Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

comment

The argument for this diet is based on a premiss that cannot be proved or disproved. More recent comparisons need to be drawn to study the diet. A more recent example of the hunter gatherer type diet can be studied in the Southern African Bushman. Their race is estimated to be between 25 000 to 40 000 years old. Their eating habits would most likely be very similar to the paleolithic people due hunter gather similarities. A parallel can be drawn logically due to the to the sporadic availability of food in hunter gatherer "economics". Due to the scarcity of protein, bushmen tend to gorge themselves in a one night ceremony on a whole antelope or as much as they can eat, when they have it. They tend to look like pot belly beer drinkers the day after. This is due to the nature of their environment and the scarcity of protein. Protein does not keep in their environment and it may be a week or two before they are able to make another kill. This is also observed in a parallel behaviour of a Lion pride. Additionally, the San People don't stick to the breakfast, lunch and dinner meal plan. You find it, you eat it. In order to find this evidence of the statements below, watch historical movies on the Kalahari bushman tribes and notice the size of their stomachs after a days feasting.

Furthermore, as we humans are most likely to be 1 in 6 related to Genghis Khan, this could also be an avenue for modern study of the human diet ecology and how it may best function. The Mongols have very strong record keeping and the diet may not be something modern man would tend towards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillsie (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hillsie, I moved your comment down here, so that we can respond to you clearly (putting it in the middle of an older conversation is not a good idea). Please know that everything in WP needs to be based on reliable sources, per the policies no original research and WP:VERIFY. Your addition to the article] cited no sources, and appears to be your own thoughts on the paleo diet. That is why the content was removed. And what you write above also appears to be your own thoughts, but this Talk page is not a forum for people to give their opinions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I wasn't sure where to put it. I'm furiously following up on my sources and will in time compile this in a more academic way. http://www.kalahari-meerkats.com/fileadmin/files/guides/Bushmen_light.pdf <- Many Additional Sources. I'll continue to find them. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/San_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillsie (talk • contribs) 06:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do read WP:OR, especially the section called "Synthesis of published material" - it looks like that is where you are going, and that is not allowed here. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Title change: Paleolithic nutrition

It's been pointed out to me that a more scientific term for this is "Paleolithic nutrition." Paleolithic diet sounds more like a marketing term. The new systematic review uses nurtition instead of diet. Might consider a change. ~ juanTamad (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Palaeolithic nutrition" would refer to people of the Paleolithic rather than modern people, which is whom the "paleolithic diet" is about. Kdammers (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that the article is about a modern fad diet, rather than a study of human history. The name is a marketing term. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

content based on 2001 book

In this dif I removed content based on a 2001 source per WP:MEDDATE. There is no reason to use this when we have much more recent evidence-based sources. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Original source

The article from the NYT, August 15, 2015, is largely based on http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587, which is a research paper cum short review. Is a secondary, popular source better than a primary source (in terms of Wik)? Kdammers (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

it is hard to respond to this. Are you talking about some edits that were made, or proposing to use these as new sources? Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am asking whether it is Wik policy to use a secondary source (in this case, the New York Times) or original material (in this case, a research article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587). Our PD article currently uses the former.Should we keep it that way or go to the original source of the information?Kdammers (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kdammers. Check WP:MEDPRI. My understanding is that you're not supposed to quote obscure research papers willy nilly to back up one view or another, but rather quote a (respected - not a tabloid newspaper) secondary source that synthesises the research. So in the case favour the NYT article? Though I haven't seen it. --Cornellier (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not an obscure research paper: it was published in a well-established, refereed journal (impact factor over 5). The source we currently use is a distinguished but popular secondary source. So, do we in Wik, unlike in scholarly research, give preference to a secondary source that synthesizes the research [as long as it is reputable though not a scholarly publication] over the original work? Kdammers (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The source you are talking about, currently footnote 1, is used only to support a general description of the paleo diet in our article; the discussion in the NYT article about the scientific paper, is not used in our article. The NYT article is used appropriately as a source for that general description. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Kdammers for my sloppy English above. By obscure I meant extremely specialized. --Cornellier (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

I've removed the following, because it belongs to a criticism section - to be created.

[removed content]

In 2012 the paleolithic diet was described as being one of the "latest trends" in diets, based on the popularity of diet books about it; in 2013 the diet was Google's most searched-for weight-loss method. The diet is one of many fad diets that have been promoted in recent times, and draws on an appeal to nature and a narrative of conspiracy theories about how nutritional research, which does not support the paleo diet, is controlled by a malign food industry.

References

Dear anonymous: I've put it back in, since no such section has materialized. --Cornellier (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Tooth enamel analysis etc.

I am moving this content from the article page for discussion as it seems violently off topic (or is OR) for the "paleo diet" as popularized in contemporary culture. Could some of this maybe find a home in the Paleolithic article?

[Moved content]

While the consumption of animals grazing on C4 pastures can contribute to C4 isotopic signatures, the magnitude of ¹³C enrichment—used to infer C3/C4 ratios—in early hominid fossils suggests that the carbon in their diet was derived mainly from C4 plants rather than the tissues of animals grazing on C4 grasses. Very high proportions of animal food are not considered plausible for hominids given that even modern hunter gatherers armed with bows and arrows tend to have dismal hunting success, and hominids lack the appropriate dental morphology of a high meat diet. Expanding on those findings, Oxford University researchers observed that baboons today eat large quantities of starchy C4 tiger nut tubers and the wear patterns on the tooth enamel from these sedge tubers are a perfect match with the wear patterns on the enamel of Paranthropus boisei ('Nutcracker Man')—a hominid, with a high C4 isotopic signature, who lived in East Africa between 2.4 million and 1.4 million years ago. The Oxford University study therefore concluded that Paranthropus boisei survived mainly on a diet of starchy tiger nut tubers. Dr Gabriele Macho, a lead researcher on the study from the School of Archaeology at Oxford University, said "I believe that the theory—that 'Nutcracker Man' lived on large amounts of tiger nuts—helps settle the debate about what our early human ancestor ate. On the basis of recent isotope results, these hominins appear to have survived on a diet of C4 foods, which suggests grasses and sedges. Yet these are not high quality foods. What this research tells us is that hominins were selective about the part of the grass that they ate, choosing the grass bulbs at the base of the grass blade as the mainstay of their diet." Incidentally, tiger nut tubers were among the earliest plants cultivated by humans, including ancient Egyptians and Paleo-Indians. Additionally, recent understanding of the human genome has shown that modern humans typically have many copies of the AMY1 gene for starch digestion—suggesting widespread evolutionary adaptation to starch consumption by humans. Furthermore, the restriction of starchy plants, by definition, severely limits the dietary intake of microbiota-accessible carbohydrates (MACs) and may negatively affect the microbiome in ways that contribute to disease. Starchy plants, in particular, are a main source of resistant starch — a dietary fiber with strong prebiotic properties. Resistant starches are not digestible by mammals and are fermented and metabolized by gut flora into short chain fatty acids, which are well known to offer a wide range of health benefits. Resistant starch consumption has been shown to improve intestinal/colonic health, blood sugar, glucose tolerance, insulin-sensitivity and satiety. Public health authorities and food organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the British Nutrition Foundation recognize resistant starch as a beneficial carbohydrate. The Joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Human Nutrition stated, "One of the major developments in our understanding of the importance of carbohydrates for health in the past twenty years has been the discovery of resistant starch."

References

- (added by alexbrn in this dif) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

- (added by alexbrn in this dif) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Specific proposal

No consensus to improve the wording
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Specific proposal: "A 2015 systematic review of the effects of a paleolithic diet on metabolic syndrome concluded that there was moderate evidence for better short-term improvements than the various guideline-based diets that were used as controls in the trials." This will replace the current text. The current text does not reflect the source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

2015 review deleted

No consensus to use 2015 review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"A 2015 review suggested that the paleolithic diet could be a useful alternative to the unhealthy Western diet." Not sure why it was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC) References As I noted above, the source is very good. And it was probably deleted by accident because you mixed it in with garbage. That is what happens. The source is also much more nuanced than that the summary sentence you propose - it brings up the importance of exercise in contemporary HG cultures, the existence of caloric restriction in contemporary HG cultures (we call that poverty), the similarity of some versions of the paleo diet to the best advice of mainstream nutritional science, and warns about the risks of some forms of the paleo diet. It is well nuanced. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The editor who deleted it added the wikilink Western diet to another sentence.[1] Do you still think it was an accident this review got deleted? QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Yes MolfnerPants is a good faith editor; you should not assume otherwise. When you make garbage edits at lightning speed, other people are going to make mistakes. Drop that argument. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I previously told the editor "You also deleted a 2015 review."[2] This was the response.[3] Why hasn't the text been restored after I told the editor? QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Because there is no deadline here, and just because you are commenting at lightening speed and introducing garbage edits that fast as well, doesn't mean that anyone else has bad faith. The more you churn like this, the less anyone has time to actually work to create good content, or work with the good bits you generate that get lost in the chaff. You have something like five threads open here on the Talk page. Why do you think anyone has time to consider anything? Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary source

No consensus to include text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is based on what paleolithic humans probably would have eaten, such lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts. References I cannot find a better source for what the foods are for a paleo diet. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The review that was already in the article and the one you introduce, both characterize the diet and its variations. It is not a monolithic thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The proposal is to list the foods for the diet. Is that a problem? It is odd there is no list of foods in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC) There is already sourced content in the body describing the food. That content could perhaps be improved but it is already there. Why are you looking for new sources, as though it is not there? Again, please edit seriously. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The lede says "It excludes foods such as dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes, processed oils, salt, and alcohol or coffee.[2]" But there is no list of foods it includes. That is strange. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC) You did not respond to my question. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Your comment changed after I responded. QuackGuru (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, my edit overrode yours. Sorry. You replied here and wrote "Because we should use independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)" Again my apologies. And yes we should use independent sources. As I said the content in the body could be improved, and we do have two recent reviews to improve the body with. We don't have to go to primary sources for that. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC) So what other source list specific foods such as lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts? If no other source can be found I propose we use the primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Again this is not a serious discussion. If you have read the two recent reviews you know they describe the diet. You just wrote - literally one minute before you wrote the comment above - that you have read them. I am done with you. If I have to bring an ANI against you it will harm me, at this point. If I bring the other action I am, as of now, considering - the one I emailed you about - it will harm much more than that. Is that worth it to you? Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26269362 This review does not list the specific foods. The other review is not in the article and does not have a full list what is used. I want to include a full list. That is the reason behind using the primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Answer my question - yes or no. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) We could use no sources and do not include the text. That is another option according to consensus. So far consensus is to exclude the text and the review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research in the lede

It is based on what "proponents claim". The part "proponents claim" is blatant original research.

"The diet is considered a fad diet by some mainstream sources,[7][8]" Both sources say very different things. The first source obviously failed OR. For the second source I could not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We should just say it is a fad diet, since that isn't in doubt. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It is in doubt according to RS I have read. We should say what the source said not assert it as a fact. We should remove the OR and rewrite the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What RS challenges the "fad" categorization? Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to focus in fixing the OR first. I hope the OR will be removed from the lede soon. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to focus in fixing the OR first. Wow, that is about the most blatant red herring I've every seen. "Proponents say" is not OR, it is a statement of fact so well supported by the sources that it goes far beyond the standards necessary to include it on WP. Have you ever even read WP:OR? Do you know what it refers to? It's not OR to say that the sources you cite for some statement are the ones saying it, it's good WP editing practice. Your argument is bizarre and meaningless in the extreme. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The source does not verify the claim. That is OR. Please provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

See, now you're making sense. It's fixed. Now the source supporting that statement really does support it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You added a different source that was not broken and it does not verify "lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts". The other source did verify it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I said the use of the source was broken. It looked like a source was inserted at the wrong place. I replaced it with a source (used elsewhere in the article) that did support it. As for the examples, I got rid of them. Happy now? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The examples are the main point of the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then get off the talk page, get your butt in gear, find a reliable source that lists what the diet includes, and add it to the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be improved by editing, not by whining about it on the talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. I can use source that did verify "lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts". QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The OR has been removed. Thanks to all that helped. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"The diet is considered a fad diet by some mainstream sources, [7][8]" What was this restored when the text has been challenged? QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

QG - the paleo diet is a fad diet. The hypothesis behind it is pseudoscientific junk as are the food choices in it. People make all kinds of money marketing various versions of it, and people follow it like a cult. It fits the definition of a fad diet to a T, and there are sources that say so. We edit according to mainstream opinion, especially in matters of health. The fact that some versions coincide with mainstream advice about how to eat sensibly doesn't make it any less faddish. Just like acupuncture being useful to help alleviate side effects of chemo and some other otherwise-untreatable pain conditions, doesn't mean that acupuncture is any less pseudosciencey. I cannot reconcile what you are doing here with your usual stance on PSCI topics. You are behaving exactly like the acu-proponents do - trying to take one or two sources that show good effects of using it, and trying to blow up the whole article. It doesn't make sense anywhere in WP, and not here, and is especially puzzling coming from you. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your statement does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but the sources do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If the sources verified the claim how come no editor provided verification? QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Okay, fine. Come over here, you can sit on my lap and I'll read you the sources while we enjoy a nice glass of warm milk and some cookies. I'll even tuck you into bed, afterwards. Will you be needing me to check the closet for monsters?</sarcasm>

Seriously, dude. Read the sources for yourself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I already read the sources. They don't support the claims. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please try to collaborate and explain how I am wrong when the sources do not support the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the OP, an interpretation of the sources that does not match his own must necessarily be WP:OR. That is an unheilful approach to collaboration, as noted at m:MPOV.

We do not state the claims of proponents in Wikipedia's voice because, as the highest quality sources note, there is insufficient evidence on which to make any confident claims, and most of the proponents, bluntly, don't give a toss about clinical evidence anyway, they are following an ideology (otherwise they would not have chosen the term "paleolithic diet", since there is no such thing as a single homogeneous paleolithic human diet and no way of consuming one anyway with current strains of animals or plants). It is reasonable to describe them collectively as proponents since many of the striking claims made for the diet have no significant scientific support. Separately, there is a limited amount of discussion in the professional literature of what parts of this grab bag of fallacies may in fact be evidentially supportable, and we cover that in the body.

Feel free to suggest a better word than proponents, but it is not necessary that the sources use the term explicitly because it is a common device on Wikipedia for referring to the claims made by, well, proponents of something - otherwise we'd just have to exclude half the article as not appearing in WP:MEDRS sources. And of course that would apply to pretty much every fad diet, anything related to so-called "superfoods" and so on. It would violate the principle of minimum astonishment. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the sources. I requested verification. None was provided. Please focus on WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think that everybody has to justify every single comment to your own personal satisfaction. You're wrong about that. There are issues where reasonable people may differ. Others disagreed with you, you simply rejected their disagreement and then carried on as if they had not disagreed. Do you not see how that might be ever so slightly problematic? Guy (Help!) 00:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? I have. They do not verify what is said in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The article says "It is based on what proponents claim paleolithic humans probably would have eaten.[2]" The source says "What's it all about? The Paleo diet (also known as the Paleolithic Diet, the Caveman diet and the Stone Age Diet) is a diet where only foods presumed to be available to Neanderthals in the prehistoric era are consumed and all other foods, such as dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes, 'processed' oils, salt, and others like alcohol or coffee are excluded.

BDA Verdict: Jurassic fad! A diet with fewer processed foods, less sugar and salt is actually a good idea, but unless for medical reason, there is absolutely no need to cut any food group out of your diet. In fact, by cutting out dairy completely from the diet, without very careful substitution, you could be in danger of compromising your bone health because of a lack of calcium. An unbalanced, time consuming, socially isolating diet, which this could easily be, is a sure-fire way to develop nutrient deficiencies, which can compromise health and your relationship with food."[4] The text in the article failed verification. Are editors interested in removing the inaccurate information? QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The article says "The diet is considered a fad diet by some mainstream sources,[6][7]" One of the sources says "“Fad diets” are often promoted as a method of improving health, however they should be subject to appropriate scientific investigation by well designed and conducted, preferably randomised and, at least, controlled studies. There are several limitations to this study which mean that readers should not draw too many conclusions from it."[5] The text does not match the source. This is blatantly inaccurate information. Why are editors claiming the text is sourced? The other source also failed verification. This does not make sense that editors do not want to fix the obvious problems after I previously explained the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Brief lede

this is a good and brief lede. Short minimal definition. Existence of much criticism noted, and that some mainstream sources call it a "fad diet". All the other content belongs in the body:

The paleolithic diet (also called the paleo diet, caveman diet or stone-age diet) is a diet based mainly on foods similar to those supposedly available to early humans in prehistoric times. It is based on what proponents claim paleolithic humans probably would have eaten. It excludes foods such as dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes, processed oils, salt, and alcohol or coffee. There is much criticism of the diet, which is considered a fad diet by some mainstream sources. Following a poorly-planned Paleo diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies.

By the way, i've not seen Paleo diet recommendations excluding salt, or alcohol, or coffee. I've seen this commentary on salt for instance. And there is a lot of talk about some grains being fine, just not tons of grains... it's more about proportions in regard to those, from what i've seen. There is a lot of this -- portrayal of an extreme form of the diet -- which is part of strawman argumentation. Making something look extreme and then obviously it's stupid. That's one element of the polemic nature of this article's POV as it's existed for a while now after it's huge "makeover" at some point in its history. SageRad (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So, of course i see that's been reverted, but the edit reason is completely wrong: Unnacceptable pov edit reverted. see consensus on talk page.

• It's not a POV edit, but an edit to remove extreme POV in the article.
• There is not a consensus for the reverted version.
• This is the talk page discussion right here (and above, at length).

Just so we are clear on these points. We're at the "D" in WP:BRD again. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

More like the "D" of WP:DE. Please stop the whitewashing of this silly diet in contradiction of the good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not disruptive.

I agree that this a silly diet but object to the term 'fad diet' in the lead because it is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic. We should, of course make clear that the diet is not recommended by any competent authority, but in encyclopedic language. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

We have an article on fad diets. It's a term used by professionals as well as amateurs and the lay public. How in the hell is that not enclycopedic? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It is basically Rhetoric, that is to say wording that is designed to persuade rather than to inform. It has no well-defined meaning as is shown by the fact that the wording of the Fad diet article was changed specifically so that this diet would be included. That whole article is little more than a stub.

All the term does is to try to persuade the reader without giving any real information. When is a fad diet not a fad diet? Is a fad diet positively harmful or can it just provide no benefit? Is vegetarianism a fad diet? What about religious dietary restrictions, are these all fad diets. Does there need to be a ulterior motive, like selling a book, behind a fad diet?

Rather than use an intentionally ambiguous term why not state the plain facts, 'Has no significant health advantages', 'Can cause dietary deficiencies'? That is what an encyclopedia should do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not an ambiguous term, and it's certainly not an intentionally ambiguous term. Regardless, we're not going to remove reliably sourced content on the basis of your own interpretation of a term's usefulness and meaning. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But there are actually reliable sources that do show benefits to this diet as well as those that show criticism, so even some of the factual claims in this section are incorrect. Much discussion has already occurred on this talk page. We have much that's being ignored here. And we have many accusations that don't hold water. SageRad (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Again (as always), when you say there are "...factual claims in this section [which] are incorrect," you need to provide specific examples. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Up to a point. The sources show early indications of some possible benefit to certain groups (and do remember that most early findings are wrong). They absolutely do not validate the paleo diet because it's founded on a series of fallacies and not sound science. Science might find some elements that are useful, but science will also discard any parts which are wrong, which paleo ideologues never will. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Katz review representation is slanted

I stumbled upon the recent review by Katz and Meller and see the quote:

The biomedical literature has limited evidence for this diet compared with the evidence for other dietary patterns reviewed here, but it is generally supportive.

Then i noticed that the Katz source is in the article, which currently states:

David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis, but that there is comparatively limited evidence supporting its health benefit over other popular contemporary diets.

This seems like cherrypicking from the study's text for negativity. It's small but this sort of small thing adds up when repeated in many cases and many ways. The sense i got from the Katz review was a general positive regard for the diet in comparison with other diets reviewed. Then i saw it in this article presented with a negative sense in "there is comparatively limited evidence supporting its health benefit" which makes it sound like it's been studied and not much of the evidence supports its health benefit, whereas the sense of the Katz paper is that it's not been studied thoroughly enough in a systematic way to generate evidence either way. SageRad (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"limited evidence" means limited evidence i.e., not sufficient to say anything much. In health of course things are considered ineffective unless there is good evidence to the contrary. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The implication in lay language of saying "there is little evidence" is that there may be predominant evidence against the hypothesis, whereas according to the review, the opposite is true. SageRad (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No the implication in lay language of saying "there is little evidence" is that there is little evidence. Anything more you want to read into it is your own opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"There is little evidence that this type of surgery works" says one thing, but "We have limited evidence about this type of surgery compared to other surgeries for this ailment, but the evidence we have is generally supportive" says another thing. That's nearly a direct plug-in of a different question to the two versions of the content -- the first from the article and the second from the review paper being cited. SageRad (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally your reading of that article is slanted. It does not in any way give a positive regard for the diet. It states that there is a scientific anthropological basis for it, that there is limited evidence compared to other diets, that studies in it tend to ignore key facts (such as the difference in plants/animals/fats etc) available. "Even more meticulous interpretations of the Paleolithic diet tend to omit details, including but not limited to the very high-caloric throughput of Paleolithic humans, the dramatically different ratio of n-3 to n-6 fatty acids that now prevails, the dramatically different ratio of potassium to sodium that now prevails, the dramatically lower intake of fiber that now prevails, etc." This clearly indicates that there have been detailed studies but that there is limited evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad: I think you might be misunderstanding the scientific use of the term "little evidence". In the scientific literature, "there is little evidence for ..." is a euphemism for "we can find no evidence for ...", because claiming outright that there is no evidence for something is very dangerous and just opening yourself up for someone to prove you wrong. Phrasing it as "little evidence" is basically just weaseling your way around the possibility of being shamed. Just as another example, "poorly understood" means "we have no earthly idea".

