol (A), B1, B2, B6, niacin (B3), B12, C, E, and folic acid (B9). In Chapter 16 of his book Price lists the vitamins he deemed most important: Animal A (ie retinal), B (B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, B12), D, E and in the 1945 edition he added a chapter to his book called "A New Vitamin-Like Activator" regarding something he couldn't identify.
- Now given the resources available in his time is Price's connection between food and TB that off the wall even to our modern eyes?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is essentially OR and ad hoc justification. Please show me the WP:RS that confirms his findings if they are not fringe.Yobol (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You have to remember how tuberculosis treatment was viewed in the early part of the 20th century:
- "We know that the treatment of tuberculosis mainly consists in proper hygiene and good food, and that is one of the points I particularly wish to emphasize." (1904) The Illinois medical journal: Volumes 5-6 Illinois State Medical Society Page 61
- "The proper preventive measures against consumption, such as fresh air, open windows, clean rooms and good food are pointed out..." ((1909) "The Fight against Tuberculosis" The Western dental journal: Volume 23; Page 389)
- (1949) Food fights tuberculosis! State of Idaho Department of Public Health . Published the year AFTER Price died.
- Again i can't point this out enough: Price was a man of his times and the quality of his work needs to be measured by the standards of that time--not ours.
- While we are at it show us the WP:RS that directly refutes Price's claim--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not the one saying his theories were mainstream (in fact, I'm saying the opposite, in that I don't think any significant part of the medical community really believed a "modern" diet caused TB). If I'm correct, you wouldn't necessarily see any RS discussing it because no significant number actually bothered to study it. If you are correct, then there should be plenty of articles showing how the medical community was advocating a "primitive" diet to prevent TB. I eagerly await those WP:RS.Yobol (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is essentially OR and ad hoc justification. Please show me the WP:RS that confirms his findings if they are not fringe.Yobol (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- And why is that? Where in the entry is this claim even made? Will you stop trying to refute the straw man of Price that you are erecting based upon work of the Weston A Price Foundation and the criticisms made by Barrett and focus on improving this entry with reliable information about Price?Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- From our article, "In his studies he said he found that plagues of modern civilization (headaches, general muscle fatigue, dental caries or cavities, impacted molars, tooth crowding, allergies, heart disease, asthma, and degenerative diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer) were not present in those cultures sustained by indigenous diets. However, within a single generation these same cultures experienced all the above listed ailments with the inclusion of Western foods in their diet: refined sugars, refined flours, canned goods, etc." Yobol (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yobol, that does not say that he was "advocating a primitive diet to prevent TB", nor does the entry ever suggest that "advocating a primitive diet to prevent TB" would have been a mainstream position at the time, nor is Bruce or anyone else arguing that. Do you think that the current text in the entry leads to that conclusion? You seem to be conflating the current advocacy of holistic diets to prevent diseases, based upon Price's observations with Price's actual conclusions/claims.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is logical that if his theories were not fringe at that time and it was mainstream that TB was being caused/significantly exacerbated by "modern (1920s)" diets, that public health officials during TB outbreaks would advocate against "modern" diets. I guess, though logical, it would not necessarily have to be true, so I will settle for WP:RS that agree with Price that show "modern (1920s)" diets increased risk for TB. Yobol (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are still framing this in a way that the entry does not. What we need is a clear understanding of what he did claim and how it was received at the time, if possible. I will note, however, that his publishing record indicates something much more mainstream than fringe. You do not find fringe theorists published by the most prestigious mainstream publications. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is logical that if his theories were not fringe at that time and it was mainstream that TB was being caused/significantly exacerbated by "modern (1920s)" diets, that public health officials during TB outbreaks would advocate against "modern" diets. I guess, though logical, it would not necessarily have to be true, so I will settle for WP:RS that agree with Price that show "modern (1920s)" diets increased risk for TB. Yobol (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yobol, that does not say that he was "advocating a primitive diet to prevent TB", nor does the entry ever suggest that "advocating a primitive diet to prevent TB" would have been a mainstream position at the time, nor is Bruce or anyone else arguing that. Do you think that the current text in the entry leads to that conclusion? You seem to be conflating the current advocacy of holistic diets to prevent diseases, based upon Price's observations with Price's actual conclusions/claims.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- From our article, "In his studies he said he found that plagues of modern civilization (headaches, general muscle fatigue, dental caries or cavities, impacted molars, tooth crowding, allergies, heart disease, asthma, and degenerative diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer) were not present in those cultures sustained by indigenous diets. However, within a single generation these same cultures experienced all the above listed ailments with the inclusion of Western foods in their diet: refined sugars, refined flours, canned goods, etc." Yobol (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- And why is that? Where in the entry is this claim even made? Will you stop trying to refute the straw man of Price that you are erecting based upon work of the Weston A Price Foundation and the criticisms made by Barrett and focus on improving this entry with reliable information about Price?Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
He claimed tuberculosis was seen much more frequently in populations eating "modern" diets and attributed that fact to the diet. All I'm asking for is some WP:RS that corroborates this if this theory is not fringe.