Specifically regarding the source you mentioned, here are my comments in bold:

David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that [i.e. we do not necessarily endorse the following statement] the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis [using quotes on "scientific case" does not imply the case is, in fact, scientific; it only means that science is used - or misused - to justify the diet], but that there is comparatively limited evidence [i.e. we could find no evidence] supporting its health benefit over other popular contemporary diets [notice this comparison; the quote does not say the diet has no benefit, only that it has no benefit compared to other popular contemporary diets, i.e. other fad diets].

I think the excerpt quote you posted does misrepresent the longer quote. The longer quote says there is no evidence to suggest the paleo diet is any better than any other diet. However, the excerpt quote makes it seem like the paleo diet has objectively less evidence supporting its claimed benefits than other diets. I don't think this misrepresentation was intentional, rather I think it was based on a poor understanding of the original quote. Amateria1121 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious here that there is a strong pushing to interpret the review article in the very least favorable way possible in regard to the Paleolithic diet, and this is holographically emblematic of the editing practice used in the entire article from the lede throughout the body. There is a serious wind blowing in the direction of "debunking" the article's subject throughout, and every single line is being used to slam the Paleolithic diet against a wall and to beat it up here. That's not cool. That's essentially like a witch hunt and trial against the article's subject being done by the dominant group of editors here. It's not alright. The readings here seem to strive so hard to interpret the article in question as being guilty before proven innocent. It's a witch hunt. There will never be any good dialogue here and no fair or unbiased approach to the article taken, so long as this is the prevailing flavor of the editorship here. It smacks of the same attitude taken in much of the Skeptic™ literature, and i call out the bias here. SageRad (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Amateria1121 gave a very thoughtful and useful comment which should not be dismissed by changing tack. Please respond to the substantive issues raised or soapbox elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow. Problem is that if i go into this rabbit hole of trying to have good dialogue and actually address every point in a diversion, then it gets 80 pages long and never resolves anything and then people just declare that the "consensus" is opposite to what i'm saying despite everything i've said. See the above section on "fad diet" as an example of this. Second, you cannot order me in what to say here. I see a serious issue and i stated it. It's not "changing tack" and i'm not trying to game this dialogue. I'm being 100% honest in seeing a serious bias here. I'm not "soapboxing" and please take your accusation away. When i raise substantive issues -- and this thread was for that very purpose -- it goes nowhere fast because there is this vicious throwdown of sorts and absurdity as i see above in the biased dissected/paraphrased quote. I think it's pretty clear that when the article says there is limited evidence on the dietary pattern but it is supportive, this is not the same as saying "The Paleolithic diet is a fad diet and there is no evidence at all that it has any value, and though we give lip service to saying it's a scientifically valid hypothesis, we really are just being polite and we mean to say it's not scientific and even though we didn't use the term 'fad diets' in our paper, that's what we actually mean and we know that future Wikipedia editors will be saavy enough to read between the lines and know that's what we meant." -- There, did i address the substantive issues raised? I think so. Thanks sir, who i have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion ironically when i was discussing bullying on in the context of the civility guideline -- (so i hope you understand that assuming good faith is quite difficult because "assuming" means in absence of other evidence). SageRad (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SageRad, I don't think that your perception is correct. I think you are reading too much into other editors having different views to your own. In any case, if one finds oneself on the wrong end of a consensus, it is better to accept the reality, and go hunt up better sources, rather than make the same unconvincing argument over and over. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

See above comment in reply to Johnuniq. You, Pete/Skyring happen to be another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past, and i have had a contentious relationship with you for months now, and it is due to your behavior. I am not afraid to call these things out. Strange though how when i try to get into an article totally unrelated to anything i've edited before, with hopes of being able to edit well, the gang shows up and the playbook is the same. I think it's pretty obvious that the review article is not saying what it's being read to say in the quote dissection above. Two plus two is not five. SageRad (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all strange, SR. When I see a vandal attack an article on my watchlist, I go and check what other contributions they have made. When I see someone acting in a particular way, such as by inserting conspiracy theory into the Port Arthur Massacre article, I go check what else they have done. Likely they will be making the same sort of edits in related articles.

And when I see an editor who continually acts as if they know better than the community, and only they and a few like minds can promote the truth against determined opposition, I keep an eye on what they are doing. We work as a community through accepted processes here, and we've created a very well regarded encyclopaedia that way. I'd like to see that persist, rather than have it deteriorate into fringe opinions based on weak sources. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT will ensure that minority views will be given a voice. It's not one side takes all. --Pete (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is distraction. I think i see a phenom among a smallish subset of editors. It's not "the community" at large. Keeping an eye on what i'm doing would be called WP:HOUNDING and you are definitely hounding me, Pete/Skyring, and it's highly unwelcome. Thank you for admitting it. I appreciate that. It will make things easier. I think i need to take some action in regard to that because you've been doing it consistently recently. Anyway, back to the topic at hand... SageRad (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community as a whole has evolved policies and procedures that work. The Five Pillars, for example. They work well and stand the test of time, because if they aren't working they get changed to something that does. Using the exact same processes of discussion and consensus that have made Wikipedia what it is.

If you have a problem with the community in that sense, you are going to have a continuing problem in swimming against the tide. Follow the rules, respect other editors, you'll do well, regardless of your own personal opinions. Your choice, brother. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

To return to the original comment in this section of the talk page, here is an issue. The paper actually says:

The biomedical literature has limited evidence for this diet compared with the evidence for other dietary patterns reviewed here, but it is generally supportive.

The article content currently says:

David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis, but that there is comparatively limited evidence supporting its health benefit over other popular contemporary diets.

I think the phrase "over other popular contemporary diets" is extraneous here, and that instead it should follow the source:

David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis, but that there is comparatively limited evidence on its health benefit, but existing evidence is generally supportive.

That would actually follow what the paper says, which is i think what we're supposed to do here. SageRad (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

My slight rephrasing, just to clarify things a bit:

David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis, but that there is comparatively limited evidence supporting its claimed health benefits; however, what evidence has been published is generally supportive of the diet.

Amateria1121 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That looks very good to me. Thank you for making my phrasing less awkward. In the interest of having consensus, i will propose we make this change after a day's time to allow other input. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thats actually no better Amateria, as it also conveniently leaves out the opinion of Katz/Meller that the published evidence lacks significant data per the quote above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

How does it leave that out when it includes the words there is comparatively limited evidence supporting its claimed health benefits? The difference from the current content is that the evidence which does exist is generally supportive, which is a real difference from the current impression. SageRad (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Katz/Miller quote doesn't pass judgment on the diet itself. It only says there aren't many studies supporting the diet, but those that do exist are generally supportive. I don't think my paraphrasing is particularly slanted, because my POV is irrelevant to representing source material in the article. Although for the record, I take a rather dim view of this diet - I think it's a fad diet and a load of unscientific crap, although it may not necessarily be unhealthy for its followers, and it's less gimmicky than other "miracle" diets. I also think the article does a fairly decent job now of representing the debate, "fad diet" notwithstanding. Amateria1121 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So, Only in death, you think there is no consensus to change this as outlined in this discussion here? You think it's better to keep the content reporting falsely on this Katz/Meller paper? As it stands now that you've reverted this change, which i made after a while and after a decent discussion here, to the suggestion made by Amateria1121, so that it currently misrepresents what the review article actually says. What does one do in a situation like this? I think it's pretty clear what the study says, and we're not supposed to misrepresent sources here. SageRad (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

From the source: "There is a scientific case for the Paleolithic diet, based in part on anthropological considerations. Intervention studies lend support as well (49, 74), suggesting benefits over the prevailing Western diet in measures of both body composition and metabolic health." Is anyone disputing the existence or meaning of this paragraph? If not, then re-wording is necessary. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The reliability for some of the information is questionable, and the nature of the source has been confused/misrepresented. It is a review of "dietary patterns", looking at nutrition and health. It is not a review of the science of the paleo diet, especially not of the anthropology.

From what I see, which I've pointed out before, "That Homo sapiens should be the one species for which native diet is irrelevant defies reason, and there is thus good reason to examine at least the basis for Paleolithic eating. There is a fairly strong case for the principle of a Paleolithic-style diet in the anthropology literature." is the opinion of the authors not supported by the literature they cite. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a review article and they reviewed literature and they wrote that, and indicated that there were anthropological bases for the premise and intervention studies that lend support as well. So... that's what this source says. It's not a full-on endorsement, and i'm aware that Katz's position in general is basically "all rule-based diets are inferior to simply eating healthy" but the authors do seem to think the diet has merit. I've changed the content about this study a couple times and it's been continually changed back, so my hands are sort of tied, but it's not how we're supposed to write articles. SageRad (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: By bringing up the veracity of the source in response to a question about why it's misrepresented in the article, do you realize that you're implicating that it's okay to lie about what a source says, so long as we don't trust it? I'm sure that's not what you intended, but that is what is strongly suggested by your response. If the source's conclusions are suspect to you, that's not something we can act on, or do anything about. Just like we can't suggest Ken Ham advocates for Last Thursdayism because his YEC tendencies are extremely ignorant and even more extremely wrong, we cannot change the conclusion of a paper we feel is wrong. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've pointed out that the article inaccurately summarized the source, and that we need to accurately summarize the source to improve this article. How is that not focusing on content? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You did quite a bit more than that. Please review WP:TALK and the related behavioral policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi MjolnirPants nice to see you, as always! The big message of the Mellner/Katz article is that people need to eat sensibly, and there is so much overwhelming amount of noise from people pushing all kinds of fad diets in the marketplace, that people are not getting the message about eating sensibly. The Paleo diet is one of those in the "parade" as they call it. They are clear about that. They do say that there is some evidence that sensible versions of the Paleo diet have shown some efficacy and actually match pretty well with mainstream advice (in other words, Paleo per se is noise like the other diets, but to the extent it complies with eating sensibly it seems fine). In that, they are very aligned with the mainstream view on diet (aka what is good to eat). However they also unfortunately say that they see the sense in the anthropological justification for Paleo. That is a very minority view in the scientific world. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it's just as good to see you! I'm with you completely on your summary of the article. It's clear from the only figure published at the URL that their conclusion was much the same as what I said over at WP:FTN; that just about any diet which replaces the typical American diet with less salty, fatty foods is a beneficial one. I agree with your removal of the bit about the 'anthropological basis' as well, and I suspect that the source might be a bit more favorable towards the subjects than is strictly neutral. But that's where other sources come in. My point was that this particular source was being drastically misrepresented, which is a major problem. As long as this source is accurately represented in the article, then if you were to -say- add another RS that completely contradicts and criticizes this one, with an accurate summary of it, you'll get two thumbs up from me. I'm not here to push a "this diet is good for you" agenda, I'm here half to improve WP in general, and half to make sure that fringe supporters don't have any ammunition the next time they start a "the mainstream is biased against us!" campaign. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the recent changes, do we still have a problem with how the source is used? --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not on my end. I just want to repeat: I'm 100% behind anyone who can find RS's that would contradict this source and include info from them in the article. I don't care about the validity of the source itself (beyond that it meets WPs standards for a reliable source, of course), only that it's representation in the article is accurate. Hell, if anyone can find a real problem with it meeting our standards for inclusion, I'll back you removing it. Again, beyond wanting to improve WP, my main concern here is making sure that crank editors can't point to this article as an example of 'skeptics gone wild'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of other examples of that. Who is a crank, and why do I sense a deep and open hostility to the subject of this article indicating a desire to represent it in as negative a light as possible? Can we please simply discuss the content? I appreciate honesty and integrity. I also have no interest other than improving Wikipedia and making it more accurate to the universe of good sources. SageRad (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you are satisfied, MjolnirPants. Thanks for helping. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is a crank,... Anyone who advocates for unproven assertions which are contradicted by accepted science. In this case: people who say or imply that they know what paleolithic people ate, or that this diet is the 'best' diet, or who claim health benefits from it which aren't scientifically established.

...and why do I sense a deep and open hostility to the subject of this article indicating a desire to represent it in as negative a light as possible? Because this subject is surrounded by cranks. The vast majority of information on the web about this diet is bullshit, and it's been advocated for by well-known bullshit artists. Also, your sense is wrong; it's not hostility, it's exasperation. WP is fundamentally about truth (though it avoids taking shortcuts to the truth), just as skepticism is, and it's extremely frustrating to see people spread lies and bash truth-seekers while claiming to be seeking truths themselves. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thread at WP:FT/N#Paleolithic diet

Notice that there is a call here on the "Fringe theories" noticeboard for people who follow that sort of thing to come and edit this article. This may explain some of the recent editing that may have happened here, just for the enlightenment of anyone who came here out of interest in the subject itself, and not from that noticeboard. I suggest that those from that noticeboard could serve the other editors of various articles well by making a notice when they make a call to come and edit articles, a sort of "pingback" service. SageRad (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. It is good practice to widen consensus by posting queries to them. Note that WP:SKEPTICISM is one of the Projects covering this article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose whether it's a violation of WP:CANVASS would have to do with the intent and the form of the notification. Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief... at the linked call to edit this article, we see such gems as:

God, is every crank diet the soruce of terrible articles?

and

Pretty much, yes. Diet woo is one of the most profitable forms of bullshit: one hollywood endorsement can sell a metric fucktonne of books.

It would seem to me prejudicial. SageRad (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of article improvements. If you have other issues, take them elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is so that other editors would know the source and flavor of incoming editors from that notification in order to be better able to edit this article and to improve it. It can sometimes come as a surprise to see a sudden influx of new editors on an article you've been working on for a while, who seem to have a certain kind of goal for the article. SageRad (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and WP:FOC. Continued use of this page to air general complaints is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume good faith until it is no longer possible to do so. I focus on content when it is possible, and if something is standing in the way of focusing on content, then i will work on solving that in order to return to focusing on content. SageRad (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Posting about non-content issues here solves nothing. To repeat: if you have other issues, take them elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out that the "call" that Sage refers to in the OP said ...

I did some clean-up on the lede of this page, but as it is has been tagged for more than a year it is clear that more work could be done.

Hardly a problem, and quite neutral. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

True, and granted, i meant to acknowledge that earlier but didn't get to it. Still, that group has a certain specific point of view and i think it's known that when an article is posted there for work, it's intended to be from a certain point of view, and the commentary after the call is also quite colorful as i've noted above, which supports the notion that there is an attitude of hostility to the article's subject and a specific approach to editing it to be found by posting it there. Skepticism is quite valid but if it over-reaches it can also be harmful and there is a need to be skeptical of this as well. SageRad (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who actually added the NPOV, OR, and Verifiability tags back in 2014 - though I'm not part of WP:Skepticism nor do I follow this noticeboard. The tags I added have largely been addressed; the article has been significantly improved since then, in my opinion. I'm going to remove OR and Verifiability, but retain accuracy and NPOV given the current debate over "fad diet". Amateria1121 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In-Article comment

Today, IP user user:109.147.26.65 left the following comment inside the article. I have no connection with it, but thought this would be the most appropriate place for it:

"The critics section is not wrong in saying that humans were likely to eat wild growing grains. They most probably did and wheat grain growing in its natural state would have been full of nutrients and vital vitamins. But the reason the paleo diet tells you to stop eating it, is because it is almost impossible to find wheat now that hasn't been messed with, as in hybridized, added chemicals, and sprayed pesticides. Which as we know are poison and highly toxic for human consumption and is a skin irritation. So this argument by the critics doesn't really work. It hasn't been even thought through atall. They have clearly done no research before taking the time to criticize. It is also certainly not a 'fad' diet and it has been proven by physical evidence that when you stop eating processed foods refined sugars and anything full of toxic chemicals that you feel much better, any symptoms start to fade and people with diseases such as diabetes or even cancer patients have been able to reverse their symptoms and become healthy once more." Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 14:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of nonsense there, and not a source in sight. Please use this page to make concrete proposals for article improvement and remember this is a WP:FRINGE topic. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, i will say that i think it's not nonsense, but rather makes a lot of sense. Of course it's not sourced and the author is not familiar with Wikipedia editing, but the thoughts are not nonsense. Remember also that this is not a WP:FRINGE topic. Where is that exactly set in stone and documented? SageRad (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You think a paleolithic diet can "reverse symptoms" and restore health to a cancer patient?! Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just saying i don't think the ideas expressed are entirely nonsense. What makes an article WP:FRINGE? Who decided this? SageRad (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Best if we stick to sources. It's a fringe idea because its concepts (both dietary and evolutionary) are significantly outside the mainstream, as are the kind of whacky claims made for it. BTW - are you meant to be contributing to discussions about food that's "been messed with, as in hybridized, added chemicals, and sprayed pesticides"? Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

TBanned from agricultural chemicals broadly construed. Which this specific section would fall under. And while there are studies into the effect of diet on cancer patients (there are studies on *anything* that might possibly help to cure cancer) the above claims are woo-nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE:

Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

SageRad (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to analyze this. Comments in bold.

The critics section is not wrong in saying that humans were likely to eat wild growing grains.[That's actually not what it says. Humans didn't ever really eat entirely wild grains - instead, they ate the ones that produced the most food at the lowest cost, and so they artificially selected for those mutations. So even before agriculture, there was horticulture: it wasn't quite full-on cultivation, but there was still artificial selection (a.k.a. genetic manipulation) going on.] They most probably did and wheat grain growing in its natural state would have been full of nutrients and vital vitamins.[As I said, no. As soon as humans interact with a wild species, they try to domesticate it, animals and plants alike. Also, pre-agricultural grains were almost certainly not full of "nutrients" and "vital vitamins", whatever those may be. The reason crops now have high nutritional value is through artificial selection (a.k.a. genetic manipulation).] But the reason the paleo diet tells you to stop eating it, is because it is almost impossible to find wheat now that hasn't been messed with, as in hybridized, added chemicals, and sprayed pesticides.[This is, in a broad sense, true. But then again, all fruit and vegetables we eat now, and even animals, have been artifically selected/genetically manipulated as well. That's how we can have sweet apples and bananas that aren't full of seeds, etc.] Which as we know are poison and highly toxic for human consumption and is a skin irritation.[Because pesticides never get used on fruit and vegetables, apparently.] So this argument by the critics doesn't really work. It hasn't been even thought through atall. They have clearly done no research before taking the time to criticize.[Oh, and where did you do your research?] It is also certainly not a 'fad' diet and it has been proven by physical evidence that when you stop eating processed foods refined sugars and anything full of toxic chemicals that you feel much better[citation needed], any symptoms start to fade[citation needed - also, what symptoms?] and people with diseases such as diabetes or even cancer patients have been able to reverse their symptoms and become healthy once more.[CITATION NEEDED URGENTLY]

Point is, people have been artificially selecting better breeds of plants and animals for tens of thousands of years. If you look at the history of things like the modern apple, or modern corn, or the modern cow, they are all remarkably similar. They've all been bred to have more "meat", to grow larger, etc. So this notion that grains are somehow a special class of plant for having been artificially selected and cultivated is totally false. Now, to bring it back to the article. As objectively false as they may be to those of us who don't support the paleo diet, some of these claims should be mentioned (AND SOURCED) in the article, because they do form the basis of the diet, after all. But for them to be included, the "critics section" should be updated as well with sources refuting the claims. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And since the caveman diet is not an "alternative theoretical formulation from within the scientific community" this isn't relevant. It's a fad diet built on bogus science and conspiracy theories, among other things. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

O.... K.... and that is your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No. That is what the best sources say. We do not follow our opinions. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh look who is back. Actually there are sources that say that this diet has scientific merit and that available evidence seems to show that it may have benefits. But i understand that when someone just asserts something to be true here, it automatically must be true if it agrees with a house point of view. There may be some magic in your use of the word "best". SageRad (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While I think the basis of the diet is without a shred of merit, I don't think it's a bad diet. Certainly, limiting carbohydrate intake (especially from refined sugar) is a good thing. I just don't buy into its "miracle cure" claims. But I do think the basis should be covered in the article, since that's what the article is supposed to be about. Amateria1121 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Why anyone would want to base a WP article on sources that are not the best, is beyond me. The best sources are the magic in that old silk hat they found basis for high quality articles. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What you consider "best" is not what everyone considers "best" -- and it's in the continuous bending of everything to meet an agenda that things get bent and the distortions build up like plaque. If we could leave bias at the door completely then we might see eye to eye, but you know that doesn't happen. When there's a huge bias being pushed by some people, it leads to broken dialog. Dialog goes nowhere fast. It devolves into empty lawyering. And who's got time for that? SageRad (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevant sourcing policies and guidelines are clear on what is "best". Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The bias exists in your head. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's where bias exists. It's in your head, too. In all of ours. SageRad (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede strawman argumentation

It seems to me that the final paragraph of the lede props up a strawman version of Paleo diet supporters in order to knock them down with a stick:

Critics of the diet have pointed out that although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they consumed wild grains and legumes. Additionally, during the 2.6 million year long Paleolithic era, the highly variable climate and worldwide spread of human population meant that humans were, by necessity, nutritionally adaptable, in stark contrast to the claims made by Paleo diet supporters.

I question whether these claims are truly representative of "Paleo diet supporters". That phrase indicates the overwhelming majority of Paleo diet supporters -- as if they are homogenous on absolutist beliefs about eating grains or legumes in any quantity. Sometimes the critique is about the quantity and the balance of the food sources in diet. For instance, it's a common Paleo position to be against relying on many grains as a dominant food source, while including rice and small amounts of whole grain wheat or other grains, and even some amounts of legumes. I find this passage to be leading and it seems biased. At the very least, it seems unsourced. I don't see adequate sources in the body of the article to back up this lede paragraph. For now i'm going to mark it with a citation-needed tag at the least. Here, for instance, is a writing by a Paleo diet advocate who writes such things as the following, which contrast with what i've called a strawman version of "Paleo diet supporters" in the lede section above:

So what is a Paleo diet? Is it low-carb? Low-fat? Does it include dairy? Grains? ... The answer to that question depends on several factors. First, are we asking what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, or are we asking what an optimal diet for modern humans is? While hard-core Paleo adherents will argue that there’s no difference, others (including me) would suggest that the absence of a food during the Paleolithic era does not necessarily mean that it’s not nutritious or beneficial. Dairy products are a good example. Second, as recent studies have revealed, we can’t really know what our ancestors ate with 100% certainty, and there is undoubtedly a huge variation amongst different populations. For example, we have the traditional Inuit and the Masai who ate a diet high in fat (60-70% of calories for the Masai and up to 90% of calories for the Inuit), but we also have traditional peoples like the Okinawans and Kitavans that obtained a majority (60-70% or more) of their calories from carbohydrate. So it’s impossible to say that the diet of our ancestors was either “low-carb” or “low-fat”, without specifying which ancestors we’re talking about.

It seems to me that a valid critique would be against a subset of "Paleo diet supporters" who are "hardcore" or too rigid or who believe that there was a rather uniform "Paleolithic diet" shared by all humans, but that this does not represent all "Paleo diet supporters" as implied by the current content. SageRad (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Paleo Life Expectancy

Noting Sages' (correct) removal of an IP edit today pointing out the extreme differences in life human expectancy between the Paleolithic era and today, as you would expect I looked carefully at the article text. There is no mention of this comparison in the body of the article. I think there should be. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it could be a good idea, but i'd note that modern pseudo-knowledge about Paleolithic life expectancies are often mistaken. The idea that life before modern times was all "nasty, brutish, and short" is quite troubled by current interpretations in anthropology, and that the assumed short lifespans of Paleolithic humans has proven to be in part a misinterpretation of evidence. I hope the skeptical treatment will apply to this as well, without bias. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Paleo life expectancy at birth - 33 years. Life expectancy at birth in 2010 - 67 years. (from our article on longevity Life expectancy) Given this reliably sourced information, and as Paleo diet believers suggest that the diet is 'healthier', an obvious easily understood rebuttal exists. Would it be WP:UNDUE? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See, that is exactly the mythical number i was hoping would not be pushed into this article as fact, as it happens to be a mistaken interpretation of the bone record that led to that number. My other thought is that there must be another location on Wikipedia's mainspace where this question is discussed. Secondly, if you wish to tie lifespan to diet, then you need to deaggregate childhood mortality unrelated to diet. SageRad (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the 'reliably sourced' portion of my comment deliberately, Sage? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, but i am questioning its validity and i note that it's also been challenged in the literature, and that it's higher than the 1900 world average in the same table of that article, so its relevance here seems as if it would be in its use as a tool to make the Paleolithic diet look bad even without sound reasoning. SageRad (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If someone has a policy-based argument for exclusion, please make it. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That the number "33" in the table in the Life expectancy article is poorly sourced. SageRad (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, any claim relating to how life expectancy of Paleolithic people relates to a conclusion on the effectiveness or lack thereof of the Paleolithic diet would need to be supported by a good source (MEDRS compliant one would think, since it's a biomedical claim). There are so many factors that we non-expert editors could not even begin to think of. A couple examples just to illustrate might be the difference between life expectancy and that excluding infant and childhood mortality, and deaggregating other factors like the completely different lives and lack of modern medicine and other such things that are confounding factors. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful to keep this article (the topic of which is a modern fad diet) distinct from the proper study of paleolithic nutrition. Any mixture between the topics needs good RS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not a modern fad diet. That is a point of view put forth by some editors, not all. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is according to RS. A fad diet based on cod science and conspiracy theories that is part of the multi-billion Dollar fad diet industry. If you want to discuss anthropological matters, this article isn't the place - except to the extent that RS does the same. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this all again? We have a very very long discussion in a previous section of this talk page. There is not consensus that RS finds this diet to be a "fad diet" and your attempt to force that notion into acceptance is not appreciated. Some sources call it a fad diet and others do not, and others say it's not a fad diet explicitly, and therefore there is not a general sense from RS that this can be called a "fad diet" in Wikivoice. You apparently think it is. So be it. That's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't write Wikipedia alone. SageRad (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus. Some voices rail against the WP:PAG-informed view, but they can be safely discounted as part of the consensus-forming process. For the Project we follow good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm an editor who was very involved in the above discussion and i say there is not consensus. I follow policies and guidelines, thank you very much, and i see that RS disagree on this subject, and that there is not mainstream consensus that this is a "fad diet". I see others being exceptionally stubborn in regard to this question, but that cannot force a consensus to be that which it is not. Sorry, but you can't always get what you want. SageRad (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus and the article reflects it. You produced no decent RS to support your view despite many many words of protest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, i produced plenty of RS, and you're misrepresenting the conversation above. You're being so obstructionist it's starting to seem like it will be necessary to take action against you to get anything actually done cooperatively here. I'm sorry to say that but this is the clear pattern i've been seeing here since i came to this article. There is a serious effect on the article that is presenting a biased picture to the world, and editing here is completely impossible due to stubborn obstructionism. It's a disservice to the world, and to other editors. No single editor owns articles or should be able to force their POV into articles. I'm out of this conversation now, as this is totally fruitless, but i simply have to register a complete disagreement on your assessment about the nature of consensus or lack thereof here in bold text so others can see it, and then be done with this back and forth that lacks integrity. Good day sir. SageRad (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a fad diet, taking advantage of the naturalistic fallacy, ignorance of evolution, ignorance of nutrition science, ignorance of archaeology. To write a proper encyclopedia article about the topic, we cannot take the worldview of the diet. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that, and not all relevant RS agree with that. Your opinion is your opinion. SageRad (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You've made your personal view abundantly clear, but it is of no consequence here. We follow the good sources we've got. You have produced no decent sources. Your behaviour on this page in starting to get disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the opposite to be true -- i find your behavior to be extremely disruptive already, not just "starting to be".... but this back and forth is fruitless and isn't it a bit off topic? SageRad (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To bring it back to the original discussion here, the discrepancy in life expectancies between the paleolithic era and the contemporary era likely has little to do with diet. The reason it was so low then was because of the very high levels of infant and childhood mortality, as well as mortality during childbirth. People definitely lived into their 60s, but were far more likely to die as children than in the contemporary era. The reason we know this is because of the very low life expectancies in certain countries today, notably Angola, where it's 38.2 years (according to our own article). People like to talk about how a good diet can prolong life, but it'd be impossible to measure that extension (if it even does happen). So, diet has little statistical bearing on life expectancy - and therefore, should not have been in the article. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Naturalistic fallacy - appeal to nature

It is not appropriate to add "naturalistic fallacy" without adequate reliable sourcing that shows that it's a mainstream view that the Paleolithic diet concept is a product of the naturalistic fallacy. Just because it's a plank in the Skeptic™ platform doesn't make it a mainstream viewpoint adequate to source this claim that is implied by including this in the "See also" section. It seems a sly way to imply a critique without actually making one that would need to be sourced and i don't like it. Can we cease this wave of editing for POV pushing please? Anyway, i don't see the naturalistic fallacy at work in the basic rational for this diet. There is a a rational hypothesis based on evolutionary history at work, not a naturalistic fallacy. This edit is not justified. SageRad (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated, sources are available and it should be incorporated into the article itself. Let's work on that instead. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have to be reliable sourcing that shows that it's the dominant mainstream view of the diet. I don't see that. I'm removing the edit for the time being until you produce reliable sourcing that shows that the dominant view of this diet is that it's based solely on a naturalistic fallacy and not any genuine scientific basis (as is stated in Katz/Meller which is already in the article, and which contradicts the inclusion of naturalistic fallacy). I see this currently as POV pushing. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"See also" links are for tangential topics, they are not categories. Thus the question here is whether naturalistic fallacy is an interesting tangent for our readers. I think it probably is. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor, i disagree. I find it to be a leading link that insinuates a point of view based judgment about the article's subject. We could also include a link to Rabbits or Love Canal as those might also be of interests to readers, but they're not really relevant here either. SageRad (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And, it's been re-reverted here, of course, against consensus and with discussion underway here... to be expected in this uncooperative and unreasonable editing environment. SageRad (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to get to this immediately. Possible sources (need to be reviewed for quality and reliability): --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-paleo-movement-and-the-naturalistic-fallacy

  Given the nature of Big Think, I think the reliability and quality rests upon the author's expertise as much as the publishers fact-checking. David Ropeik seems fine in this context. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/naturalistic-fallacy/

  The article is currently in the Further reading section. There are other potential sources under https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/paleolithic-diet/ --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.theironsamurai.com/2013/12/29/diet-pseudoscience-falsification-naturalistic-fallacy/

  Not a reliable source for this article. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/12/04/the-naturalistic-fallacy-strikes-again/

  By PZ Myers, but probably too far off topic to use. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/18/paleo-diet-critics-science (doesn't verify the info, but might be helpful elsewhere)

It's good to be back to discussing sources! Science-Based Medicine is good on this. It's clear that in RS this fallacy plays a role informing the silliness of the paleo diet. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you can find subcultural Skeptic™ sources that will support the subcultural Skeptic™ fringe POV. That's easy to predict. Gorski et al. are more than happy to blog about this. And there are also good scientific review articles (secondary sources) that affirm that there is a valid scientific basis for the approach to eating, but you're ignoring those with your eagerness to push this interpretation. Note that most of the sources above are seriously Skeptic™ POV sources, and not mainstream sources. You can of course find several sources that would use the term "naturalistic fallacy" but this does not mean that the general mainstream sense about this approach to eating is that it is so. That's not the case, to be quite clear. SageRad (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is not to reflect Skeptic™ points of view, any more than it is to present the point of view of any other point of view. Note that well. SageRad (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a properly skeptical publication. WP:PARITY encourages us to uses sources like SBM for fringe topics such as this. You are quite wrong that other points of view have equal weight: that's another fallacy in action: WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia asks us to prefer secondary articles in the field of relevant expertise. That would be in this case the Katz/Meller paper which clearly states that there is a scientific basis for the Paleolithic diet. Sorry but i think you're wrong about the policy here. Wikipedia is not tasked with following the Skeptic™ subculture. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of a link to Naturalistic Fallacy, it would be more appropriate to link to Appeal to nature. The latter precisely describes the rationale for the diet: it's good because it's the way things are meant to be, i.e. it's natural. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, in real terms that seems more accurate to what it is, and not pejorative but instead rather value-neutral. Note that an appeal to nature is not inherently a fallacy. There is a logic to appealing to a "natural" state in that it's been tested, effectively, by the long arc of time, and also that the organism in question has co-evolved with the foods in question and is suited to the foods. Note that in zoos, animals are generally fed something akin to what they eat in their natural setting, because of this very thing, the fact that they are adapted to eating that and it is likely to suit their organismic needs better than whatever humans might dream up as alternatives. There's something to sticking with the natural as default that is sound reasoning and not inherently a fallacy. SageRad (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, appeal to nature is what I was looking for, and appears to be what others are referring to.

Appeal to nature is indeed a fallacy. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it.(turns out it was already linked) To be clear, the naturalistic fallacy is something completely different from what this article describes. The appeal to nature better suits it too because the term, in some ways, reflects the controversy of the diet. Supporters appeal to nature because it's a facile argument, and it's often accurate; opponents view that appeal to nature as a logistical fallacy, a way of justifying fact-free claims. Including the term in the See Also links doesn't pass judgment either way. Amateria1121 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see some editors searching for sources to support a desired point of view. If you want to talk about sources, how about a review article in the relevant field (nutrition)? Katz/Meller's 2014 review article says:

The particular focus in Paleolithic diets is on emulating the dietary pattern of our Stone Age ancestors with an emphasis on avoiding processed foods, and the intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, eggs, and lean meats. In principle at least, dairy and grains are excluded entirely. Arguments for a Paleolithic diet derived initially, not from modern science, but from the universal relevance of adaptation. We may note, without debate or conflict, that the native diet of any species other than our own is clearly relevant to food selection. Zoological parks do not feed wild animals in captivity based on randomized trials; they feed them based substantially on the diets of their counterparts in the wild. That Homo sapiens should be the one species for which native diet is irrelevant defies reason, and there is thus good reason to examine at least the basis for Paleolithic eating. There is a fairly strong case for the principle of a Paleolithic-style diet in the anthropology literature. The biomedical literature has limited evidence for this diet compared with the evidence for other dietary patterns reviewed here, but it is generally supportive.

I would say that this paper, a secondary article in the relevant field in a peer-reviewed journal, would trump a Skeptic™ blogger with an axe to grind about fallacies, and it shows a clear appeal to nature that makes sense. SageRad (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If "some editors searching for sources to support a desired point of view" is a problem, why are you doing it? --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Katz & Meller is a usable source, especially on the public health aspects here (though it's not really a review article). It doesn't give much depth of treatment however - more sources means a better article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. The paragraph quoted above demonstrates some serious limitations though. Could you spot what they're using to support, "There is a fairly strong case for the principle of a Paleolithic-style diet in the anthropology literature"? --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about POV of this article

There is a wave of POV pushing that's already ravaged this article and is still underway at this very moment. Just pointing that out for everyone who comes here to know that at least one editor sees this. Of course, the POV pushing editors are currently piling on as you can see on this talk page. General sense of great bias here. This is how Wikipedia suffers distortion. And they'll probably even seek sanctions against me for saying this. Anyway... a person must be able to be human. SageRad (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The only issue is what the sources say and the level of quality of those sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That begs the question of "Which sources?" and a bias in selection of sources will cause a bias in the article. Also, a bias in interpretation of sources will cause a bias in the article. Also, obstructionism in the editing behavior for pushing of POV will cause a bias in he article. So, i beg to differ. There are many issues here that can introduce POV bias. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

More POV pushing by deleting neutral or positive links about the article's topic. I reverted this one here. It's one more example of the heavy heavy wind of POV pushing that's been happening. SageRad (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Why include a cook book? Please note WP:NOTRECIPE. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Sage will give us a policy-based reason why he added it. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well after that snark, i didn't feel like being in this convo, but as the edit's been rerevrted due to "no answer on the talk page" i will give an answer. A link to a cookbook is not providing recipes in the article, and it's a taste of the sort of material that's available in regard to the topic of this article, and therefore it feels like a good thing to have in this article under "Further reading" and it's good to have things other than polemics against this approach to eating listed. SageRad (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. -- i didn't add the book to the "Further reading" section. It was already there for a while. I just reverted its deletion from the section. I'm not seriously attached to it, but it's one more little step in the erosion of this article with a bias. SageRad (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for keeping the cookbook. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, consensus is for removal. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What makes you read that as consensus, given that i've just clearly stated my reasoned opinion that removal is not warranted? What's your definition of "consensus" here? Please do explain. SageRad (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You want a "policy-based reason" for inclusion? Because it's relevant, and useful to the reader, and Wikipedia is here to serve the reader. It's a norm that many articles have a "Further reading" section that includes some relevant links and materials that give an idea to the reader of the scope of the article's subject. Because editors are intended to discuss content cooperatively and give each other some consideration, and assume good faith, and discuss rationally what would best serve the reader. Because that's what this place is -- not a place for people to work out their personal issues and grind their personal axes. SageRad (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

General agreement based on the WP:PAGs. You just gave effectively a vote, with not a WP:PAG in sight. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to become a wikilawyer and give you alphabet soup to be working based on policies and guidelines. I find too much alphabet soup and wikilawyering to be generally onerous anyway. Your argument is empty. I stated reasons based on guidelines. I don't need to reference section and letter to work here. SageRad (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is apparently your article. I have no place being here, i guess. You are the expert. You WP:OWN this article, and there's no hope in me working here cooperatively with the sorts of toxic and onerous attitudes being employed. Good luck with your article. You have certainly claimed WP:OWNership over it. SageRad (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Back on the subject of the cookbook: I can't find any sample chapters or the like, just descriptions. Seems to be a typical cook book, so I'd say it shouldn't be included given WP:NOTRECIPE, WP:FURTHER, WP:Further reading. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite so: it's not notable, it's not particularly RS for this topic - and indeed it doesn't even seem to be about the topic, but to be ... just a recipe book. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

From your WP:FURTHER:

An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject.

And... that is where a recipe book in the vein of this approach to eating that is called Paleolithic diet, would fit. It would be one among a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers to learn more about the subject. That's precisely what i said above. I didn't cite an alphabetic WP: link but that's what i said. However, the main notable thing about this discussion is that there is a forcing of bias into this article, which is shown pretty clearly by your hostility to this cookbook's inclusion here, while you like having a list of polemics in the Further reading list that express a Skeptic™ position and denigrate the Paleo diet as a "fad diet" and the like... and i'm exasperated by the level of WP:POV RAILROAD behavior going on here. You've successfully driven away editors who have a desire to edit this article with a fair approach and without an axe to grind from a particular viewpoint. You WP:OWN this article. Happy? Good day. SageRad (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, i've asked for more eyes on this article over at the NPOV noticeboard. I have other things to do but i hope that more eyes with a focus on NPOV basics will be helpful here. SageRad (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Recipes are inappropriate per NOT, correct? That means in articles and linked from articles, correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Simple answer -- we weren't giving recipes in the article. It was a link to a themed cookbook, and that's not what the policy is about. So there is your answer. Acknowledgement of this would be cool. SageRad (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"The two top Paleo bloggers have come together to write the ultimate Paleo cookbook with over 100 recipes!" ← so, you're saying this is a good further reading source for our readers to find out more on the topic of the Paleo Diet? Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So yes to the first question, no to the second? If that's the answer, then why would it be appropriate to link to a book of recipes when such content is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry? --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In brief, i, as an editor, think that a link to a cookbook on the theme of this diet would add something to the reader's experience, to see that cookbooks of this kind exist, and because there's probably good content other than recipes, in addition to the recipes. And secondly, it is not the same thing to link to such a book as it would be to include the actual recipes from the book in this article. Thirdly, this is pretty much what "Further reading" is for -- to give a sampling of other literature on the topic, of all kinds -- from your Skeptical blog polemics against it, to books that might support it, to anything in between that editors find relevant with fair reasoning and good faith. But note that i didn't add that cookbook to begin with and i've got no serious love for it or hate for it. What i am more troubled by is the seriously contentious nature of every single inch of dialogue on this talk page, and every little niggling detail being disputed as if it's the end of the world, and as if there's a secret plot by communists to infiltrate the U.S. through the "Paleolithic diet" article in Wikipedia. It feels odd. Anyway, i've got to go. SageRad (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So you believe Further reading sections is for linking to information that is non-encyclopedic. That's a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe in following the guidelines as in WP:FURTHER. SageRad (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "academically unsupported"

I made this edit because the premise is not academically unsupported, as the Katz/Meller 2014 paper provides a supporting statement, and earlier papers do as well, going back to 1939. If you read the "History and terminology" section of the article, you will see:

The idea of a paleolithic diet can be traced to the work in the 1970s by gastroenterologist Walter Voegtlin. The idea was later developed by Stanley Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner, and popularized by Loren Cordain in his 2002 book The Paleo Diet.

So, it's not "academically unsupported". That's a phrase designed to attack the subject of this article, which is overall the tone and bias in this article that i've called out to the great consternation of a group of people who want to demonize it. Thanks! SageRad (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we've reached a stage that unless you have some concrete proposals with RS to improve the article, you might consider that editors are very tired of your continued trolling. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to the above - the process is you gain talkpage consensus before making contentious changes. Not the other way around. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions of trolling aside, there are aspects of the article content which would appear, to the reasonable observer, to fail WP:NPOV; specifically w.r.t tone. The phrasing "academically unsupported", as removed by SageRad, is, in my opinion, not aligned to our core policies. We should endeavour to find a better way to convey the same information; attributing opinions to those who hold them, rather than presenting them in Wikipedia's voice. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"Academically unsupported" is not the best wording, but the diet is based on misconception and fallacy. We need to be clear about that precisely to be in line with core policy on neutrality. Ideally the flaky basis of the diet needs more & better treatment in the body, and then we can simply summarize in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is any replacement for academically unsupported (*some* qualification needs to be in there) generally comes off sounding a lot worse. As per Alexbrn, trying to write a sentence that makes it clear it is a diet that is not scientifically supported comes across more heavy-handed. 'Academically unsupported' is one of the least overtly negative ways of describing it. What some people forget is that NPOV requires us to edit from a neutral state, that does not in any way mean we do not describe things as they are. Even if that is positive/negative. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:IMPARTIAL & WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is not an uncommon type of content dispute, and should not require that we not align with policies. For mine, the answer would be to simply split and attribute the POV from the objective "fact".

X is a fad diet based on...
versus
Y is a diet based on.... It is regarded by Zcientists as a fad diet...

Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If the relevant scientists classify it as a "fad diet" so does Wikipedia; attributing it has the non-neutral effect of making a dispute appear when there is none - see WP:ASSERT. We do not say "scientists believe" the earth goes round the sun, that man descended from the apes, or that homeopathy is pseudoscience. Because these things are not seriously disputed in RS we must simply assert them. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect, this is the Flat Earth article. cf. Geocentrism, we neutrally describe the geocentric model, even though we know it to be false. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The main difference there is that Flat Earth view of the universe was superseded due to scientific advance. The "paleo diet" is a new fad based on purportedly 'current' science. Flat earth does not need to be refuted as strongly because of its age. No one sane thinks it is correct today. The same cannot be said of paleo proponents, hence the stronger description as per the scientific consensus on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Our article says the flat earth idea is an "archaic conception"; it does not say "scientists classify the flat earth idea as archaic conception". We can & should just assert the undisputed mainstream, as here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

By which policy are we refusing to align with WP:NPOV? Flat Earth is not refuted in its description in that article. Like every similar article, it should not be difficult to neutrally document the subject, and to also neutrally document the reactions & opinions on that subject. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we avoid the WP:GEVAL trap of giving undue weight to fringe opinions. We faithfully reflect good sources. We can include whatever opinions are in those sources, but we shouldn't do our readers disservice of making the settled mainstream classification look like a mere "opinion". Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ryk72's suggestion is exactly what i have been urging to be adopted for this article (although it's not "regarded by scientists as a fad diet" but rather by "some" or by "some commenters" or some such thing because it's not even regarded by all scientists as a "fad diet". As for Alexbrn's comment there, this is not at all the same as the question of whether the Earth goes around the sun. Stop playing it off as if it's established by science that this is a fad diet. That's a deep interpretive question and there is not a scientific consensus about that question. That's a rhetorical move there. SageRad (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before. There is no RS that disputes the fad diet classification. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we have been through this before -- in a long discussion in a previous talk page section -- and there are RS that dispute the "fad diet" label, as well as there are RS that show that there is some scientific basis for the premise of this approach to eating. I don't expect you to act any differently here than in the previous discussion, though. SageRad (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of "trolling" are complete bullshit -- stop the bullshit. Knock it off. Knock off the heavy handed POV pushing as well. Knock off the bullshit folks, it's not alright. There are reams of guidelines and policies against the ways you're acting. Knock off the bias pushing, knock off the uncivil behavior-- you're making a mockery of Wikipedia. You WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and you WP:POV RAILROAD and you don't seem to give a shit about it, you're so without qualms about your own behavior. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please get real Jytdog.... this is bullshit here and you know it. SageRad (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So yeah, my "concrete proposal" is that we remove "academically unsupported" because it's not true and it's unuustified -- and my other proposal is that you people act like editors worthy of Wikipedia, which you're not doing here. SageRad (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that there is academic support for the premise of the diet, and that seems to be clear reason why the phrase "academically unsupported" should not be applied to "premise" here -- what's incorrect about that? Do you dispute that there is academic support for the premise of the diet, or do you just not like it, or are you saying "i don't hear that"? What is your justification for pushing this negative phrase into the article? Back to content -- so discuss content, with specifics, with respect to the actual fact that there is academic support for the premise of the diet and therefore this phrase in not accurate. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To return to the one source that's been brought up:

The particular focus in Paleolithic diets is on emulating the dietary pattern of our Stone Age ancestors with an emphasis on avoiding processed foods, and the intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, eggs, and lean meats. In principle at least, dairy and grains are excluded entirely. Arguments for a Paleolithic diet derived initially, not from modern science, but from the universal relevance of adaptation. We may note, without debate or conflict, that the native diet of any species other than our own is clearly relevant to food selection. Zoological parks do not feed wild animals in captivity based on randomized trials; they feed them based substantially on the diets of their counterparts in the wild. That Homo sapiens should be the one species for which native diet is irrelevant defies reason, and there is thus good reason to examine at least the basis for Paleolithic eating. There is a fairly strong case for the principle of a Paleolithic-style diet in the anthropology literature. The biomedical literature has limited evidence for this diet compared with the evidence for other dietary patterns reviewed here, but it is generally supportive.

This review paper does not say that the diet is academically supported. It says that the premise, in principle, is largely anthropological, and not biomedical. I think that's an important thing to take away from the quote. The idea of a paleolithic-style diet (apparently) makes sense to anthropologists, but not to doctors or nutritionists (i.e. biomedicalists). If you consider the anthropological literature relevant to discussions of nutrition, then at best you can say there is no academic consensus that the diet's premise is valid. Amateria1121 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

But that is academically supporting it, right there in itself, in the Katz/Meller paper, and also there are other sources that have been brought up in this talk page section, like Stanley Boyd Eaton, who did clearly also academically support it. We can certainly say that there is no academic consensus that the diet's premise is valid, but we can't rightly say that it's "academically unsupported" because that's false. I think i'm in agreement with you mainly, Amateria1121. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess that depends on if you define "academic support" as meaning "academic consensus in favor of", which I usually do. There's always going to be some crank papers out there in the literature - not that I think the Katz+Miller review is an example, I'm just saying, it takes a lot of evidence before scientists (myself included) will call something "academically supported". Of course, that's not the ultimate standard of truth, because there's a lot of bullshit in the science world, especially with how papers get peer-reviewed and published. In this case I can't really think of a better phrasing, unless you want to say something like "academically questionable" or "controversial". Amateria1121 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• the idea of the deleted language "not academically supported" is basically saying that the idea behind the diet and the diet itself do not have support of the medical/scientific community. Many fringey ideas are built on cherrypicked published research (e.g. the Ancient astronaut hypothesis makes use of studies of ancient buildings and building techniques; the Alkaline diet grounds itself on studies on done on rabbits, etc etc.). Yes it is possible to cobble together this paper or that to show "academic support" but the consensus of the scientific/medical community is that the idea of a meat-driven "caveman diet" is hogwash and the idea the "paleo diet" is good for you is also not a mainsteam medical/scientific view. This is what the bulk of reliable sources say about it and per PAG we follow the main line of research; we don't emphasize this one or that one study that contradicts the mainstream view. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I say to leave that phrase out. It's a loaded term that appears to be in the article to cast aspersion on the subject of the article. We have the choice between these two versions:

"The diet is based on the academically unsupported premise that Paleolithic humans evolved nutritional needs specific to the foods available at that time"

or

"The diet is based on the premise that Paleolithic humans evolved nutritional needs specific to the foods available at that time"

or, i suppose,

"The diet is based on the academically controversial premise that Paleolithic humans evolved nutritional needs specific to the foods available at that time"

I argue for the second version as it's not loaded with a pejorative and incorrect phrase. I do not read "academically unsupported" to mean "academically controversial" which would be accurate. I read it to mean "devoid of support" and this is not actually true as is documented elsewhere in the article itself, even. SageRad (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not "academically controversial." It is a nonmainstream interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation that has become a pseudoscientific money-making engine. This is a lot like "brain training" which is also pseudoscience hooey and money-making hoopla. The snake oil of our day. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that expresses very well your prejudice toward the subject of this article. It is indeed academically controversial. It's discussed academically with regard to the extent of its validity and beneficiality. SageRad (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This ties in with my earlier question [6]. I'm still getting up to speed on the science, but note there have been past discussions on it (eg Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_5#.22Rationale.22_and_.22Criticism.22_sections)

It's fringe science, specifically the discordance hypothesis. It's untestable, based upon an appeal to nature and poor research. The assumption that there is one "native diet" for all humans is wrong. The assumption that there is one gene set for a specific diet is wrong. The assumption that evolution optimizes for health in general is wrong. The assumption that humans have stopped evolving to adapt to their diets is wrong.

There is academic support, it's just very bad, fringe science. Given we don't have an article on the discordance hypothesis, I don't know how to qualify the material concisely. Maybe we should look at having a section on the discordance hypothesis? --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad for there to be controversy (not just fringe) there need to be voices that are taken seriously in mainstream science that support the Paleo Diet and its hypoethesis. (not sources that are cited as a basis for the hypothesis, but rather sources that actually support the hypothesis and especially the diet based on it) What are those sources that support your position? Please provide them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question, Jytdog, happy to oblige:

• Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet (2009)
• Diet and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Review of Patient-Targeted Recommendations
• Established dietary estimates of net acid production do not predict measured net acid excretion in patients with Type 2 diabetes on Paleolithic–Hunter–Gatherer-type diets

Those are three academically published papers that look at specific effects of a Paleo type diet.

A primary paper on the premise of the diet is:

• Eaton, S.B. and Konner, M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985; 31: 283–289

A later review on this is:

• Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997).

SageRad (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that some of those support the hypothesis, or just assume it? --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Some do. There is a third more recent broad review of the premise and further results papers like this one. SageRad (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to quote, because I'm not finding it anywhere.

Eaton and Konner have never offered a testable hypothesis, don't appear to be interested in offering any, and no one else is trying. Research is being done based upon their assumptions, but the assumptions are all questionable if not outright wrong. The assertions that the assumptions of the "discordance hypothesis" are based upon the anthropology, as Katz and Meller state, appear to be only assertions and cherry picking. This is classic fringe science, venturing into pseudoscience. As such, we're finding lots of skeptical criticism, occasional announcements of more science that contradicts their assumptions, and no real research.

I don't know why "academically" is being used. "Scientifically unsupported assumptions" appears more accurate from what I've read so far. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We editors are not experts and don't get to evaluate. However, it appears that there are valid academic and scientific sources that publish expert authors who do view the premise as valid. Therefore I think it would be wrong to call it either scientifically or academically unsupported. These papers support both of these points. SageRad (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to evaluate anything, but that means you're going to have a difficult time participating in discussions and consensus-making.

You do need to demonstrate the sources actually support what they say they do, if you want any changes made to the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd assume it's already been pointed out that entire premise of the diet is bogus as there is no monolithic hunter-gatherer cuisine and that our ancestors made use of basically everything edible that was available to them in a given environment. There has to be sources that point this out. Fairly recent studies of Australian aboriginals show they've included starchy vegetables in their diets such as wild taro, yams and sweet potatoes for as long as there have been humans on the continent. The idea that hunter-gathers wouldn't make use of the various starchy vegetables and grains in the extraordinarily diverse environments humans existed during the paleolithic era is preposterous. Capeo (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think i am obliged to spoon-feed you. I think i have done enough to point to plenty of evidence that the premise is not academically or scientifically unsupported. Shall i tell you what the meaning of the word is is? How far are you going to take this game? SageRad (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot provide evidence when asked, your ability to participate in consensus-building here is at risk. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Capeo: See the last paragraph the Adaptation section concerning variety. The actual evidence appears to support that early humans adapted to a varied diet. As far as starch digestion goes, see the last paragraph of the article concerning amylase genes. It's hypothesized that cooking and other food processing was an important evolutionary driver for early man. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Specific quotes from above papers at request of editor

Paleolithic nutrition: twenty-five years later.

A quarter century has passed since the first publication of the evolutionary discordance hypothesis, according to which departures from the nutrition and activity patterns of our hunter-gatherer ancestors have contributed greatly and in specifically definable ways to the endemic chronic diseases of modern civilization. Refinements of the model have changed it in some respects, but anthropological evidence continues to indicate that ancestral human diets prevalent during our evolution were characterized by much lower levels of refined carbohydrates and sodium, much higher levels of fiber and protein, and comparable levels of fat (primarily unsaturated fat) and cholesterol. Physical activity levels were also much higher than current levels, resulting in higher energy throughput. We said at the outset that such evidence could only suggest testable hypotheses and that recommendations must ultimately rest on more conventional epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies. Such studies have multiplied and have supported many aspects of our model, to the extent that in some respects, official recommendations today have targets closer to those prevalent among hunter-gatherers than did comparable recommendations 25 years ago. Furthermore, doubts have been raised about the necessity for very low levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol intake common in official recommendations. Most impressively, randomized controlled trials have begun to confirm the value of hunter-gatherer diets in some high-risk groups, even as compared with routinely recommended diets. Much more research needs to be done, but the past quarter century has proven the interest and heuristic value, if not yet the ultimate validity, of the model.

Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2010 Dec;25(6):594-602. doi: 10.1177/0884533610385702. from the paper:

Although not an across-the-board vindication of the HG model, and despite some changes from our macronutrient estimates as originally presented, research in the past quarter century has vindicated the clinical and epidemiological relevance of the model. Without supplying numbers, some of which might be controversial, we can confidently estimate the direction and magnitude of the modern diet’s deviation from the HG diet in the range of EEAs (Table 1). More notably, research has suggested that where the model departed from standard 1985 recommendations, a shift toward the model would contribute further to primary prevention of several important diseases. Indeed, in some instances, the standard recommendations have already shifted in that direction (Table 2). This is the case for total serum cholesterol; it is now considered highly desirable to be under 180 mg/dL, whereas in 1985, the threshold was 200. We predict that the threshold will be lowered further in future recommendations.

SageRad (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

and more.... this one a specific clinical analysis

Paleolithic and Mediterranean diet pattern scores and risk of incident, sporadic colorectal adenomas. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2014 Dec 1;180(11):1088-97. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu235.

The Western dietary pattern is associated with higher risk of colorectal neoplasms. Evolutionary discordance could explain this association. We investigated associations of scores for 2 proposed diet patterns, the "Paleolithic" and the Mediterranean, with incident, sporadic colorectal adenomas in a case-control study of colorectal polyps conducted in Minnesota (1991-1994). ... These findings suggest that greater adherence to the Paleolithic diet pattern and greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet pattern may be similarly associated with lower risk of incident, sporadic colorectal adenomas.

..... and i could go on... and you'd probably tell me i'm writing too much. Well, you asked for some specifics. These are some, and there is a lot more that could be quoted. So... would you say it's maybe wrong to call the premise "academically unsupported" or "scientifically unsupported"? I certainly think that's an incorrect phrase to apply to the premise. SageRad (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what you're quoting, don't recognize what the sources are that you are quoting from, and didn't understand what I was referring to when I wrote, "Eaton and Konner have never offered a testable hypothesis, don't appear to be interested in offering any, and no one else is trying." --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think i understand what it all means here, Ronz. How do you get off talking like this? You don't get to own an article through obstructionism. There is clear evidence that the premise is not "academically unsupported" or "scientifically unsupported". You're being obstructionist here. You can't just say "I don't think you understand..." and have that as your argument. So, tell me what leads you to believe that the premise is academically or scientifically unsupported in light of academic/scientific papers i have quoted at length to spoon-feed you very obvious evidence of science and academia supporting the premise? Seriously now.. this game is getting quite old and i am getting old in the meantime. SageRad (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sage, none of the above in any way indicates academic acceptance. There is no major clinical body that recommends this diet in the way it's laid out. The hypothesis it is based upon already disproven. Human diets were more varied and included foods this diet excludes during the Paleolithic. What you're doing is cherry picking papers that basically show when people stop eating fast food and TV dinners as the mainstay of their diet and eat healthier they are, not shockingly, healthier. In fact the last one shows that a diet that is almost diametrically opposed to the paleodiet had the same results. If you look up the medical conditions that the diet was found to be beneficial for you'll find clinical recommendations for diets. None of them are the paleodiet. You can find papers that show positive results for any number of hokey ideas but what you are missing is the larger body of scientific recommendations which give better results. That's why you can't just cherry pick sources and say it's supported. Capeo (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking for other eyes

Biscuittin, you offered... what do you think of the above discussion? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please summarize what the dispute is about? Biscuittin (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - wish I had time to immediately respond to the responses above, but I don't)

There's a model, called the discordance hypothesis, that is the basis for the Paleo Diet, as well as a great deal of research. I don't think anyone is disputing this.

The discordance hypothesis model is not scientifically testable, and is fringe science. I'm not clear if anyone is disputing this in a meaningful way backed by sources.

What research being done related to the model itself just chips away at the model, showing more and more how its assumptions are questionable if not wrong. There doesn't appear to be anyone conducting research to better ground the model in science.

Again, I'm not sure what "academically unsupported premise" means, nor where it comes from. I think "academically unsupported" assumes to much, but so does "premise". The model makes assumptions and runs with them. It was poor science in 1985, fringe science now. Without a good discussion about the model to refer to, a section in this or some other Wikipedia article, it's going to be difficult so summarize in the lede why the model is so very poor in light of the science. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you please give me some really solid evidence to show that the discordance model is "fringe science" when it's being discussed in numerous reputable journals in serious science papers? Who declares what is "fringe science" and what is "acceptable science"? Do you occupy that role, Ronz? What makes an idea that has been written about by real academics in real peer-reviewed journals for around 30 years if not longer, "fringe science"? You make not agree with it, but there is a clear distinction in WP:FRINGE about what is "fringe" and what's not. SageRad (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What's been going on here is that there is a faction of people who are keeping "academically unsupported" in the article by edit warring despite clear and obvious evidence that there it is not factual, and they have been extending the dialogue ad nauseum with obstinacy that is really beyond WP:IDHT. See the above dialogue. If you don't have time to do that, then don't, but it's really astounding. SageRad (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making the mistake that so many people that want treat fringe views as valid often do. Scientists don't bother disproving nonsense. You're not going to find a paper that sets out to disprove discordance hypothesis because it was silly at the outset and ignored. You're not going to find papers trying to disprove equally silly things like plasma cosmology either. You'll find plenty of papers about plasma cosmology with same names popping up much like discordance hypothesis but scientists don't bother disuputing things that don't fit any model of evidence. The same proponents will publish but nobody cares. There's endless evidence that the hypothesis is wrong. Isotope studies of teeth and bones show diets were not in concordance with the claims of the hypothesis, studies of food remnants on teeth are not in concordance with said claims, food remnants on stone tools are not in concordance with the hypothesis, genetic evidence is not in concordance with it. You have this weird expectation that in the conclusions of these studies there should be a "this disproves discordance hypothesis" sentence when nobody cares about it. Capeo (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC)The conflict is about the level of acceptance of the Paleo Diet as both a scientific concept and as a clinically recommendable diet that has any form of scientific backing. Frankly, it's neither. The hypothesis it's based on, the evolutionary discordance hypothesis, posits that many, if not all, of the metabolic and other diseases we deal with today are largely due to our divergence from the diet of our Paleolithic ancestors. It says we evolved to eat a specific diet. The hypothesis came about around 30 years ago and has two main proponents still, Konner and Eaton. Aside from them you'll find nothing as we now know paleodiets varied hugely based on environment and included foods this diet excludes as well as the fact we also now know human evolutionary adaptation to diets is quite quick in evolutionary terms as there are extant populations with large variation in how their bodies process food. The reason that in 30 years it's never moved from hypothesis to theory is because it's rather preposterous in the face of the archeological and genetic data we have. When it comes to the diet fad that sprung from this hypothesis? Well, it took on a life of its own as diet fads often do no matter how shaky their scientific basis is. The main conflict is coming from SageRad disputing the lack of academic acceptance of the diet. Rather than repeat myself I'd just say look at my response to them above. When it comes to fringe science it's not unusual to find studies that show positive results but the issue is always context. Showing X is better than Y has little meaning when nobody says Y is better in the first place. The problem is that X is never compared to Z, which in this case would be the dietary recommendations of major scientific bodies. So you always run into these conflicts with fringe subjects. The argument that this paper shows a positive result when it's not actually comparing its claim to the larger body of scientific works. There are no scientific bodies that recommend the Paleo Diet. Capeo (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We are editors, not experts qualified to evaluate whether the discordance model has merit or not. I personally think it has a lot of merit, and i think Capeo also misrepresents it above in an effort to discredit it (i.e. strawman fallacy) but i admit that i am personally not qualified to evaluate it for Wikipedia readers. That is why i go to reliable sources for their evaluations. I have found and posted about seven papers here in peer-reviewed journals, who all write of the Paleo diet with support, and many of which refer to the discordance model as a valid model, as well. Who i am, and who is Capeo, and who is Ronz, to evaluate this for Wikipedia? To paraphrase Emily Dickinson, I'm nobody, who are you? We're all nobodys here, but the literature is what we use to determine whether a claim is verifiable. Here i have provided plenty of evidence in the form of statements in reliable sources that the premise of the Paleo diet is not "academically unsupported" and yet other editors here insist on keeping that in the article. This strikes me as having an axe to grind against the subject of this article, this stubborn resistance to evidence. Anyway, i'm not going to personally get into debating whether the discordance model has merit, although i would love to, because this is WP:NOTFORUM and we are editors, not experts. We go to the sources, and that is what i've done here. SageRad (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you for reliable sources (not any old sources, but rather "reliable sources" as we use that term in WP) that support the hypothesis and the diet based on it.

You provided:

• a paper reporting a small (9 people) clinical trial. This is not a reliable source for health information. Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet (2009)
• a 2014 review ( a good secondary source per MEDRS) that explicitly disclaims judging the hypothesis or the diet and just reports on data about what we know about Paleo and IBD. It says there is no evidence about that. (the description of the paleo is pretty good btw) Diet and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Review of Patient-Targeted Recommendations
• like the first, this is the publication of a small clinical trial (13 people) - a primary source Established dietary estimates of net acid production do not predict measured net acid excretion in patients with Type 2 diabetes on Paleolithic–Hunter–Gatherer-type diets
• This paper is the source of the diet and is not commenting on it, right? It is also not WP:INDY Eaton, S.B. and Konner, M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985; 31: 283–289
• This paper is an update by the authors who originated the diet. Also not WP:INDY Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997).

so you brought one reliable source and it doesn't support the hypothesis or the diet. So I'll ask you again - what reliable sources can you bring that support the hypothesis and more importantly the diet? Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not evaluating support for a biomedical claim here. We're evaluating whether it's fair to write that the premise is "academically unsupported" which isn't a claim that requires WP:MEDRS sources. The premise seems to be discussed in academic papers, and to have some support. It's controversial. It's not decided. We're not claiming anything regarding health with this discussion here. There are many hypotheses that would test a Paleo diet's health claims. We are simply showing that it is not "academically unsupported" which is a claim that seems to be stating an untruth in Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are saying that the hypothesis about what humans digest well is not biomedical, and the claims about the diet being healthy are not biomedical? I am not arguing for "academically unsupported". You are arguing for "controversial" and I said that for it to be controversial there have to good sources advocating for the hypothesis and the diet. What are they? Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then, how about we delete "academically unsupported" from the article? After all, that's what this is all about in the first place. SageRad (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I give up. This is not a biomedical claim? Really? SageRad seems to simply not understand how to weigh sources in the face of scientific consensus. It's just the typical cherry picking papers while ignoring the actual weight of those sources against the scientific body of evidence that contradicts them. Maybe I'll head over to plasma cosmology, grab a bunch of papers in favor of it, and overturn the standard model. Capeo (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for giving up. SageRad (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a growing consensus to delete "academically unsupported". Any current objection to doing so, with reasoning? SageRad (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, let's delete "academically unsupported". Biscuittin (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No. And once again you fail to demonstrate you understand basic wikipedia concepts like consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• What's your specific objection to removing "academically unsupported"? Please don't be uncivil or obstructionist.
• We see above that after all this time, Jytdog said he's not objecting to removing "academically unsupported" and apparently misunderstood the question all this time.
• We see above that Capeo declared giving up.
• I've provided a decent number of reliable sources that show support for the premise and therefore "academicially unsupported" is inaccurate.

Please don't be obstructionist or stuck on a point just for the sake of being stubborn about something. If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. We need to get the articles right and that's the main goal of Wikipedia. Please don't let personal points of view or points of contention get in the way of making the articles accurate according to sources. This is not the place for pushing ideologies into articles by any means necessary. It's the place for sources to be reflected into articles that are neutral. SageRad (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

See discussions above. No one is interested anymore in explaining the same things over and over again to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So are you giving up as well? Biscuittin (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad Something about it being a fringey scientific notion needs to be there - "academically unsupported" is suboptimal and "controversial" is not accurate. I have understood what we are talking about all along. And by the way you were going to bail on Jan 7th when you wrote this so please lay off making hay with Capeo's comments written in similar frustration. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

and in any case Alexbrn has taken the orthogonal route to solving the problem and this whole discussion is now moot. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are two aspects to the "unsupportness" - first, the evolutionary misconception; and second, the suspect health claims. By spelling these out separately rather than trying to come up with a more abstract phrase ("academically unsupported"), does this solve the puzzle? Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the recent changes to this and related content. I hope most concerns have been addressed now. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Improve the definition?