As to whether scientists with otherwise prestigious scientific credentials can be supporters of fringe theories, please see Peter Duesburg, Kary Mullis for HIV denialism, Linus Pauling for Vitaminc C megadosage, among others. The idea that a theory can't be fringe because someone with credentials supports it is horribly misguided. Yobol (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently Dr Pottenger, a TB expert at the time, agreed with Dr Price about the benefit of proper diet on TB. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Look, first of all don't confuse the fringe of today with the fringe of the historical period that the person published in. People don't publish what is considered fringe contemporaneously in respected journals, unless the journals have been duped. They may publish other, non-fringe ideas in respected journals while also holding fringe views. I wouldn't dispute that. Why don't you do some actual work, as I've been doing, to try to discover how mainstream or fringe these ideas were instead of simply making demands of other people. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're off on this tangent about fringe being published in journals as the text we're discussing is in a book. I applaud yours and BruceGrubb's efforts in finding sources for this article, but characterizing a request for WP:RS as "simply making demands" seems somewhat bizarre. His theories on TB are, to me at least, self-evidently fringe, and I was hoping someone who disagrees with could show me how I'm wrong - it is certainly unfortunate you find a request for WP:RS as "making demands". Yobol (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Break
- What claims about TB are you talking about? Please help me understand since you have repeatedly misrepresented what is in the entry. If you think what is written in the entry was fringe then please do the research and provide the sources. That's all I'm saying. I'm looking through all the sources I can find on him after the publication of that book and I'm not finding anyone mentioning a fringe perspective. You are making an original claim, based on your own original understanding of Price's theories and you're asking for us to find reliable sources to refute your own original claim. That's simply absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Associated with a fine physical condition the isolated primitive groups have a high level of immunity to many of our modern degenerative processes, including tuberculosis, arthritis, heart disease, and affections of the internal organs. When, however, these individuals have lost this high level of physical excellence a definite lowering in their resistance to the modern degenerative processes has taken place." Or, in other words, eating modern foods leads to getting TB. That you read his work and didn't get this theory of his despite the numerous times he uses tuberculosis as an example in the book is remarkable. Yobol (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- What claims about TB are you talking about? Please help me understand since you have repeatedly misrepresented what is in the entry. If you think what is written in the entry was fringe then please do the research and provide the sources. That's all I'm saying. I'm looking through all the sources I can find on him after the publication of that book and I'm not finding anyone mentioning a fringe perspective. You are making an original claim, based on your own original understanding of Price's theories and you're asking for us to find reliable sources to refute your own original claim. That's simply absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are once again placing causal claims into his mouth. What you quote does not say that a modern diet is the cause of tuberculosis, it mentions the correlation between high "physical condition" and a supposed immunity to tuberculosis. Can you please find a quote that actually supports your claim. I'm looking into this myself, but I was focusing not on primary (is book) but secondary sources first. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK I've scanned some of the TB related discussions in Price's book. His argument is that eating foods lower in certain vitamins increases the risk of tuberculosis. He claims that there are higher rates of TB in natives that have adopted a diet lower in vitamins and minerals (e.g. the modern foods of the time) than in natives still on a native diet high in vitamins and minerals. It is based on this correlation that he concludes that diets lower in vitamins and minerals increase the risk of TB. Can we at least agree on this? I'll be happy to clutter the talk page with quotes from Price if you don't agree. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seems straightforward to go to the source of the claim to find out what he actually said, but I digress again... Actually, your summary is not quite accurate either. He ties the nutrtional deficiencies to facial and dental malformations that lead to TB. "To illustrate, the narrowing of the facial and dental arch forms of the children of the modernized parents, after they had adopted the white man's food, was accompanied by an increase in susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis." So, primitive diet = good, "modern" diet = bad = nutritional deficiencies = narrow dental arch = much higher risk of TB. Again...wha? Yobol (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are confusing correlation with causation. "Accompanied by" = correlation, but makes no claim to causation. Price suggests the same causation for both conditions, the higher risk of TB and the dental malformations, but he is not in any way, at least not in the quote you have provided or any other I've come across, claiming that the vitamin deficiency leads to dental malformation which in turn leads to TB.