In the discussion above, it was pointed out that Diet and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Review of Patient-Targeted Recommendations (currently ref #6) has a very good definition of the Paleo Diet:

Paleolithic Diet

The Paleo diet was introduced by Dr. Walter L. Voegtlin, a gastroenterologist, who published a lay book titled Stone Age Diet: Based on In-Depth Studies on Human Ecology and the Diet of Man.49 A scientific review of the Paleo diet was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1995 further describing the evolutionary rationale for the Paleo diet and contrasting it with the modern diet.47 The underlying hypothesis behind the Paleo diet is that the human digestive tract is poorly evolved to handle the modern diet that resulted from development of modern agricultural methods. It is hypothesized that exposure of the human digestive tract to foods that were not present at the time of human evolution may result in modern diseases. Because the primary principle behind the Paleo diet is based on assumptions of evolutionary biology, there is no mechanistic theory as to the effect of diet on intestinal inflammation specifically. The lack of mechanistic theory has also led to great variations in the recommended foods and restrictions. There are multiple variations of the Paleo diet published in the lay literature, including the Caveman, Stone-Age, and Hunter-gatherer diets.

Dietary allowances and restrictions on the Paleo diet

The Paleo diet emphasizes intake of lean, nondomesticated (game) meats and noncereal plant-based foods (ie, fruits, roots, legumes, and nuts).47 The Paleo diet is not as prescriptive as the SCD regarding food types but rather focuses on the source and balance of caloric intake. Lean protein is recommended to be the source of 30%–35% of daily caloric intake. The balance of subtypes of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), n-6 and n-3, are recommended to be as low as 2:1, in contrast to estimates of the modern diet ratio of upward of 11:1. Consumption of lean protein from nondomesticated meat is recommended to reach recommended PUFA ratios. The Paleo diet hypothesizes that domesticated livestock raised on grain-based feed has unfavorable fat composition and should be avoided. In addition to lean nondomesticated meats, the Paleo diet advocates a very-high-fiber diet from noncereal-based plant sources, up to 45–100 g/day.47 There is debate in the Paleo diet community regarding the acceptability of potatoes and legumes in the Paleo diet.

If nothing else, there are details and sources we should include. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one thing that leaps out is we can use this to source the list of "included" foods - currently this is sourced mostly to a primary source and is over-long. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential references

• Voegtlin, Walter L. (1975). The stone age diet: Based on in-depth studies of human ecology and the diet of man. Vantage Press. ISBN 0-533-01314-3.

  The book that started it all. Not sure if we really need it, but nice to be able to refer to for the history. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Paleo isn't a fad diet, it's an ideology that selectively denies the modern world" archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150316193304/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/16/paleo-isnt-a-fad-diet-its-an-ideology

  This was in the External links section. I'm not sure if it's worth using, given it's an opinion piece and we've much better sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Eaton, S.B. and Konner, M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985; 31: 283–289. PMID 2981409

  The first from Eaton and Konner. Like Voegtlin's, it might not be very useful as a source, but helpful to have at our fingertips. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• S. B. Eaton, S. B. Eaton, 3rd, M. J. Konner. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 April; 51(4): 207–216. PMID 9104571

  Their twelve-year retrospective. Again, nice to have at our fingertips. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sayers, Ken. Real Paleo Diet: early hominids ate just about everything . February 17, 2015. The Conversation US, Inc.

  Might be somewhat redundant with what we have, but well-referenced and written by an anthropologist with a great deal of expertise. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Palaeolithic diet: Should we all eat like cave people?

  Short and redundant, but referenced and quotes Zuk. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Health myths: We should live and eat like cavemen

  Short and redundant. Nice overview. Referenced and quotes Zuk. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• The paleo diet: Should you eat like a caveman?

  Quotes Cordain, Zuk, Sayers (author of "Real Paleo Diet: early hominids ate just about everything" above), Daniel Lieberman (author of “The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease”). --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ken Sayers and C. Owen Lovejoy. Blood, Bulbs, and Bunodonts: On Evolutionary Ecology and the Diets of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Early Homo. The Quarterly Review of Biology 2014 89:4, 319-357 PMID 25510078

  The research by Sayers referred to in two of articles above. I think it would be better to use those articles (Sayers' in The Conversation, and the Washington Post article above) instead of this. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Getting worse POV

This article is getting worse and worse in terms of POV pushing. SageRad (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ASPERSIONS. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you think i've cast aspersions? I'm commenting on the content of the article, which has been getting worse and worse in terms of containing a point of view that is not neutral. I quit working on this article, finding it a pretty impossible environment to edit within, but when i took a look it seemed to be becoming more and more an attack piece on the subject of the article. The line that most struck me just now was:

It is based on the misconception that human digestive abilities today are identical to those of our paleolithic ancestors.

I think that's a strawman because "identical" is not correct. "Relatively similar" would be more correct, based on my reading. I don't think there's a single authoritative source that is the "orthodox paleolithic diet" but most people don't think that the human organism is identical to paleolithic ancestors, but rather think that evolution proceeds slowly in many respects and that humans may not have evolved to completely suit the modern diet. Using a strawman argument in an article is not so good. But i've given up editing this article at all, because of the problems i encountered before with ownership attitudes toward it by editors, and contentious editing environment, and i really don't want to bring the level of contention into my life, so i'm pretty much gone from here, but at least i thought it important to pipe up and be a single lone voice here, in case other editors come to this talk page. I see a couple of novice editors have made a few recent changes that were pretty quickly reverted. Those changes weren't up to par with technique, but it's clear that their purpose was to mollify the attack tone of the article. Anyway, what can one do when it feels like an article has been captured? I have no idea. But when i even speak to this, you call it aspersions, and then bring on behaviors that have caused me pain in the past, so i'm really not interested in exposing myself to such energies, and therefore don't feel like i can edit here. SageRad (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:POVPUSH. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You could do with seeing that. Can we stop citing things to each other like this and get to actually talking? Clearly i've been saying that there are people here pushing a POV in a serious way, and i'm not speaking about myself. I've explained this perception of mine many times and predictably it got little result except a doubling down of the same behaviors. SageRad (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I know what that essay stands for ("I don't hear that") and your citing it here seems like a really unfriendly stab. No thanks. I'm so tired of bullying. I hear others. I think. I express thoughts. If you have a problem with that then you've got the problem. Or, if i'm truly not here in dialogue and truly not hearing others, then I'm sure that'll be very easy to show in arbitration and you can get me kicked off Wikipedia altogether, for if i'm truly not editing well all the time, then I'm sure I don't belong here. Otherwise, keep it civil and on content as much as possible. SageRad (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wondering about the meaning of this revert

With WP:BRD as the norm, wonder if you'd discuss this revert?

Edit reason being "For a number of reasons, but firstly, you need to go look up the scientific method" -- does that mean you don't think "hypothesis" is a good word choice?

Secondly, do you think it's an established total "misconception"?

Thirdly, do you think "identical to" is the claim by most descriptions of the paleo diet? If so, it think you're wrong and have plenty of sources to show that.

Fourthly, do you think that most paleo supporters claim that diets of paleolithic people were uniform? Totally uniform? Mostly uniform?

Fifthly, do you think that copious amounts of sugar in the modern diet are not something noted by paleo diet advocates as a contrast to evolutionary fitness?

In general, can we please be civil, avoid imperative voice toward each other, and can we please have some nuance here in the discussion, as well as in the content of the article? SageRad (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits did not reflect the sources cited. That is why they were reverted. And your addition of content about the 1939 book, sourced to the 1939 book, was interesting but the content was not based on any source. (the 1939 source itself cannot be a source for the claim that it is a root of the paleo movement that exists today. books cannot time travel.) Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The changes appear to be original research, misrepresentation of sources, removal of sourced info, and false balance - all to further a pov contrary to that of the sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out, that if you read that study (interesting in itself) it is not really relevant for Paleo as it looks at the comparison of isolated 'primitive' population's lifestyle (including food) *at the time* with western processed foods/lifestyle. It is unsurprising that an isolated Swiss mountain village (a mile above sea level) with a varied diet containing grains, meat, dairy, coupled with a lifestyle that includes good education & significant physical labour, breeds a particularly healthy and robust human compared to a lowland 'civilised' culture. There is probably a good reason it has not been discussed in relation to the Paleo Diet, its unrelated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then, i'll source things better next time. Anyway, there were many other edits involved and they weren't addressed. The 1939 book's place in the development of the idea of the paleo diet has good sourcing. If you care about the article being useful and accurate then i thought you'd care to ask about that. But anyway, i'll source it better when i have the time. Maybe now. Maybe later. Wish it felt like a team effort. SageRad (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The book has nothing to do with the Paleo Diet at all. The only sourcing I see that connects it is paleodiet.com which isn't a good source for anything but the opinions of the guy who owns the Paleo Diet trademark. Capeo (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect to say that the book has "nothing" to do with the paleo diet, given the Cordain passage about it here. And Cordain is more than the person who owns the Paleo Diet trademark (something i didn't know). There are many other ways to describe Cordain. SageRad (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you fail to understand once again. Cordain popularised the paleo fad diet 30 years later than the earliest work on it. His website as a primary source would be useable to reference his *own* motivations (so on the Cordain article), however he fails almost every reliable source check to be used regarding the Paleo diet itself. He has commercial interests, he lacks scientific qualifications in evolutionary/historic biology/agriculture etc. I could go on. Basically he isnt a reliable source for this article. Assuming you have actually read the book in question, it is obvious from reading it that it is unrelated to the paleo diet. It is a good study on the effect of processed foods on primitive/isolated communities, however it does not and cannot make any claims regarding paleo-era diet due to the time lapsed between them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but disagree with many assumptions and facts and characterizations in what you're saying. He's a reliable source as to early works that led to the making of the Paleo diet as a development, being one of the primary developers of it. SageRad (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be similar to that I have found at Veganism. We must make a clear and distinct difference between the way that we treat generally accepted mainstream science and the way that we treat proposals, concepts, and ideas that are not consistent with mainstream science and understanding.

We can have both in the article, however, mainstream science and generally accepted (by the vast majority) facts can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. For example, 'people need to eat food to live'. When we mention non-mainstream opinions and concepts, however well sourced they may be, we must make it perfectly clear that this is only the opinion of a small group. many minority groups are expert in presenting their beliefs on ways that make them appear mainstream. For eample we could not say something like 'Paleolithic diet is a health diet in which...claim that .... because just the words 'health diet' could be part of the rhetoric of thye minority group. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, but a "fad diet" is similarly the rhetoric of a minority group. It's a "diet" in that it's a proscription for a way of choosing what foods to eat. That's the NPOV term for what it is. Your comment is sort of not in the flow of the above dialog but this was discussed at length in an above section of this talk page. SageRad (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

By all means move my comment to a more appropriate place.

I think 'fad diet' is probably majority or mainstream science opinion but I am not sure that we do need to use that terminology. We should have a good quality source to use those words. I would prefer just to say 'diet' but make clear in the text that it has no genrally accepted medical or scientific benefits. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OR tag explanation?

I see the OR tag added here. I sourced the citing of the 1939 Weston Price book to this writing by Loren Cordain, after being told that the book itself was not good sourcing that it's part of the formation of the idea of the paleo diet. Anyway, that source seems to show that the Price book was an early book in the development of the concept of the paleo diet. If i'm wrong on that reading then please tell me why. Cordain is one of the primary proponents of the paleo diet, having written several books on the topic and been integrally involved in it for some time, so i'd take his word with a measure of reliability on this subject. If you wish to propose something else? Or you think the 1939 book should not be mentioned? Please explain and discuss. By the way, i appreciate the tag very much. I think that tagging is a pretty good way to edit among multiple editors. I'm just asking for more explanation as to what was meant by the tag. Perhaps we'll find a better way to source the Weston Price book, or perhaps we'll find that it should not be mentioned there, or perhaps we'll find that it's good content. SageRad (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We have accounts of the history written by independent authors. Cordain is most definitely not independent. The disputed (now removed) edit introduced Price's work, placed it above or at par with all others, and de-emphasized the history as cited in the better sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what histories you're speaking of. If you're referring to Zuk, i would head that off at the pass by saying that her book is not NPOV in regard to evaluating things about this diet. However, i do find that the Weston A Price Foundation does disclaim the use of their namesake's book as a foundation of the current definition of the "Paleo diet" here. They interestingly define a "Weston A Price Foundation diet" and contrast it to a version of the modern-day "Paleo diet". Interesting. SageRad (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So you haven't looked at the references and want to exclude one? I think we're done then. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean here. You don't get to declare when "we're" done -- you can declare yourself done if you wish. A dialog is done when there is resolution or understanding, or agreement to disagree. SageRad (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV status and edit warring

The NPOV status of this article is definitely disputed and any editor who denies that is showing a desire to push POV. It was removed here with a "sigh" which is an onerous word in this context, indicating dismissive disdain for another editor. Please cease the personal attacks and tone of dismissal of valid input of other editors. That is bad behavior on Wikipedia, and some here are flagrantly thumbing their noses at policies and guidelines on behavior as well as on sourcing and the content of articles.

The NPOV status is highly disputed here. To deny that is complete bullshit.

There is edit warring going on, with people reverting edits without adequate reasoning and discussion, and there is a serious lack of integrity among editors here. That is a general climate assessment by me. I call for people to act right or go away. The encyclopedia suffers from the gaming of the system. We need to follow policies and guidelines. SageRad (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

From the consensus above, the neutrality is disputed by you. Repeatedly, without any credible arguments being given. So unless you want to garner some consensus here that it is not a neutral article relying on reliable sources, I am going to remove it *again*. You need to make your case and persuade others. You have yet to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality is disputed by me, and i am and editor, and i have presented numerous sources and arguments and there is dispute over the NPOV status of this article. This is not IDHT and IDHT is an onerous phrase. How can you say that i really am not hearing the uber-logical and absolutely true arguments made by some others? The very fact of this article being disputed in regard to NPOV is the issue, so your edit warring away the NPOV tag is a really paradoxical thing. Your edit warring it away is another symptom of the NPOV dispute that you are denying here. Numbers don't mean everything. Just because a bunch of editors got called from an ideologically-oriented message board (the FRINGE noticeboard) and i am one vocal person against 5 or 6 vocal others who are aligned, does not mean that i am wrong and you are right. This is not a democratic vote-based place. It's a place based on dialogue with integrity. You are edit warring here, and you've removed the NPOV tag as an edit war move. This is a sick state of affairs and it's not how good articles get made. You're bullying your POV into Wikipedia here and it's unacceptable. SageRad (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS requires good faith discussions, with integrity, and you're not showing that here. You're showing the absolute opposite -- contentious behavior, not listening (while accusing me of IDHT), and gaming the system. This is a textbook group WP:POV railroad. SageRad (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, Sage, you really need to dial back the constant aspersions and widely cast PAs. You don't have consensus. That's it. GF dialog is being had despite your claims. Simply put nobody is finding your arguments or sources persuasive. Beyond that the only person being consistently rude and tossing about accusations here is you. Capeo (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's simply not true. SageRad (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to say it again, or can I assume you know what needs to be said here? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How's that civil and how's that not bullying, Roxy? SageRad (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You're literally claiming everyone who doesn't see things the way you do are bullying POV-pushers with no integrity and you're talking about other people not being civil? Astounding. Capeo (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed

The NPOV tag has been removed while there is clearly not consensus that this article is NPOV. I call that wrong on many levels. SageRad (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus actually. You seem to think consensus requires unanimous agreement. It doesn't. The tag was added, consensus deemed it unnecessary and it was removed. That's how it works. Capeo (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What does "consensus" mean, then? What does it mean to you? Can you please help me to understand how there can be an editor with serious concerns and serious reasoned arguments with sources saying that the article is biased, and that there is still "consensus"? Please do explain the meaning of consensus, Capeo. Then i'll check that against WP:CONSENSUS. SageRad (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You overestimate your "serious reasoned arguments with sources" here. Your arguments haven't been found persuasive on a policy level. To continue to push for your editorial position against all other consensus is tendentious. You'll find that in WP:CONSENSUS. Capeo (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not an editorial goal to want an NPOV article that is not an attack piece on the subject of the article. I think you'll find that this sentence would apply to the pushing of an editorial position onto the subject of the article, which is what's happened to this article, and that i am concerned about. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try to make this is as simple as possible. The consensus is that this article is NPOV. When a lone editor repeatedly cries that an article is POV when consensus says it's fine that can be considered tendentious editing depending on how hard they push. You can search "tendentious" on ANI and see how that ends up turning out once everyone's patience is exhausted. Capeo (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And i'm going to make this as simple as possible. How do you arrive at the reckoning that "the consensus" is that this article is NPOV when there is at least one editor (and several others making edits but not engaging on the talk page) who seem to disagree with real reasons and sources? Do you think that i am speaking to push a POV? Do you think i'm being dishonest? Do you think i have any interest in promoting the paleo diet for some conflict of interest reason? Or do you think i'm simply stupid and completely misguided? Those would be the other explanations that i can think of, and i do not think either is true. So it feels like you just think i'm wrong here, but you cannot tell me why sufficiently to make me agree with you. Therefore there's not consensus in my reckoning. Is there a mechanism to vote on whether there's consensus? If one editor thinks A and two editors think B then is B the consensus? Or maybe the right number is 6 out of 7? Is there a defined ratio of A versus B that makes one "the consensus"? Or maybe am i just less important than other editors here? Really, what's the core of the issue here? SageRad (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The tag was removed and far more editors agree that that was the correct edit than disagree. How is this really all that difficult for you to grasp? I don't care about your motivations or reasoning outside of WP related policy so there's no point in even bringing such stuff up. Obviously though I do think you're wrong about the article being NPOV. I'd assume that much was clear. Capeo (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am asking you to define how you're assessing "consensus" here. If you don't want to answer then don't, but i assume there's more to it than just your assertion. It is clear that YOU are saying that you think it's wrong, but it's also not clear to me that the article is NPOV. I see very clearly that it is not neutral, not by a long shot. SageRad (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There's an old debate between objectivity and balance, and it comes up repeatedly in the media. Basically, should a media report (and by extension, an article here) present an objective, if single-sided account of a story, or should it present both sides of the story, even if there is general consensus that one of those sides is wrong? A one sided account may be better for informing the public, but it will come at the expense of those who feel their views are being sidelined. A two-sided account may ultimately be a detriment to the general public, as it gives equal credence to questionable ideas, even if it satiates all the involved parties.

In this article, it may appear that a certain point of view is being given undue weight, but the fact remains that there is general academic consensus (and consensus among the editors, save one) supporting that point of view. Is it fair to alter the article to please one dissident editor, and those who share his views, even if it violates the academic consensus? Amateria1121 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is severely biased. It is severely non-neutral. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the article is essentially correct (follows manstream science) but I do think that some of the language (like fad diet) could be toned down. Could we not start with something like 'The PD is a diet proposed by X who claimed that Y'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Does anyone besides Sage think I didn't clarify how consensus is assessed in the above exchange? It's becoming quite clear that Sage thinks that because they don't agree with the current consensus then there is no consensus. Capeo (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to side with SageRad here (he probably knows why). It is not right just to tell an editor to 'go away', he has a strongly and sincerely held opinion on something. Maybe you have not understood his point. Maybe he is right.