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? I haven't confused anything, the clear implication from that sentence is, in simplified terms, what I wrote. That he didn't specifically use the word "causes" means, frankly, nothing. Under your interpretation, he mentions TB about 50 times in his book in correlation with the primitive diet and poor facial/dental structures, but did not, in any way, mean to imply any causation between those while grandly espousing the virtues of the primitive diet? Are you for real? Yobol (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- What kind of question even is that? Can you produce a quote that actually establishes a causal link between the two? You're now arguing against plain English. The sentence you quote clearly establishes a correlation and that is all. He does make claims about diet as causal agent, but I don't see any about physical deformities. I'm simply asking for one and you have not produced it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the most complete thing that Price says on the matter:
- This work throws important light on why in the primitive groups the children born to parents who are living on the imported nutrition lower in vitamins and minerals than the native foods, not only showed a greatly increased incidence of tuberculosis over the children born to parents on the native diet but also proved to be those individuals who, in facial and dental arch form, presented positive evidence of prenatal injury. We also have a direct explanation for the observations that have been emphasized by Dr. George Draper, that physical form has a direct relationship to disease susceptibility of certain types, frequently spoken of as diatheses.
- In earlier sections of chapter 18 he also discusses the relationship between physical deformities of certain kinds and higher rates of TB, but he seems careful not to make causal claims, probably because he knows he doesn't have the data for them. It is clear that he claims there is a direct relationship between certain types of deformity and risk of certain types of diseases, and that he thinks both are in turn related to diet. Knowing that certain symptoms are correlated with certain diseases is helpful but it doesn't mean that one caused the other. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand that correlation does not imply causation. I hope maybe you'll take some time to think about it more carefully.Griswaldo (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? I haven't confused anything, the clear implication from that sentence is, in simplified terms, what I wrote. That he didn't specifically use the word "causes" means, frankly, nothing. Under your interpretation, he mentions TB about 50 times in his book in correlation with the primitive diet and poor facial/dental structures, but did not, in any way, mean to imply any causation between those while grandly espousing the virtues of the primitive diet? Are you for real? Yobol (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are confusing correlation with causation. "Accompanied by" = correlation, but makes no claim to causation. Price suggests the same causation for both conditions, the higher risk of TB and the dental malformations, but he is not in any way, at least not in the quote you have provided or any other I've come across, claiming that the vitamin deficiency leads to dental malformation which in turn leads to TB.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seems straightforward to go to the source of the claim to find out what he actually said, but I digress again... Actually, your summary is not quite accurate either. He ties the nutrtional deficiencies to facial and dental malformations that lead to TB. "To illustrate, the narrowing of the facial and dental arch forms of the children of the modernized parents, after they had adopted the white man's food, was accompanied by an increase in susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis." So, primitive diet = good, "modern" diet = bad = nutritional deficiencies = narrow dental arch = much higher risk of TB. Again...wha? Yobol (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yawn. While it is true that in the most technical sense, he never explicitly said "modern diets increase risk for TB", I feel a plain reading of his book very clearly shows that was what he was implying. (As an aside, I note the pesky habit most researchers I've read have had of actually saying explicitly "this does not imply causation" in their research when they are trying to be "careful" not to make or even imply causative claims). Again, it seems we're at a point where further discussion is a waste of (my) time, and I will let you have the last word (again). Yobol (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yawn????? What's that suppose to mean? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean Price advocated a diet EXACTLY like primitives. The nutrient levels in their diet is what mattered. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the discussions in this section?
We build articles and settle disputes based upon the application of appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm at a loss as to the purpose of the discussions in this section. Can someone please indicate the applicable policies and guidelines, or simply the purpose of the discussions under the parent section, "Price's general theories"? --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- We were arguing about a significant detail related to his theories about native diets and TB. I think its plenty relevant to the article. Don't you?Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but I think we'll make more productive use of our time if we spend it finding, evaluating, and incorporating references. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Foreword
I am in agreement with Ronz that this foreword fails WP:UNDUE. This isn't a tribute website to Weston Price, this is an encyclopedia article, and that quote is very much unencyclopedic in tone. I also note that the person who wrote the foreword is an anthropologist and not a nutritionist or dentistry or medical profession that would be better able to evaluate his nutritional/medical claims. Independent nutrtional/dentist/medical support from WP:RS for his theories would be more appropriate.Yobol (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- By it's very nature, the forward of a book is biased. Even in a Wikipedia article about the book itself, I'm not sure how quoting from the forward would be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by 'reliable sources,..." Earnest A. Hooton was a physical anthropologist teacher of Harvard University who is commenting in a book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. Reliable source ever step of the way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could we simply summarize his statement in a sentence? Will Beback talk 09:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not really as he gives us so much information on the state of things when Price wrote his book (in fact I trimmed it down to the basics as it is--the original is three full paragraphs). If you break it down to factual points he is telling us an insane amount of information:
- Could we simply summarize his statement in a sentence? Will Beback talk 09:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by 'reliable sources,..." Earnest A. Hooton was a physical anthropologist teacher of Harvard University who is commenting in a book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. Reliable source ever step of the way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- A great deal of elaborate and patient research and experimentation has been expended upon this problem of the etiology and control of dental caries (confirms that much research has been done, reaffirming the Bodecker, Charles F. (1934) article)
- I do not suppose that anyone would claim that it has been solved. (reaffirms the Bodecker, Charles F. (1934) article content that has been lost in recent update to this article)
- A quantity of excellent evidence has been amassed which indicates that dental caries is, to a great extent, connected with malnutrition and with deficient diets. (Provides the focus of Price's work)
- For I think that we must admit that if savages know enough to eat the things which keep their teeth healthy, they are more intelligent in dietary matters than we are. (supports Price's view that natives eat better than "modern" ie 1920'3 and 1930's people)
- I consider that Dr. Price has written what is often called "a profoundly significant book. The principal difference between Dr. Price's work and many others so labelled is that in the present instance the designation happens to be correct." (Establishes the noteworthiness of Price's book separate from the organizations that bear his name)
- I salute Dr. Price with the sincerest admiration (the kind that is tinged with envy) because he has found out something which I should like to have discovered for myself. (sets the quality that Price puts in his work.)
- I don't see how you reduce all that into one sentence without tripping over WP:OR issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers for not knowing what physical anthropology is, and for failing to take into account that the paper was published in a book by a medical publisher.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your sarcastic comment; does being an physical anthropologist make one as qualified as a medical professional to speak on nutritional studies, or does writing a foreword in a book published by a medical publisher do so as well? Anyhow, since people seem intent on including this foreword, I have trimmed it down to one sentence, with emphasis on the anthropological perspective. Yobol (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well your comment makes it seem like you don't understand the relevance of physical anthropology, particularly at that time, to the subject matter at hand and to medical research at the time. It was virtually a medical field, if not literally one at the turn of the century in the United States.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- If your point is that physical anthropologists in 1920s were equally versed in "the study of human health" (i.e. medicine) as physicians, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. It is almost incomprehensible to me that one would argue that someone who's primary area of study is the difference between races would know as much about overall human health as someone trained as a physician, but I digress. Yobol (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- From my own limited understanding, physicians are not, and were not, primarily medical researchers, but professionals trained to detect and treat disease. Our etiological knowledge of disease comes from medical research, performed by medical researchers, and it did back then as well. What you seem to fail to understand is that physical anthropologists and medical professionals (like Price) were conducting cross-cultural medical and health related research back then. However, most physicians wouldn't have known squat about cross cultural dietary differences. Why would they have? I can't vouch for Hooton's particular expertise, but the fact that he was a physical anthropologist makes it more, and not less, likely that he did have some in the cross cultural study of health and medicine.Griswaldo (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe physicians (and physician researchers) would understand medical knowledge (like the causes of TB) better than athropologists (and anthropological researchers). You obviously disagree. This is going nowhere, so I'll let you have the last word. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- What would a psychiatrist know about the research? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
- Of course according to his Wikipedia entry, Hooton appears to have had some rather suspect racialist ideas based on his research in physical anthropology. Perhaps not "suspect" at the time of writing, but certainly now. Of course that is one of several recurring problem when you dig into the views of historical figures in general.Griswaldo (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for saving me the time to point out the obvious, Griswaldo. As a museum anthropologist one of the things I was trained to do is to try and put people and events back into the context of their time and explain those concepts to modern day people. Weston Price is a problem as many of the ideas he held were mainstream for his time but as they say things change. --BruceGrubb (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources possibly containing contemporary reviews of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration
Here are some possible sources for reviews of or commentaries on Nutrition and Physical Degeneration contemporary to Price.