On the other hand I do not like POV tags much and see them as badges of shame, reducing our readers' confidence in WP but I do think we should all try to understand Sage's point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've told nobody to "go away". Just that consensus is against them and it is. And constantly pushing "strongly and sincerely held" opinions is tendentious without RS to back them up. Nobody here cares about anyone's opinions in a vacuum. Capeo (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've asked you many times to please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that there is a consensus even when there is an editor voicing serious and reasoned concerns to the contrary of the assumed "consensus"? i feel like i am in the Twilight Zone, to paraphrase your assertion above. I have made many serious and reasoned cases showing that there are neutrality issues throughout this article, which has been radically transformed from a previous state a few years ago, and has assumed a point of view of hyper-criticality to the point of sounding like a polemic against its subject, especially in the last month or so. SageRad (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What i think happened is, like many articles, this one was developed initially by enthusiasts of the paleo diet and probably made many claims that were not adequately sourced and probably were overstated, and then it got noticed by a skeptical crowd who rightly pared it back but probably went too far into claiming that the diet's premise is absolutely without merit, and saying that it's been "debunked" whereas it's really more subtle than that. There is some scientific support for the premise and for the diet and there is some criticism as well, of course. It depends on how the diet is presented, as well. If you put up the most extreme claims as being "the paleo diet" then it's easy to "debunk" -- and this is called strawman argumentation, not what we strive for. Realistic representation of the spectrum of what the diet is said to be -- which is not uniform, just as the diets of Paleolithic peoples were not uniform -- and then address the most extreme claims as false or overstated, and state the shaded responses to the more subtle claims. SageRad (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't need an NPOV tag, it's reasonably neutral now (what with Zuk, etc now cited). Waffling away without reference to sources is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely counter to what i've said. And it's also kind of uncivil to call my writing "waffling" and "disruptive". Zuk is an example of one who uses extreme caricatures of a diet to knock down a strawman. The article remains flawed in terms of neutrality and a tag would be suitable. SageRad (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Whose characterization of Zuk is this? --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It was mine, though i just struck that claim to not distract. SageRad (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Questionable statements of fact

Look people, stuff like "Zuk's dismissal based on evolutionary change in human digestive abilities can been viewed as a shallow argument (by who?) since digestive abilities are only a minor prelude to the entire metabolic processes of control of energy production and consumption. The likelihood of evolutionary change and optimisation of these entire metabolic processes in a mere 10,000 years is highly questionable (again by who?). It is the sub-optimal processing that may lead to disease." needs sourcing to reliable independant sources. "However it can be argued that those technological developments would have enabled longer or more secure food (grain) storage, thus making tolerance of adverse effects a desirable necessity." Well if its been argued by someone in relation to the paleo diet, I am sure there must be a source for it. Otherwise its OR. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Took me a minute to figure out you're speaking about edits like [7] and [8] and [9] which have been subsequently reverted. Seems to me this user is interested in editing but doesn't know enough about sourcing. Probably a novice user. I'll write a message on their talk page to explain. Just FYI for others who see this comment. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to masculine stereotypes

In my searches for better sources I'm running across a great deal on how the diet appeals to masculine stereotypes. The Diet Cults book covers it as well or better than anything I've run across and it's enough for a brief mention. I'd prefer a better source before expanding it beyond a sentence. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We would need to be careful not to get into an argument about 'masculine stereotypes'. I think that if we use that term we should attribute it and not use it in WPs voice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Source for "Proponents claim that its followers enjoy longer, healthier, and more active lives"

The current source for "Proponents claim that its followers enjoy longer, healthier, and more active lives" is http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/science/for-evolving-brains-a-paleo-diet-full-of-carbs.html?_r=0. But that article is mostly about suggesting adding carbs "bane of today’s paleo diet enthusiasts". So it is a very odd choice of reference William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that was due to [10] which broke a sentence up. I've shuffled the refs and left a CN William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reason for edit

The reason i removed text that was reverted here is that the text doesn't reflect the full sense of the article nor is it fully true, so it's somewhat polemic, and it's rather editorializing and alarmist. I removed the text to remove some serious bias in the lede. There is in fact some medical evidence that backs some claims of the approach to eating called "Paleo diet" so the sentence is not fully accurate. Anyway, it was reverted, unsurprisingly given this article's recent editing history, of course. It's plain to see that there are editors who want this subject to be reflected in a negative light as being a complete sham and fad diet with no merit whatsoever. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I do find it odd that we have this disparity between how sources are handled. Pro-paleo sources tend to be wholly uncritical, and quoted freely, whereas the reality-based perspective is removed wholesale unless we maintain word-for-word parity wiht the source. I am all for removing any discussion of paleo other than from professional dieticians, but that would make for a very short article indeed as rthey tend not to study or write about fad diets. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I wholly disagre with your characterization here, as well as your a priori dismissal of this diet as a "fad diet" and the assumptions built into your comment. This article as it stands now is pretty hard on the diet and as i see it, sources have been interpreted generally to be as critical as possible toward the diet, throughout the article, by the work of many editors over the last months. That's part of the reason why i perceived a strong POV in the article when i first came to it. It seemed to have gotten a makeover by people hostile to the diet, by all clues shown in the editing, and that seemed to be very far from neutral to me, and not in accord with WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Concern about a claim linked to Source 1: Top 5 Worst Celebrity Diets to Avoid in 2015

The text this source is used to support is:

The British Dietetic Association judged the paleo diet a "Jurassic fad" and listed it as one of the five worst celebrity-endorsed diets of 2015, saying it was "unbalanced, time consuming, [and] socially isolating" and so "a sure-fire way to develop nutrient deficiencies".

That does not accurately characterizes the source. The source says:

A diet with fewer processed foods, less sugar and salt is actually a good idea, but unless for medical reason, there is absolutely no need to cut any food group out of your diet. In fact, by cutting out dairy completely from the diet, without very careful substitution, you could be in danger of compromising your bone health because of a lack of calcium. An unbalanced, time consuming, socially isolating diet, which this could easily be, is a sure-fire way to develop nutrient deficiencies, which can compromise health and your relationship with food.

(emphasis added)

The actual caution from the source makes it clear that the diet isn't inherently bad, just easy to abuse. The claims in the article as it stands don't reflect this. I'm changing it, and leaving this here as an explanation a bit beefier than an edit summary. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the source makes it pretty clear that it is indeed bad! But I don't suppose it's any worse than a hundred other fad diets, and by the time this teapot tempest has blown over we will all be arguing furously with proponents of the next one :-) Actually as a coeliac I am conflicted: the glutenbollocks spread by paleo and like-minded kooks has made GF more wiodely available, but since they are nto actually sensitive to gluten in any real way it also leads to pissed off restauranteurs and poor cross-contamination prevention. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Simply seeking accordance with WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

A 2015 systematic review summarised the body

"A 2015 systematic review of the effects of a paleolithic diet on metabolic syndrome concluded that there was moderate evidence for better short-term improvements than the various guideline-based diets that were used as controls in the trials.[10]" This text should remain in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored the high-quality review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lead. Add it to the Health Effects section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On many articles health effects are discussed in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Health effects are already discussed in the lead. The lead is not supposed to go into detail, and that claim is detail. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

These are higher-quality sources. You deleted a systematic review and a review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not deleted. They are still in the article. It is just a question of LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 systematic review was deleted from the lead and the 2015 review was deleted from the lede and body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

sorry what is the dif where a 2015 review was deleted altogether? I am not finding it, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was already in the body. I moved it to the correct section, realised it was redundant to an existing para and removed it. If the OP wants to reinsert this as a second reference then there's nothing stopping him, it just doesn't belong in the lede because the diet is sold to a general audience as a universal panacaea, whereas the studies under discussion cover only a specific condition. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 review was a new review I added. It was deleted from the lede and body. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There appear to be at least three 2015 reviews, then. Why not propose an actual edit and see what people think? Guy (Help!) 00:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Paleolithic_diet&oldid=703484601#cite_ref-Tarantino2015_9-1 QuackGuru (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It discusses only those with metabolic syndrome. Do you have any evidence that it is promoted primarily for that disorder? Or that its proponents highlight that it should be used only for treatment of medically diagnosed metabolic syndrome? Or that sufferers form metabolic syndrome form a sizeable proportion of those following this fad diet? Guy (Help!) 00:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous text: "A 2015 systematic review of the effects of a paleolithic diet on metabolic syndrome concluded that there was moderate evidence for better short-term improvements than the various guideline-based diets that were used as controls in the trials.[8]"

Current text "A 2015 systematic review of the effects of paleolithic nutrition on metabolic syndrome concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the diet's supposed beneficial effects and treatment potential.[18]" I disagree with the change. See V. In the revert the text in the body was changed. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So propose an edit balancing the various conflicting sources. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I propose the previous text per V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, QG, here was your series of diffs, and the three sources you added were:

• Lau2014: Dr. Kevin Lau (1 November 2014). Your Natural Scoliosis Treatment Journal: A day-by-day companion for 12-weeks to a straighter and stronger spine!. Health In Your Hands. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-981-07-8493-5.
• JönssonGranfeldt2010: Jönsson, Tommy; Granfeldt, Yvonne; Erlanson-Albertsson, Charlotte; Ahrén, Bo; Lindeberg, Staffan (2010). "A paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischemic heart disease". Nutrition & Metabolism. 7 (1): 85. doi:10.1186/1743-7075-7-85. ISSN 1743-7075. PMID 21118562.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Tarantino2015: "Hype or reality: should patients with metabolic syndrome-related NAFLD be on the Hunter-Gatherer (Paleo) diet to decrease morbidity?". Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases. 24 (3). 2015. doi:10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.243.gta. ISSN 1841-8724. PMID 26405708.

So

• Lau2014 is a self-help book pushing a different fad diet - the "Scoliosis diet". Oy. just oy.
• JönssonGranfeldt2010 is PMID 21118562 - this is a primary source - a report of a clinical trial.
• Tarantino2015 is PMID 26405708 - this is indeed a review. It also available free online.

That dif-series includes you adding content like: " It is not like other fad diets because it is based on archeological science what are accentors ate before there was agriculture". sourced to Lau2014. That is a garbage edit based on a garbage source. This is not serious editing. Just stop it. Now.

You did not introduce two reviews from 2015.

I expect you to stop driving this disruptive thread now, and do something more productive. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to add here that the Tarantino 2015 review is good and nuanced, and worth reading. I am glad that QG introduced that source. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors claim MEDRS is not required for the word fad. Then I will use non-MEDRS sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not push this. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Other editors are pushing to use non-MEDRS sources for fad and one of the claims failed V. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede. Is that okay? QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not responding anymore. Check your email if you have not yet. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you read the sources as I have done? The text misrepresents the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I archived the proposals I started since it was going nowhere. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6#Specific_proposal. I'm interested to know why the 2015 review (PMID 26405708) was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed this. Am archiving it now. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS violations and/or lower quality sources

Resolved

The British Dietetic Association judged the paleo diet a "Jurassic fad" and listed it as one of the five worst celebrity-endorsed diets of 2015:

A diet with fewer processed foods, less sugar and salt is actually a good idea, but unless for medical reason, there is absolutely no need to cut any food group out of your diet. In fact, by cutting out dairy completely from the diet, without very careful substitution, you could be in danger of compromising your bone health because of a lack of calcium. An unbalanced, time consuming, socially isolating diet, which this could easily be, is a sure-fire way to develop nutrient deficiencies, which can compromise health and your relationship with food.[2]

David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller have written that while there is comparatively little evidence for the diet, and "[m]any of the plant foods and nearly all of the animal foods consumed during the remote Stone Age are now extinct", the evidence that exists "suggest[s] benefits of the Paleo diet over the prevailing Western diet in measures of both body composition and metabolic health".[21]

I think we can delete theses two statements since we have higher quality sources covering health effects. See Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The BDA source is absolutely MEDRS. You need to read WP:MEDSCI, which states "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs." (emphasis added)

The Katz source is, itself a review of previously published literature on the subject. By every single measure, it is MEDRS compliant. It is the very best kind of source, according to MEDRS. You are completely wrong about both of these sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that British Dietetic Association is a major professional medical or scientific society?

I did not notice pubmed lisitng the Katz source as a review. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=24641555 QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that it's not? It's a professional medical organization with over 8000 members and an 80 year history. It's also the only such organization in the UK. Do you have something to show that an organization needs 8001 members to be considered "major"? Regarding the Katz source: have you tried reading it? It reads like a review. Of course, there's also the fact that it was published in the Annual Review of Public Health which only publishes...

...

Wait for it...

...

Review articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For statements on diet, it would be harder to think of a better source than the BDA. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest the main problem with the Katz review is not to do with its reliability, it is that isolated statements are being cherry picked to imply it gives a favorable review of the fad diet. When actually it highlights glaring deficiencies in the methodology of the studies it is commenting on (Jytdog explained part of the problem in an earlier discussion on here, there are others eslewhere) Unless time (and article space) are spent to explain its findings in full, it should not be included because it is being used inappropriately to support a POV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And the main problem with QuackGuru is that he forms a view of something and at that point his view is the only one he will accept as being in any way correct or defensible, hence we have endless sections stating that articles are in fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy followed by thousands of words of people telling him that no, the text is fine, and then it gets taken to the WP:FORUMSHOP where he starts all over again as if nothing has been said previously. Once QG has declared that something is so, I have never seen him change his mind in response to reasoned argument. I'd be happy to have anyone point me to examples where this has happened, feel free to drop diffs on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please keep to the content and keep it civil as much as possible. I also read the Katz/Meller review and find it a wonderful paper. It has much nuance and is down on proscribed diets in general, but it has a favorable review of the Paleo diet in general (both premise and data on effects such as exist). I like Katz. He's a no-nonsense and well-known nutrition commenter. In the end, his advice is to eat healthy and not worry about diets with simplistic rules, but that paper is fairly favorable on the Paleo diet and does affirm that there is some scientific basis for the premise as well as some evidence of beneficial effects of the diet. That's in there. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you checked QuackGuru's block log, list of editing restrictions, and recent editing history? It's not long since he narrowly escaped a siteban. The only reason he has survived as long as he has is that his obsessive editing at least generally supports the scientific consensus view - if he was a quackery shill instead of a quackery debunker he would have been given the bum's rush long ago. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No i haven't, because i listen to a person's words and don't pre-judge them. I assume good faith for each separate interaction. I have respected many things said by QuackGuru, and i would ask to refrain from painting people in a way that might poison the well. SageRad (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, so you don't think the repeated assertion that articles fundamentally violate policy, contradicted by numerous other editors, might indicate that assertions of fundamentally violating policy might be opinion stated as fact and an example of tendentious editing, as identified previously with this editor and resulting in numerous blocks and restrictions? It's a view, I guess, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. For the record, I agree with QG on most of his edits. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

To address the specific question of scientific evidence. I will repeat a point I made earlier: there is some early, tentative evidence that some component elements of the paleo diet may be beneficial in certain circumstances. However, the overall premise is fallacious, the evidence tentative, much of it was already known to dieticians, and most early findings turn out to be wrong anyway. The paleo diet is a canonical example of a fad diet, as usually defined, and many sources describe it as such. Any intersection between the paleo diet and legitimate dietary research is basically coincidence, exactly as for every other fad diet. The proponents of the diet do not base their claims on science and will continue to promote them unamended even when science shows parts of them to be entirely wrong (e.g. the fact that you cannot currently obtain any foods that are still in their paleolithic form, and the absence of any single homogeneous paleolithic diet due to enormous regional variations in available foods). You might just as well argue that humankind is not evolved to live in Europe and we should all go back to Africa, that would be no more or less arbitrary. So: this article separates (correctly) the arbitrary and ideological fad diet, from the scientific discussion of any elements of it that might be valid. And in the process, by the way, science disproves one of the most common anti-science critiques, in that a claim originating form bullshit is still tested to tease out any core of legitimacy. Science is pretty humble that way. It's only cranks and zealots who reject something just based on its source. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Science generally is more humble as well as more nuanced than cranks and zealots. But the Paleo diet is not wholly represented by your caricature of it. A simplistic and exaggerated version of an idea which is then knocked down is called a strawman argument. We've been going in circles on this, but it's not a canonical fad diet except in certain incarnations that claim miracles, and it is based on some sound scientific reasoning and there is some evidence that supports it being beneficial in some ways. You can't just keep asserting untrue things into reality. It's too easy to make strawman arguments but let's not. SageRad (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the proponents' websites and books? Humble is the very last thing they are. Like every fad diet, the books that promote it promote a quasi-religious view: change this one thing and your entire life will be different. And of course the evidence does not come close to supporting it. The fact that several of them are also antivaxers and promoters of other conspiracist claptrap doesn't help. Really there need to be two articles: one on the human nutrition elements and one on the fad diet bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the comments both sources are reliable. This thread can be archived soon. My concern now in the block quote from British Dietetic Association. User:Jytdog, your doing a good job of simplifying the text. Can you simply the text and remove the block quote? QuackGuru (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing the reliability of those sources QG. I went ahead and condensed/paraphrased that block quote. Let me know what you think (others too). Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It works for me. The page is moving forward. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd sentence

This sentence sticks stuck out like a sore thumb:

Scientists acknowledge that the diets of our predecessors went through a fundamental change with the addition of meat. Evolutionary biology can have influence on food and health, but nutrition is very complex.

References

What's the relevance? Are we pointing out the arbitrary nature of the paleo diet, choosing a period between the introduction of meat and the evolution of agriculture? Or are we pointing out that we ate only legumes for millions of years and the time since the paleolithic era is, evolutionarily speaking, eine augenblick? I am at a loss to understand why we have this single cherry-picked statement from a news article, masquerading as a statement of scientific consensus (which it might be, but I'd need a WP:MEDRS for it), inserted in the middle of the lede, as what seems to be a complete non sequitur. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That looks like a bit of veg(etari)an propaganda to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you mentioned MEDRS you added a non-MEDRS claim in the middle of the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this is about a fad diet, so MEDRS is not mandatory when discussing the public debate. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. There's no debate about whether it's a fad diet except on this page, and that is not a claim that requires a MEDRS source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

According to you MEDRS is not required. See "It is not like other fad diets because it is based on archeological science what are accentors ate before there was agriculture.[7] " See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Paleolithic_diet&oldid=703484601#cite_ref-Lau2014_7-0 That is sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop being WP:POINTy. This is blatantly disruptive behavior. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we keep this converstaion WP:Civil please. That is fundamental WP Policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDHT behaviour is uncivil. So is WP:STONEWALLing debate. So is circular argument. In fact, civil POV-pushing is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Focusing on those who become exasperated by others' refusal to budge from fixed views on interpretation, is not enforcing "civility", it is Wikilawyering. Especially since you are clearly a partisan in the dispute. Essentially comments like yours come across as "Help! I'm being repressed!" because it's pretty clear that the sources are against you and any "incivility" is merely increasing firmness in rejecting a non-neutral interpretation of those sources. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy made the change he discussed above, and the change has not been contested. There is no more to do in this thread so I am archiving it. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Too many sources at the end of the sentence

Resolved

A Paleo lifestyle and ideology have developed around the diet.[3]:Chapter 4[5][14][15]

Can it be reduced to two or at a maximum three? QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind. You can pick the ones you think are the best sources for it, as far as I am concerned.Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't confirm ref number [3] verifies Paleo lifestyle or ideology. I reduced it to two refs. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

Resolved

The part "as did the 2014 review.[15]" seems unnecessary. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

fixed it Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is better to just state it using the newer and higher quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

paper on restriction of dietary niche following neolithic revolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a section header i would never thought i would find myself writing.

So in this dif, QG introduced the following into the "Foods" section:

The Neolithic Revolution greatly narrowed the diversity of foods available, with a switch to agriculture which led to a downturn in human nutrition.

References

In my view that is OFFTOPIC in that section, which is about the foods in the Paleo diet. This is content making claims about what happened something like 12,500 years ago. If it belongs anywhere in this article (I am not sure it does) it would belong somewhere in the Rationale and counter-arguments section. for what it's worth, it also contradicts the content that is already there - an article co-authored by Cordain talks about how things were added to the diet in Neolithic Revolution.....

Anyway, in my view the content doesn't belong there, and I am not sure how a paper making fine arguments about expansion or shrinkage of the "food nice" in the Neolithic Revolution is on topic in this article.... we can discuss, of course. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to Neolithic Revolution. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In my view, it's not off topic and the paper in question does lend support to the premise of the Paleolithic diet in that it notes the nutritive inferiority of the modern diet. However, not speaking directly about the modern Paleolithic diet premise, it seems like it would be WP:OR in the article despite being supportive of the premise:

The Neolithic revolution dramatically narrowed the dietary niche by decreasing the variety of available foods, with the shift to intensive agriculture creating a dramatic decline in human nutrition. The recent industrialization of the world food system has resulted in a nutritional transition in which developing nations are simultaneously experiencing undernutrition and obesity.

SageRad (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's also speculative and uses dramatic language which is at odds with the rather obvious fact that the "inferior" diet did not interrupt the evolutionary progress towards bigger brains, which by common consent requires a superabundance of nutrition, because brains are expensive, in resource terms. I guess that's to be expected in a book, rather than an academic paper. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misrepresentation of Nestle source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As noted in an above section's dialogue, there is misrepresentation of the Nestle sources that i corrected and was re-reverted (i.e. edit-warred back into the article).

On her website you see she wrote:

The Wall Street Journal, hoping to generate some controversy, got me involved in a point/counterpoint about the Paleo Diet: “Is a Paleo diet healthy?” It can be, but this is a point/counterpoint. Hence, I took the position "NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits."

And then you see she wrote:

Any restrictive diet helps to reduce calorie intake, so it isn’t surprising that there are studies linking paleo to weight loss, lower blood sugar and a reduced risk of cancers for which obesity is a risk factor. Eating less works every time. So does eating a largely plant-based diet. Research suggests that we can reduce risks for today’s diseases of affluence by eating more foods from plant sources and balancing calorie intake with expenditure. To the extent the paleo diet achieves these goals, it is a reasonable choice.

In the end, she says that the diet can be healthy, but that it's too restrictive of foods that she likes for her taste, and that it's not the only way to eat a healthy diet. It's a good source. I love Dr Nestle's work, but it was misrepresented in terms of a "verdict" by Nestle that the Paleolithic diet is inherently unhealthy, when it's patently obvious that this is not what she is saying, so i changed it to follow the source.

But of course, the wind is blowing hard in the sense that many editors have a serious POV pushing problem, and so of course this was reverted in edit-warring fashion without discussion except a single word "no" above. This is a sad state of affairs.

It's impossible to work in this environment to build a good article according to WP:NPOV and other policies. The best i can do is to point out the flagrant violations of policy and the POV pushing just so it's on record on this talk page -- and even then the talk page gets erased and hatted and decimated at whims of other editors. It's a sick state of affairs here. SageRad (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you said above (quite why we need yet another section I don't know). "QUESTION: Is a Paleo diet healthy?; HER ANSWER: No ...". Yet in your universe somehow this means yes. And you complain about Nestle's view being misrepresented when she explicitly took this position! This is beginning to look like trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse people of trolling because you disagree with them. Her answer was not 'No', it was, 'NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits'. She was not saayin the diet was unhealthy she was saying 'You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is the problem with fad diets all over. Any accidental coincidence with good dietary advice is presented as categorical validation, and any problems, however robustly supported, are waved away. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. See WP:MEDRS. It is also too much detail. There is no need for a block quote. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted to the semi-stable version of last night. QG please do not make so many changes and then change your own changes so that controversial edits are impossible to revert. I know this is one of your editing styles on controversial articles and it is very unhelpful. This is how very good and uncontrovertible edits/sources end up getting thrown out - because you mix them with controversial edits. Please go slow. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You restored a MEDRS violation. I don't see a reason to restore it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't go back far enough. fixed that. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• In general, folks are continuing to miss the point of diet advice as presented by all mainstream sources, in that it needs to be simple, flexible, and sustainable if it is going to contribute to long-term health for most people. That is the public health concern here, and this is what mainstream diet advice is all about. Public health. Nestle is very clear that this is her main point of concern. She came out "no" because of that - in her view Paleo is not good guidance - there is too much risk of long term damage and the benefits are dubious. Yes it "can" be healthy but in her view it is unlikely to be healthy for most people. Again there appears to be lack of competence here, a lack of understanding of the context that is required for good judgement in editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• additional note, to the note above. Besides there appearing to be issues with subject matter competence about dietary advice in general, there are policy competence issues as well. NPOV calls us to always edit with the mainstream views of things in mind. Always. So descriptions of this popular diet need to be made with an awarenesss of, and in light of, mainstream views on dietary advice. We cannot treat this subject in isolation, per NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• finally, I have withdrawn my edit adding content about Nestle's perspective on the Paleo diet. I think it is valuable but it was bad judgement on my part as we are still stuck on the "fad diet" thing and we should resolve that first. So I have no further interest in discussing the Nestle content or its sourcing, and suggest everybody walk away from this discussion. Unless somebody else wants content from Nestle in this article, and in that case, I suggest you propose some new content for discussion, in a new section. I am archiving this one since the edit being disputed has been withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• • I removed the text that was disputed and was a low quality source. You deleted information that has no relevance to this discussion. The other information was not disputed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not disputed yet. There were several new edits you made that were very controversial. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you wanted to delete information related to this discussion then you could of deleted the information about Marion Nestle. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is true. I have not yet had time to open discussions on the other edits you made. Again QG when you edit-flurry like that you raise so many issues that it makes it impossible to discuss everything. This is disruptive. Please stop doing it, and please don't push it. And I know very well that this is yet another strategy - to edit flurry and then complain when people throw out the baby with the bathwater. That adds disruption to disruption. We discussed this above. STOP IT. Go slow. I think you understand very well which of your edits were controversial. If you are serious about them, please propose them here and be patient for everyone to catch up with you. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what is your specific objection. You reverted way back. It is up to the editor who reverted to show what is the problem with each text. You could of explained it in your edit summary as you did before. This time you did not have a specific objection. I can't read your mind to determine which edits you think were controversial. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will address the other edits in a new section. This one is done. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide when a section of discussion is 'done'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing left to talk about here. The objected-to content is no longer in the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For future reference I recommended not restoring the MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

QG's edits of today

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Taking them in order:

• this dif introduced content to the lead that is not in the body, and fiddled with the now-withdrawn Nestle content, and added yet more detail to the description about health effects. Each one of those is disputable, and they were all done at once.

• this diff re-arranged a part of the last one - the introduction of content to the lead that was not in the body, as did this one

• this one and this one and this one fiddled with the now-withdrawn Nestle content

• this one removed reference in the content to one of the sources used to support the content, which is odd but not a big deal.

• this one simplified in a way that is uncontroversial. I will restore it.

• this one removed a quote in a citation that identified what the source says about Paleo. Unclear why this quote was removed.

• this one is really strange - the content added is a) unparse-able: "Dietary n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are suggested to be as low as 2:1, while the modern diet ratio is about as high as 11:1" and b) was added to the paragraph describing the ""Paleo nutrition pattern" and has nothing to do with that paragraph. This was a particularly bad edit.

So in all that, there was one edit that was really noncontroversial and useful. I just restored it. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The objection was it was not in the body. The text was written according the source. There was also content added to the body.

It is unnecessary to add quotes inside the reference. The quotes were a distraction.

Can the text "The paleo diet is based mainly on foods presumed to be available to paleolithic humans". be added to the foods section? QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I did the last one. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The quote inside the reference is usually avoided. Why not remove it? The source verifies the text not the quote.

The source at the end of the sentence is a 2015 review and only the review verifies the specific text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't argue further about removing the quote; it is trivial. I added the Katz reference where it was needed. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If the quote is trivial then I hope you don't mind it being removed.

See "the 2015 review noted that the clinical trials that have been conducted found that participants in the arm of the trial eating a paleo nutrition pattern had better measures of cardiovascular and metabolic health.[4][15]" Only the 2015 review verifies the second part of text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard MO for QuackGuru: dozens of successive edits that are a mix of good, bad and indifferent, and takes hours of unpicking to work uot what's worth keeping. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The 2014 review stated "The balance of subtypes of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), n-6 and n-3, are recommended to be as low as 2:1, in contrast to estimates of the modern diet ratio of upwards of 11:1."[11] It may be better to add it to the health effects section. It can be rewritten without quotes. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is summarizing an elaboration of the Paleo diet by Eaton. In my view it is in-the-weeds detail, especially for the foods section. It also gets into very-deep-in-the-weeds arguments about what the exact best PUFA ratio is, which I believe is not settled science. So not worth going into. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is simply a comparison of the Paleo diet versus the modern diet in respect to PUFA. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

no it is not, as i noted above. please do not make nonserious replies. if you can show that there is an actual consensus on optimal PUFA ratio, this might be interesting. please do so. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add what is the ideal PUFA ratio. I am trying to summarize the sentence. Is it okay with you if we can work on it on the talk page? QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And I am saying that I cannot see a) how it is relevant to anything; b) why you or anybody think paleolithic people even knew what a "PUFA ratio" was. I am not wasting more time on this. It has nothing to do with dietary advice for people. We can pick endless trivial bits from endless numbers of sources and add them to articles. That is what you have done here. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The review stated "Several sources of information suggest that human beings evolved on a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is 15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and have excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio), exert suppressive effects."[12]

You wrote "if you can show that there is an actual consensus on optimal PUFA ratio, this might be interesting. please do so." The review shows there is a difference on the effects on health where human evolved eating versus a modern Western diet.

There is interesting research behind PUFA. See (PMID 12442909). See (PMID 10471132). Omega-6 and omega-3 are essential fatty acids. A balanced ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 may be essential to health. Due to the health effects of the PUFA ratio it is germane to the topic. See (PMID 18408140). QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing sources that show that there is no settled science on optimal PUFA ratio and for ignoring the issue of how this is relevant to diet advice for the general public. I am not wasting more time on this. Again this is another of your tactics, to pepper articles with trivia and waste people's time wrangling over them. Please note, that I am noting all of these for the ANI I am building against you in which I will argue concisely and definitively for your banning from Wikipedia. Please feel free to continue if that is where you want to end up. You know exactly what you are doing, and so do I. Please also note that I am defining your interference tactics as you play them. I am doing that so that anyone can pick them up and understand them. The more you do it, the more I note, and the more wide open you become across Wikipedia. Like I said, feel free to continue if you like. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, can we please stick to discussing artcle content.

I agree with Jytdog that PUFA ratios are speculative and should not be mentioned in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits to lede

"the claim has not been rigorously tested and the focus on food choices alone, as many fad diets do, ignores the importance of exercise and the amount of food consumed, each of which are essential for health.[1][5]" Not sure about these changes. Both sources say different things. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that the sources do not support that statement. Note that, given the chance, I am quite certain that the authors of either would wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but their actual writings do not support it. I've commented out that entire paragraph. I've not removed it because it could be usefully re-written in the future, and this makes that task easier. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the SYN violation. The text is still on the talk page. The other text that is sourced in the paragraph has been restored. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You also editing out the phrase "fad diet" which ruined the syntax of the first sentence and is disruptive to the process of getting together an RfC. I'm trying to work with you, man, but you're making it difficult. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am going to quote the intro at some length here.

This modern cult of healthy eating is made up of innumerable sub-cults that are constantly vying for superiority. A competitive marketplace of healthy diets emerged in the nineteenth century and has been growing ever since. Like consumer products in commercial markets, each of these diets has a brand name and is advertised as being better than competing brands.

The recruiting programs of the healthy-diet cults consist almost entirely of efforts to convince prospective followers that their diet is the One True Way to eat for maximum physical health. Advocates of each cult cite scientific evidence to support their claims of superiority. This tactic is necessary because in the modern world, science has displaced religious and cultural tradition as the recognized authority for all health-related truth claims. So vegetarians, for example, say that theirs is the healthiest way to eat because science has proven that animal foods cause heart disease and other health problems. Meanwhile, low-carb diet advocates say that theirs is the healthiest way to eat because carbohydrates are scientifically proven to cause obesity and diabetes. Not to be outdone, proponents of the Paleo Diet say that, according to evolutionary logic, all foods that entered the human diet after our days as hunter-gatherers—including grains, dairy, and legumes—are bad for us. And so forth.

Now, if science really had proven conclusively that there was only one clearly defined healthy way to eat, or that a particular diet was indisputably the healthiest, then the competitive marketplace of healthy-diet cults that we are surrounded by would not exist. But science has not identified the healthiest way to eat. In fact, it has come as close as possible (because you can't prove a negative) to confirming that there is no such thing as the healthiest diet. To the contrary, science has established quite definitively that humans are able to thrive equally well on a variety of diets. Adaptability is the hallmark of man as eater. For us, many diets are good while none is perfect. This consensus belief of the nutrition science mainstream is neatly summarized in the book What To Eat, authored by Marion Nestle, one of the most prominent nutrition scientists of her generation. Nestle wrote, "The range of healthful nutrient intake is broad and foods from the earth, tree, or animal can be combined in a seemingly infinite number of ways to create diets that meet health goals."

Having arrived at this conclusion, the nutrition-science mainstream offers guidelines for healthy eating that are more flexible than those of the healthy-diet cults. Originating in big epidemiological studies and validated in major scientific reviews, these guidelines are delivered to the public through a variety of resources, including registered dietitians, community nutrition education programs, a few popular books like Marion Nestle's, and the USDA's MyPlate system. They consist mainly of basic recommendations concerning how often to eat various types of foods. Many of the recommendations are familiar to you: eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, eat whole grains instead of refined grains, eat fish at least twice a week, avoid sugary drinks, and so forth. Although quite specific, these standards are loose enough so that twenty people with twenty different sets of food preferences (and budgets) could follow the guidelines.
— Matt Fitzgerald, Diet Cults: The Surprising Fallacy at the Core of Nutrition Fads and a Guide to Healthy Eating for the Rest of US

He makes it very clear that the Paleo diet claims a One True Way and a scientific basis for it, and that it doesn't have a basis for that. None of these fad diets/diet cults do.

To make it this even more clear and specific, Fitzgerald describes the Paleo as follows: "In his book, Cordain stated in no uncertain terms that his new diet was the One True Way for everyone to eat. 'With this diet, we are returning to the diet we were genetically programmed to follow,' he proclaimed. 'It is the closest approximation we can make, given the current scientific knowledge, to humanity's original, universal diet.'" OK, so Fitz has clearly put Paleo in the same bucket as all the other diet cults.

Fitz goes through the whole debunking of the idea behind the diet - I won't go into that, as I don't see much debate about that here.

The Fitz goes on to say: "The bottom line is that the Paleo diet is not really what it claims to be. Not does do it what it claims to do. Nutrition science has has proven that saying "yes" to bacon and "no" to cheese, potatoes, and toast is not the most reliable way to attain maximum health." And there follows several paragraphs explaining the science behind that.

About exercise and diet, Fitz writes:

Exercise is the great equalizer of diets. Any diet, good or bad, will affect the body of a person who exercises very differently than it affects the body of a person who does not exercise. Regular physical activity ensures that the nutrients a person consumes are put to the best possible use. Exercisers may indeed get more out of an average diet than non-exercisers get out of a good one.

Yet exercise only intensifies a tendency that is manifest in the body even at rest—a tendency to fabricate the same final product out of whatever raw materials it is given. The body is able to "zero out" small to moderate differences in food choices and eating patterns—in other words, to derive the same level of health from diverse ways of eating. Inside each of us there are scores of omit-in mechanisms that work to maintain a preferred physiological homeostasis despite varying nutritional resources. If you eat more salt, the excess will be excreted in urine. If you reduce your carbohydrate intake, your body will create more carbs (and carb subsitutes) from the fats in your diet. Evolution has designed the human body to achieve its required output from a variety of different inputs, and this is one reason there is no "best" diet for everyone.

The most hackneyed, if not the oldest, dietary cliche is the saying. "You are what you eat." So familiar is this axiom that we seldom consider its true meaning. What it suggests is that our health is rigidly determined by the specific foods and nutrients we put in our bodies. It says that if two people put the same foods in their body, they will have the same level of health. And if two people put different foods in their body, they are likely to experience different health outcomes. We are entirely, only, and exactly what we eat.

The healthy-diet cults unanimously subscribe to this principle. You could read a hundred diet-cult books, attend a hundred diet-cult lectures, and watch a hundred diet-cult videos without ever seeing or hearing anything that contradicted the essential meaning of "You are what you eat." This is only to be expected. After all, the diet cults are in business to convince us that we can attain maximum health only if we eat what they tell us to eat.

But in fact we are not what we eat. We are what our bodies do with what we eat. If the body's basic metabolism zeroes out small to moderate differences in diet, exercise neutralizes moderate to large differences. It is like a great sculptor who can fashion the same beautiful form out of various materials, including some of indifferent quality. Exercise is not a license to eat any which way, but we can't attain maximum health without it, and with it we can attain maximum health through an infinite variety of healthy diets —no cult required.
— Matt Fitzgerald, Diet Cults: The Surprising Fallacy at the Core of Nutrition Fads and a Guide to Healthy Eating for the Rest of US

Please tell me, how does the source I provided not support the text that: " ignores the importance of exercise and the amount of food consumed, each of which are essential for health."? Granted i probably should have added the Nestle source to make it more clear yet... Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• and by the way, QG's language, that Paleo "recommended it be subject to scientific rigor" doesn't make any sense, and is what prompted my edits. QG you are fully capable of writing good English. Please do not re-add this. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Paleo diet does not claim to ignore the importance of exercise. They don't tell people to not exercise. The part "the claim has not been rigorously tested" should from a book should not be used to argue against a MEDRS complaint review that says "A 2015 review suggested that the paleolithic diet could be a useful alternative to the unhealthy Western diet.[3]" It has been shown to be better than a Western diet according to the review. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I didn't find that first passages in the book. I tried to search for "paleolithic" but got no results, so I went forward with the assumption that synthesis was used to suppose that his writings about exercise would apply to this subject. However, as you have shown, the intro makes it clear that the author of that book was including the paleolithic diet along with others when he wrote this. You are correct, and I will restore the sentence (minus to citation to the 'fad diets to avoid' page, as that actually doesn't support the statement). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

MP, he never uses the term "paleolithic" and it is not in the quote above... Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is Matt Fitzgerald? --.js^{WP: [democracy needed]} 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The author of a useful book in the field who is a sports nutritionist. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I see that. He used the term "Paleo diet" instead. That's where I went wrong, by assuming he would have spelled out the name, and not checking to be sure. Like I said, I've restored the content I commented out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove the SYN tag without fixing the SYN violation. It is not "While..." That is a SYN. The book is being misused to undermine the 2015 review which shows there has been extensive testing. The "Paleo diet" is not based on no exercise. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that "while" represents synthesis doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, your claim that a diet (which is about food, not about exercise) is about exercise as well as food is obviously, definitionally, categorically wrong. Diets do not proscribe exercise. There are many weight loss programs which do, but you will notice that they are called "weight loss programs," not "diets". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The "While" part is being used to undermine the review and the paleo diet does not tell people to not exercise. They do not ignore the importance of exercise. The review shows lots of tests and studies. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

QG these two edits are a marvel of nuance. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't done adding information from the 2015 review. The key point is "There is limited data on the metabolic effects on humans eating the diet." and using high-quality sources. If I mess up and can try again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fad diet label?