(1939) Harpers Magazine, October, 1939
(1939) The Journal of pediatrics, Volume 15, pg 661
(1939) Science news: Volumes 35-36 pg 128 (classified under Anthropology)
(1940) The New York times book review: Volume 1
(1950) National and English review, Volume 135
"The first of Seven Monthly Lectures on the Research work of Dr. Weston A. Price on "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." (1950) Modern nutrition: Volume 3
(1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7 American Academy of Nutrition, American Nutrition Society
Peer reviewed publications with articles that used Nutrition and Physical Degeneration as a source:
(1940) The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 27 pg 554
(1942) Food and nutrition news, Volumes 13-30, pg 76
History of Dentistry works that appear to have the book as a reference:
Bremner, Maurice David Kaufman (1946) The story of dentistry from the dawn of civilization to the present
Lufkin, Arthur Ward; William Harry Archer, Frank Monroe Casto (1948) A history of dentistry
These might give us a better view of how well received Nutrition and Physical Degeneration was in relation to Price's time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources citing Price
I'm finding a fair number of sources published after his death citing the book. These citations tend to be for facts about the levels of tooth decay in certain cultures that Price surveyed, like aboriginal Australians. In terms of his findings, as opposed to his conclusions, he seems both notable and uncontroversial even today. Here is one example from 1963 - Journal of Dental Research. The point being that I think that his basic survey findings are at the very least not controversial or disputed by anyone, and remain a resource to some.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a more contemporaneous and seemingly uncontroversial citation of one of Price's conclusions as well. From - Lamb, Mia Wolf and Ling, Bing-Chung. 1946. "An Analysis of Food Consumption and Preferences of Nursery School Children". Child Development 17(4):187-217:
- "Even though these children were of normal health, some physical deficiencies were present in the group. Among these deficiencies was an anemic condition ranging from slight to severe. This condition in the subject paralleled a low iron intake. Imperfect dental development, resulting in poor occlusion and improper tooth arrangement, was also frequently recorded. That this is the result of improper diet during pre- and postnatal stages of development has been shown by Price (5)." (216)
- I'll look for more of these contemporaneous citations.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another contemporaneous source citing Price, along with W. H. Sheldon, The Varieties of Human Physique. From Stewart, T.D. "Food and Physique." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 225, "Nutrition and Food Supply: The War and After" (Jan., 1943), pp. 22-28.
- "For instance, the permanent teeth formed during a period of malnutrition are usually hypoplastic and highly susceptible to decay.' Indeed, the prevalence of dental caries among civilized peoples in itself probably is witness to the fact of improper diet. And the same perhaps may be said even of the varieties of human physique."
- And here is another from the same journal. From Kellogg, Charles E. "Soil and Nutrition". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 225, Nutritionand Food Supply: The War and After (Jan., 1943), pp. 17-21
- "Other examples of deficiency diseases among both humans and animals have been described by Orr, Price, Marett, and others.1 These deficiencies in soil and food sometimes lead to sickness and death; often there is stunted or abnormal growth. Isolation on a particular kind of soil with deficiencies of one or more vital nutrient elements, like calcium, phosphorus, cobalt, iron, or iodine, will cause trouble."
- I have yet to run into anything controversial when looking for these. But I'll keep looking.Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this definitive enough?
OK I found a review of Nutrition and Degeneration from 1940, the year after the first edition was published. The review was published as - Vaughn, Warrent T. 1940. "Effects of Dietary Deficiencies". The Scientific Monthly, 50(5):463-464.
- "Dr. Price's thesis may be summarized in a few words. Tooth decay is a result of civilization and is due to the fact that civilized man has, discontinued using, in their native states, those foods which savage man had long ago established as requisite to normal body development. Modern methods of food purveyance have robbed us in great measure of two very important food elements, vitamins and minerals. Modern nutritionists must compensate for this loss by food additions in concentrated form, but this replacement does not adequately take the place of those original foods which were provided by nature. [Next par.] To those who are versed in dietetics this may sound prosaic and self-evident." (emphasis mine)
Critique, from second to last para.
- "Although the volume may be read with profit there are points which are subject to criticism. Dr. Price has carefully studied the oral cavities of the inhabitants of those remote regions. He is a dean among American dentists, and none would question his findings. But in his conclusions he goes much farther than the observations warrant, attributing both physical and moral deterioration and demoralization of the white man to present-day dietary deficiencies. At a time when a Lombroso 's stigmata of degeneracy are passing into the discard, he presents a new series of stigmata, summarized in under-development and mal-development of the bones of the middle part of the face. He presents confirmatory evidence in his study of modern criminals, but very little in the way of comparison with non-criminals or normal controls. Although reason tells us that there may be much to what he says, his conclusions are not justified by the evidence presented. Unfortunately, Dr. Price presents his conclu- sions, as generalizations, in the intro- ductory chapters. As a consequence a critical reader is apt to become slightly dubious after the first few pages."
If anyone is interested in a copy I have this on PDF. As you can see by the critique I also added, it appears that while the nutritional side of his studies were considered "self-evident" Price's conclusions regarding "moral" decay were controversial. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
More Critiques out there?
I found the following statement in a book review of a book that cites Price, and it is much less favorable.
- "In connection with his dietary theories, the author tells us that "the book in this category we consider most important is Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by W. Price," a well-meaning book which the author is apparently unaware has been severely criticized ever since its original publication in 1939."
The author of the review is an anthropologist by the name of Ashley Montagu and he suggests that Price's book was received rather critically. Unfortunately he does not tell us why, but perhaps this means that we can find the criticism yet. Here is the full reference. In Search of Man by André Missenard; Lawrence G. Blochman Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 316, A Crowding Hemisphere: Population Change in the Americas (Mar., 1958), pp. 190-191.Griswaldo (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Appropriate contemporary criticism
Here is a reference to Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration that both puts it in the critical light of contemporary anthropology while clearly contextualizing the problem identified as common place amongst his contemporaries. (From: Lewis, Henry T. 1989. "Ecological and Technological Knowledge of Fire: Aborigines Versus Park Rangers in Northern Australia". American Anthropologist 91(4):940-61.
- "The problem that Weaver notes is of course not uniquely Australian. The lack of awareness or acceptance of folk systems of ecological knowledge undoubtedly characterizes the views of all but very few Western scientists. A similar problem has existed for a longer time in the field of folk medicine, where indigenous practices were, after modification, sometimes accepted by medical scientists but without understanding or acknowledging the cultural perceptions of what was involved (e.g., Price 1939; Vogel 1970)."
Sourcing for this entry is thin, but these types of high quality sources are what we ought to be looking for, and not the alternatives -- the Foundation and Barrett. Both are poor choices if we want a reliable view of the matter.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Different approach
The following paragraph is offered as the most basic description of Price's thesis in the Nutrition and Degeneration, but I'm not sure it is accurate. Maybe the manner in which it is presented is the problem here after all. I have consistently thought that some here on the talk page have been mis-characterizing even what we currently have in the entry, but despite that I am now beginning to wonder if what we do write is accurate. I haven't read Price directly but the reviews I'm running into do not have this radical of a characterization in them. Here's our text:
- In his studies he said he found that plagues of modern civilization (headaches, general muscle fatigue, dental caries or cavities, impacted molars, tooth crowding, allergies, heart disease, asthma, and degenerative diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer) were not present in those cultures sustained by indigenous diets. However, within a single generation these same cultures experienced all the above listed ailments with the inclusion of Western foods in their diet: refined sugars, refined flours, canned goods, etc.
Where does this summary come from? How wed are we to it? I think changing this summary might solve some of our above bickering. What do others think?Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and altered this paragraph based on the review I have of the book.Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Invaluable source
In terms of content here is the best source I've read yet. It was supplied by ScienceApologist over at the FT/N. I'm not sure this source is considered reliable by our standards. If it is we should use it heavily. Have a look - [4].Griswaldo (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you on both points--it is the best piece of information we have and yet it is at best borderline in terms of WP:RS--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that the dissertation is complete yet. I'm not getting anything on the dissertation database, and I believe his information is listed as a current student on those pages, with a current dissertation completion fellowship. Unfortunate.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)