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was curious to see the label "fad diet" in the lede and question its applicability and definition. I found the most recent discussion about the term in the talk page archives here. It seems a bit too much to define the idea of Paleo diet as a fad. The link to the article fad diet says "A fad diet is a diet for which promises of weight loss are made that are not backed by good science, and which is characterized by unusual food choices." Most references i've ever seen to paleo diet are not mainly in regard to weight loss but rather sense of well being. Anyway, i wished to bring this up again so it's an active discussion on the talk page. As i read the archived discussion, i didn't read a consensus about the term "fad diet" being the definitional noun in the first sentence of this article. I found many people advocating otherwise, in fact. SageRad (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC) It's well-sourced in the body (to a piece by H Hall). And it is a diet with "unusual food choices" which seems to fit the bill. Have you got sources that dispute the "fad diet" categorization? Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC) I have no specific source at hand. I've been curious about this diet, and quite undecided about my own opinion on it. I will be taking a lot more time to read sources, and to gather information for my own use. However, the word "fad" does color the opening sentence heavily with a pejorative tone, and it's also not actually in the source cited you cite there, the piece in the New York Times by Hall, which you are saying is the source for the use of the term "fad diet". The term is not used in that article at all. It's quite a wonderful article and i'm glad to have read it. It makes wonderful points about the presence of starches in pre-agricultural human diets, and about the use of fire to cook starches making them more bioavailable, but it doesn't call the paleo diet a fad diet, and doing so might be synthesis if that's the only source. I am sure that there are sources that call the diet a "fad diet" as well as sources that state explicitly that it's not a "fad diet" but as editors we're tasked with writing an article that is as NPOV as possible and that might mean leaving out a pejorative term as the defining noun for the topic of the article and including criticism later in the text. SageRad (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC) The link you say is to Hall's piece is in fact to one by "Karl Zimmer"?? If there are reliable sources that 'state explicitly that it's not a "fad diet"' then produce them. Why are you "sure" about this before even looking? Sounds like editing with a strong POV! That is best avoided. (BTW, also be aware that in the literature there is an overlap between the question of GMOs and the paleo diet, which this article needs expanding with.) Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Please stop the personal attacks here (by which i mean you saying i'm "editing with a strong POV" just because i'm reviving this question and asking it here). This is not a friendly tone for a good dialogue and it's not assuming good faith. Taking a break from this. Not interested in a contentious dialogue like this. I've had enough of that. And for goodness sake, this is not about GMOs. This is a completely different topic. Please sir, i've had enough of this. Can't i please edit peacefully and expect good dialogue anywhere? SageRad (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC) You said "I am sure". Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Figure of speech, how humans talk. SageRad (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC) But yes, indeed, i meant the piece by Zimmer, not Hall. That's the one that sourced the lede sentence that called paleo diet a fad diet. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC) So what i'm gathering is that the use of "fad diet" is source to Hall here. I think that's a POV source and not enough for an NPOV article to call the diet a "fad diet" in the opening sentence. SageRad (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC) I'd like to have a better source, but given the nature of diets I think it's fine. What does "a POV source" mean? --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) The Skeptic source is POV in that it has a strong slant upon the topic which is different from general mainstream slant, in that it's within the Skeptic subculture which has a particular bent toward what they call "debunking" things, which often goes far beyond actual skepticism into a particular ideological realm. It's a subculture as documented here and here. It's a subculture that fetishizes debunking and uses a caricature of scientific knowing. It's a subculture that creates media on many things outside itself, and yet is not necessarily an authoritative source on those other things. There is a source that explicitly says that the concept of paleo diet is not a fad here although it's also a POV source in that it is from a pro-paleo-diet stance. Then there is a source in a more mainstream mode here that asks the question "is it a fad?" and contains lines like Not all medical scientists agree with some of the diet's claims. but does not conclude that it's a fad diet, but rather that it can be helpful: This is, I'm sure, a good thing, eliminating foods that are low in nutrients and high in calories. It's also a diet that involves no weighing or calorie counting – another plus. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC) different from general mainstream slant ← I don't believe so. Produce sources on this diet to back-up that Point of View, please. And best to avoid The Daily Telegraph. Much as I admire [Xanthe Clay's] cookery writing this is not a good RS, and it doesn't even say this diet is not a fad diet. Better to rely on medical writers like Hall, or the NHS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Skeptic (TM) sources are from a very specific point of view. They are happy to so-called "debunk" a lot of things without the care and integrity needed to actually do a real unbiased secondary source type of assessment. They do not have a balanced or mainstream or anything approaching neutral point of view. That's pretty obvious. You may not believe do, but i do believe so. And yes, the Telegraph article does ask the question and then does conclude that it's not a fad diet. You don't need to see a sentence explicitly saying "It is not a fad diet" in the article to read this in the article. It clearly ends with the answer to the title's question being "not really, there's some benefit and some basis to it". And there was also the source that did explicitly say it's not a fad diet, which is equally as POV as the Skeptic source is POV in the other direction. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Just wanted to point out that the NHS did refer to it as a "fad diet" back in 2008 here. The debate here seems to be grounded on a particular definition of fad diet, i.e. a Dr. Oz-type "miracle" diet. The term "fad diet" doesn't necessarily mean that the diet has no benefits whatsoever; rather, it means the diet's primary claims are unscientific, unrepresentative, or outright false, and that it has high profile marketing and widespread rapid uptake. So the paleo diet may not quite be a "fad diet" as such, but the diet is a fad. Perhaps a rephrasing in the lede would be appropriate. Amateria1121 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Some points on the term "fad diet" being the definitional noun in the first sentence of this article for the paleo diet concept: "Fad" means that it's a passing phenomenon, which would be a prediction, as the concept is still a cultural force going strong. "Fad diet" has the ring of a packaged diet, at least to me, a branded thing that is offered by a single source generally, not a cultural phenomenon like the paleo diet appears to be to me. The hyperlink fad diet leads to a technical definition A fad diet is a diet for which promises of weight loss are made that are not backed by good science, and which is characterized by unusual food choices. Whether or not this is an accurate and good working definition for the term, it's also very much debatable whether this fits the paleo diet at least in the main stream of what it means to most people who understand it and/or practice it and/or pay attention to it. I sussed this out by reading some forums recently . The term is also a loaded pejorative, with the apparent intent of discrediting the subject of the article which seems undue to me on the whole. It would be a good fit for a criticism section and the Hall piece would fit well there, but i don't find it reasonable or justifiable to make this the definitional noun for the article's subject. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Fad diet" 1 On the cultural place of Skeptic magazine as a source and skepticism of this subcultural sort in general (questioned in comments above regarding the reliability or POV nature of the Hall piece in Skeptic), there are indeed many sources that speak of this phenomenon as a subcultural happening. I just found a lot of these writings by googling about it. Daniel Drasin writes on it, this paper speaks about CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer and "the Skeptics" as a group with a particular POV and agenda and other various sociological observations. And here is a list of various writings about what they call pseudoskepticism. I had come to these same conclusions and even began to use the term "pseudoskepticism" on my own in the last months while observing this social movement or social phenomenon in various media campaigns designed to discredit certain people or concepts, generally in line with an industrial modernity point of view, and to the detriment and insult of people and ideas to which they are hostile. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC) I'm confused; the British Dietetic Association calls it a fad diet, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics lists it under "fad diets", opinion pieces in very high quality journals like JAMA explicitly calls it a fad diet, and all recent MEDRS compliant sources says there is no significant evidence that it actually works. What exactly is the problem with calling it a fad diet, again? Yobol (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC) It's a term that is often used in a pejorative sense, an implication that SageRad doesn't like. It tends to associate the paleo diet with other, more obviously unscientific diets like the South Beach Diet. Although both are highly unscientific, I would argue that the paleo diet does not seem as...tacky. Or maybe that's just because its proponents do a better job selling it. Personally I would leave the phrase "fad diet" in the lede though, but I understand why an alternative phrase might be considered. However, drifting into circular debates about POV sources is entirely unproductive. Skepticism, pseudo or otherwise, works both ways - there's always money to be made exploiting people's skepticism, be it of the conventional wisdom or of the alternative interpretations. Amateria1121 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I'd actually say the Paleo™ diet was less scientific that South Beach - but yes, they're both fad diets as RS tells us. I think per WP:PSCI we need to be up-front with readers about its iffy nature. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC) The article's topic is "Paleolithic diet", not Paleo™ diet. Please note that this is not a single-source diet or a diet named after a person or based on a single person's work. It's more of an approach to eating, a concept that lives in the culture and has a community that practices it. There is scientific rationale for reasoning about why it would result in various effects. It's got many flavors and variations. Therefore it's inappropriate to refer to it with a trademark symbol unless you're specifying a particular branded incarnation that's been commercialized. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I'd say that discussing POV of sources can be fruitful and is not circular. It is often necessary to discuss the nature of sources including whether they have a strong POV. The question was asked about the Skeptic source and i answered it. My concerns are not about money to be made, but ideological POV pushing and bias in sources. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I see that as cherrypicking. The JAMA mention is a letter with passing reference to Paleo diet. When i go on PubMed and search for review articles referring to "Paleo diet", the first result returned (i.e. not cherrypicking) is a very recent review article that refers to the Paleolithic diet as a valid and scientifically reasonable approach to eating, and that it shows promise of working but needs further study. When i search on Google Scholar, i find several primary studies that report benefits to the diet. For these reasons, it doesn't seem that the term "fad diet" is an appropriate descriptor for the primary noun in the article's first sentence. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC) It's a fad diet alright, and multiple strong sources back that up (where none say otherwise that we know of). "a very recent review article that refers to the Paleolithic diet as a valid and scientifically reasonable approach to eating" ← link? Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC) The link is in my comment. Pure assertion is not very strong argumentation. You can't wish something into being true. There are multiple sources that call it a fad diet, but there are multiple sources that say it's not, and that treat it as a valid approach to eating. Therefore, there exists a range of points of view on this question, and calling it a "fad diet" in the first sentence is not NPOV content in the article according to the range of sources available and does not represent the general sense of sources accurately. SageRad (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC) That would be the article which concludes "The Paleolithic diet might be an acceptable antidote to the unhealthy Western diet, but only unequivocal results from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses will support this hypothesis" and which doesn't consider the "fad" categorization at all. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Indeed, that's the one... the non-consideration of "fad diet" is not a mark against the removal of the "fad diet" pejorative from the first sentence, you know. The review takes the paleolithic diet seriously and asserts that there is good reason to believe that it has the specific benefits for which they were evaluating, and it needs further study. That in itself is evidence that the reviewers do not see it as a "fad diet". You do not need every source to say explicitly that "the paleo diet is not a fad" to endorse that it's not a fad in the sense that you're pushing for the article to say. And the review in question is looking at the paleo diet in terms of a very specific benefit and that is why they say further study is needed to show benefit unequivocally. I feel this dialogue here being difficult and not unbiased. I feel a pushing. i would like to assume good faith but I don't feel an unbiased look at the range of literature being done by most participants here. I don't feel a genuine consideration of the question happening. I feel we'll end up going in circles with frayed ends unresolved based on what's happened already. SageRad (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC) We get this kind of POV-push all the time, of the form "since {$fringe-topic} is taken seriously, it has some validity". See, e.g. the archives of the Homeopathy page: homeopathy is seriously studied a lot: it does not stop it being fringe nonsense. It is pure original research to say that because the reviewers do not mention "fad diets" you can intuit their view on this. One might as well say that it's so obvious it doesn't need mentioning. In any case if we follow good sources and WP:STICKTOSOURCE it's all quite clear. I suggest we are done here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC) This is not homeopathy, so that's irrelevant. You calling something "fringe" does not "fringe" make it. The word of someone just because they call themselves a "skeptic" does not become gospel. It's no substitute for the words of actual experts. I cited the most recent review article that i could find mentioning the article's topic, from PubMed, here, above, in case you missed it. I do support sticking to sources, and the result of doing so calls into question the first sentence of this article. There are some sources that call it a "fad diet" but there are a great many other sources that do not, and therefore it seems the label as the primary label for this concept is not accurate in an NPOV sense. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I suggest we're not done here as long as there is a serious issue that violates NPOV in the article. I suggest you don't dismiss my concerns in the way you're doing or attempt to characterize them as POV pushing. I'm working against the POV i see pushed already into the article and doing so with good and reasonable dialogue. You can choose to participate in good dialogue or not, but if you do not them you don't get to determine what's in the article. SageRad (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think you make sense. The consensus here is clear. To widen it, I suggest adding to the already-open noticeboard thread at WP:FT/N#Paleolithic diet. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and FRINGE in all this, especially starting with [13], and any edits made based upon these misunderstandings would rather blatantly violate WP:ARBPS. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think i have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of these things in the least. I think i see things differently from you which does not inherently mean i'm wrong. Your declaring that you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic policies when i actually do understand them is sort of insulting and condescending and makes dialogue on this kind of difficult. Why not talk about the actual issue, the question of whether "fad diet" is warranted as the primary noun in the first sentence of this article when there is a diverse range of opinions on this question in the reliable sources on the subject of this article? I think that's sort of what NPOV asks us to do as editors. I don't see real engagement on the issue at hand here, very much. I see a few sources that call it a fad diet, but they look cherrypicked, and i see some blowback on my calling Skeptic magazine a point of view source and not neutral enough to justify basing the entire orientation of this article on it and a couple of cherrypicked sources. Some people think it's a fad diet but a great many other people do not, and you can't declare that out of reality. SageRad (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC) You cannot declare consensus when there are valid and well-explained issues on the table and i have explained myself well enough. You'd need to actually hear and address my concerns in order to work on establishing consensus. SageRad (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Your concerns have been noted and given the consideration they deserve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Not really. SageRad (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, really. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC) I submit that an impartial observer who reads this dialog would find it sorely lacking integrity. This article is badly biased and it's doing a disservice to the reader. The other editors here seem to be bent on an agenda to retain the phrase "fad diet" as the key noun in the first sentence despite it not reflecting a fair survey of reliable sources, in other words to violate the policies of Wikipedia to maintain an ideological position in regard to the subject of the article. I google "Paleolithic diet" and i find the first result after this article itself is the Mayo Clinic page here.... it does not call the diet a "fad diet" and it says there is moderate evidence that it has benefits. And many other sources are similar, respectable sources. And yet this article is in a lockdown by a group of editors who have made an ideological call to arms and pushed a specific point of view into it, against the general lay of the reliable sources. It's not right, and it does not serve the encyclopedia. And when i do edit here, people post chilling, gaslighting and bullying messagesh on my talk page designed to intimidate me away from editing this article and anything else they deem "fringe" (a label used in a McCarthyism way in this context). It's an agenda pushing that is not healthy for editors or the encyclopedia. It is not good for the world because readers learn about the world through Wikipedia and they are getting a slanted reflection of reality imposed by a small group of editors with a particular POV to push. SageRad (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC) …a slanted reflection of reality imposed by a small group of editors with a particular POV to push. SageRad, did it ever occur to you that others might consider that a pretty accurate description of yourself? How about, for this article, we just focus on the content? Maybe there's a sinister agenda, maybe not, but if there are any problems, then there are well-worn paths to resolution. Taking yourself to article after article and complaining that a different crew of editors at each one are pushing some dubious line just looks like paranoia at work. Discuss any problems first, insist on reliable sources, seek more eyes via an RfC, and take conduct issues to ANI. Work with the system; it's designed to help us all. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC) People have made it impossible to focus on the content because there is an absence of genuine good faith dialogue here. There is obstructionism. I've discussed problems and insisted on reliable sources. That's been obstructed in many subtle ways in the dialogue above. SageRad (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Posting about non-content issues here solves nothing. To repeat: if anybody has other issues, they should take them elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Well then, i should perhaps declare that i've presented a good case that "fad diet" is not justified as the primary noun of the first sentence and therefore ought to be changed to something like "an approach to eating". People have not engaged the dialogue with me in good faith to show me why i am wrong with reasonably good dialogue, so i think this edit is justified. Consensus is determined by good dialogue where people hear each other and address each others' concerns. To the extent that this has been done here, it seems that the article content is currently skewed toward one point of view very strongly, from the opening sentence. SageRad (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Your case is weak and has failed. To recap: you said you were "sure" there was RS saying this diet was not a fad diet. No such source has been produced. Your fallback argument is that some sources don't explicitly say it's a fad diet. This is unconvincing, as not all sources consider this categorization. But we do have multiple, strong sources which do consider it, and they say it's a fad diet. So we do too, for neutrality. It is now probably time for this particular WP:STICK to be dropped. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC) No such source has been produced. Yes it was. You must have missed it. This is unconvincing ... it's quite convincing to me though not as you phrase it in a strawman way to make it appear to be a ridiculous argument. This is not a dead horse. This is a situation where a horse is alive and yet several people are saying it's dead but those people have a strong interest in saying it's dead because their interest depends on people believing it's dead. That's not a drop the stick situation. It's a situation where there's a group with a mode of twisting dialogue and not being here in good faith for the article without bias. SageRad (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC) What you have just described Sage is a consensus, with one outlier. Can you guess who it is? -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC) I think what i've stated is that the dialogue is not a healthy and collegiate one, but rather an obstructionist one. That cannot result in a consensus. It can result in an apparent consensus on a cursory shallow reading which is actually a forcing in a semi-covert way. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC) And to re-repeat, to widen the consensus there is an already-open thread at WP:FT/N - a page with over 200 active watchers. The repeated implication that other editors are somehow at fault is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC) So there's a discussion with three or four hostile comments on the Fringe Theory noticeboard? I don't see how that is relevant. If anything it shows a hostile canvassing that has resulted in the present state of this article. I have valid concerns that i have explained very clearly in this talk page section, which i do not think have been heard and responded to adequately and in good faith by other editors. SageRad (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Well in that case, with such alleged wrongdoing, your recourse would be WP:AIN. Please don't continue off-topic discussion here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC) "Fad diet" 2 So, to return to the actual discussion on content, as i have written above, the words "fad diet" are seen by readers and have an effect in how some people learn about this subject. As i've outlined above, the term contains many implications, in the word "fad" and the phrase "fad diet" and in the definition linked at fad diet if a reader follows the link. While there are some sources that call this approach to eating a "fad diet" there are also many sources that call Obama a "horrible president" and yet the article on Obama would surely not begin with "Obama is a horrible president of the United States of America." While "fad diet" may be a "term of the art" (i would like to investigate this further myself) and different from the word "horrible" in some ways, it also carries this negative judgement in the first sentence of this article which i do not think is justified by an honest and wide survey of the reliable sources on this topic. The lede should define the subject in an NPOV way and leave various points of view, including criticism, to be developed further and clearly demarcated as criticism by some, which is what it is. We want to reflect reality here, as best we can by reflecting reliable sources on this topic. I see this not being done properly here. That's my issue. These points have not been really addressed here. Maybe there's something i'm missing and i'm open to hearing valid points presented in a collegiate way. There's a lot to discuss here if we can actually focus on the content with good faith and good dialogue. So far not so good. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, "fad diet" might be seen as a little negative. The paleo diet is a diet, no question, so it must be "fad" you see as a problem. However, "fad" is an excellent way of describing the thing. It, as even its proponents would acknowledge, is a little out of the ordinary, and it is a popular phenomenon with no (as yet) enduring effect. If it remains popular after a few years - as other fads such as crowdsourcing, smartphones, Twitter and Wikipedia itself have outgrown the tag - then we might reasonably consider removing the word, as it would be untrue, and we could point to many current sources using other words to describe the paleo diet. But if we attempt to look into the future or to guide the mind of the reader along a certain path before it is well-trodden, then we are not doing our job of providing honest and accurate information. At the moment, I am persuaded by the words we use to describe a fad: The specific nature of the behavior associated with a fad can be of any type including language usage, apparel, financial investment and even food. Apart from general novelty, fads may be driven by mass media programming, emotional excitement, peer pressure, or the desire to "be hip". Fads may also be set by popular celebrities. Spot on there. To change from a fad to a trend, there must be some "relatively permanent change". I would not characterise the paleo diet as having reached that stage, and there are any number of excellent sources for that view. Of course, we can find other sources insisting that paleo is an enduring part of the human condition, but I am reluctant to take that view, due to the amount of scientific scorn being poured on that notion. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC) This is pretty much the point I was trying to make, only done much more eloquently. "The paleo diet may not quite be a "fad diet" as such (given the negative connotations of the term) but the diet is a fad." So, for lack of a better option, I think the lede should retain "fad diet". I think the article does a good enough job of stating that the diet's premise and rationale is entirely unscientific, but that it is not necessarily detrimental to its adherents. SageRad seems to be hung up on the lede without delving into the content. Perhaps, instead of focusing on endlessly debating the inclusion of one term in the lede, it would be better to a) see if the article does a good job of representing the diet's features and criticisms, and then b) reassess whether the term "fad diet" should be retained in the lede as a reflection of the article's content, or whether it should be replaced with a more appropriate term.Amateria1121 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the dialogue. As for "fad" -- how do you know something is a fad when it's not over yet? You're saying "we'll call it a fad but if it doesn't end in a few years then we'll consider removing the label" but that doesn't make sense to me. You can see a fad in the rear view mirror but not in present. What if i called CRISPR a fad because as a technology it might not be used much in 10 years? Well, it might, but it might not... so let's call it a fad just to be safe. We'd end up calling everything a fad. The Pet rock was a real fad and that article doesn't even call it a fad in the first sentence. As for the word "diet", it's a "diet" in that it's an approach to eating, a specification of some guidelines for what to eat, but it is not a diet in the sense of "lose weight fast, regain your beach body! only $19.95 plus shipping and handling!" -- in other words, it is not the South Beach Diet or anything like that. It's not the product or domain of a single book or single person. It's a concept that has been developed by many people in community. There are many books and many other sources in its development. The word "diet" has the connotation of the purpose being to lose weight by restricting calories, in popular usage, though technically it means "what an organism eats". That's why "an approach to eating" might be a better phrase. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Here is a useful history of the idea of the Paleolithic diet. The early impetus was a 1985 paper by Boyd Eaton in NEJM and it seems to involve thousands of people. This link is by Loren Cordain, one of the main authors of books on the subject, so it may be considered a POV source, but it's a good source of the history nonetheless. SageRad (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC) It goes back further than that, as our article already covers. Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Indeed, i was about to add that Cordain mentions Weston Price’s Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects, first published in 1939. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC) A lede section should convey a neutral point of view. It should not color the reader's first introduction to the article's subject in a way that rules out any legitimate point of view, and in this case there are indeed legitimate points of view that do not categorize the Paleolithic diet as a "fad diet" but rather portray it as a legitimate approach to nutrition that has some apparent benefits. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) We could actually call it a "dietary pattern" as do Katz and Mellor in their 2014 review article. This is a gem of phrasing, because it includes the technical term "diet" but it avoids the lay interpretation of "diet" as being a "lose weight fast!" thing. It also helps to include both the historic meaning of the term "Paleolithic diet" as the actual ancient dietary patterns of our ancestors, as well as being a very accurate description of what this noun actually is. That some people call it a "fad diet" can be included in the lede, as well as that some consider it effective and valid. SageRad (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Reliable secondary sources describe it as a fad diet. Its a fad diet. So far your arguments have basically come down to 'Its not a fad' 'its not a diet'. Which is not how sources describe it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC) "Fad diet" 3 Note that an IP user (who was not me) removed the word "fad" and it was reverted. I continue to not agree that that use of "fad diet" as the primary noun for this definition is "reliably sourced" as that means according to WP:NPOV that the great bulk of reliable sources on this topic use this label and definition for the diet, which they do not. But alas, it persists against complete consensus. SageRad (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC) See the edsum. Oh, wait, you already did. In that case see WP:IDHT -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) What is "edsum"? Oh, it means edit summary. The edit summary says "Reliably sourced." Why your tone and why your indirect way of writing to me? My response: the use of the term "fad diet" as the most primary noun in the whole article to define the subject is not adequately sourced. There is strong disagreement among editors on this. Several sources do call it a fad diet, but many sources do not call it that and write of it as a genuine diet with merit, and some sources actively dispute the "fad diet" label used by other sources... so the use of the term is in contention by reliable sources. There is not a general unanimity on the use of this term in reliable sources, so it is not reliably sourced for the main lede sentence to call it a fad diet. Citing IDHT ("I don't hear that") strikes me as a personal attack, as you're accusing me of intentionally not hearing things. Can't we get beyond this level of contention and stick to content? SageRad (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest revert

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To try and defuse the current argument, I have changed the start of the lead to be strictly facual and not to use emotive terms like 'fad diet'. Doe anyone prefer this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I definitely prefer a neutral first sentence. Above there is a long dialog on this topic, as well. I advocate for the use of the least common denominator for the initial definition of the subject of the article -- the basic core definition -- and then presentation of criticism. To define the subject of an article using a term that is not shared by all of the major points of view about the subject would be non-neutral. SageRad (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 'Fad diet' is not an emotive term except for proponents of fad diets. Its how sources describe it, and its been hashed out many times (see above). Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC) The description 'fad diet' is emotive and not encyclopedic. I am not proposing removing it completely from the article just from the lead. Some sources may use this term but not all do. It may have been discussed before but ther is clearly not general agreement on this term Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC) a fad diet is any of these heavily marketed diets that call on people to make big changes to their diets instead of eating sensibly and getting enough exercise. Public health authorities in the developed world have advised what "eating sensibly and getting enough exercise" means. It is not complicated. The people who react "emotionally" are advocates of these various diets. We don't kowtow to advocates in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC) The sources don't appear to support either portion of the change that I can see. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Well, "fad diet" is a derogatory term. Perhaps that is what Martin means by "emotional". I agree with that, as it's a loaded term that derides the concept of the article in the very first sentence, in its very definition. The concept of the "Paleolithic diet" has been marketed and has been promoted by some people, but it is larger than that subset. It's a cultural thing, a concept that had an earlier beginning, and has developed through time and has many different subsections with similar but differing approaches to eating. We need to define the concept according to a least common denominator, and then explain the realm of the concept in its different aspects. Just because one person has sold books that look like a fad diet using the term does not mean the whole concept is a "fad diet". SageRad (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC) ... and, we've got the immediate revert here with the edit reason "Its a fad diet by any impartial reliable source on it" -- which is verifiably not true. How is this good editing? How is this cooperative editing? We have in the article itself a review-level paper by David L. Katz and Stephanie Meller who have written that the paleo diet presents a "scientific case" in part because of its anthropological basis, and that what scientific evidence exist on it is generally supportive. This is in Annual Review of Public Health, a journal in a relevant field. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Ronz, there is no material in my version that was not already in the article, presumably sourced. The problem here is very similar to that at veganism where a group of editors insist on using language that is not immediately comprehensible to the reader. You should not need a wikilink to understand exactly what a 'fad diet' is. The correct and encyclopedic way is to use ordinary language in the lead to give clear factual information on the subject. The lead is not the place for us to make points about how good or how bad something is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC) " The lead is not the place for us to make points about how good or how bad something is." Nonsense. This appears to ask us to not only ignore sourcing, but policies like V and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC) WP:Lead says [my bold]' A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article,...the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view'. It also says, 'The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit". We are not doing that here but we are doing the reverse (perhaps we should call that a peahen term) which is just as bad. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Correct. The lede should summarize and introduce the article, not in a manner that violates NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC) NPOV says that WP is science-based and that we follow mainstream sources. Mainstream advice about what to eat on a regular basis comes from health authorities in the developed world. The fact that some people are Believers in this fringe-y diet doesn't change the fact that it is not in line with any mainstream health authority's advice. Lots of people want doctors to give them or their kids antibiotics when they have a cold. That doesn't mean we give credence to that in WP. If you want to argue it is not a fad diet, show that some major public health authority supports this way of eating and that is more authoritative than the sources we have now that says Paleo is a fad diet. If cannot do that, please stop objecting. Please base your comments on Talk on sources and the relevant policies, which is what CONSENSUS in Wikipedia are based on. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I have no opinion on whether the diet is a 'fad diet' or not. The problem is with the unencyclopedic language, which requires the reader to understand the relatively uncommon term 'fad diet'. What exactly does that mean? How derogatory is it? Does it imply that it is completely ineffectual for its proposed purpose? I can guess the answer to these questions or I can follow a wikilink to try to find out but none of these things should be necessary for a statement in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC) that is why there is a wikilink - in case anyone is unfamiliar with it. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC) We shouldn't attempt to determine neutrality by ignoring sources and other Wikipedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC) No, we should not "attempt to determine neutrality by ignoring sources" and that is exactly why the lede should not call it a "fad diet" in the first sentence. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC) NPOV says that Wikipedia follows sources, period. Reliable sources, represented fairly and accurately, and given due weight according to actual weight in the world, and that is what i am saying we need to do here. Science is a source of a great amount of reliable sourcing, and in science there is reliable sourcing of adequate weight to not call this a fad diet -- as i have explicitly cited in this section here, and which some people seem to not care to see or hear. There is some failure to engage. I agree that if most or all reliable sources called it a "fad diet" then the first sentence of the article ought to follow this. But this is not the case. Some sources call it a fad diet, and some do not. And i mean reliable sources. There is a cherrypicked collection of sources in the article (due to a phase of POV pushing -- go back and look in the edit history) that call it a "fad diet" but this does not reflect the actual reliable sourcing in the world by proportion. And, the article itself contains a secondary peer-reviewed scientific paper (here) that does not call it a "fad diet" and offers a level of support and credence to the diet that the lede saying "fad diet" would not reflect, by common understanding of the phrase "fad diet" or by the Wikilinked specific definition. There are many reliable sources that do not call this a "fad diet" and this is being ignored in choosing one POV among many valid points of view to define the diet in the lede sentence. SageRad (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Please review the WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI portions of NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I know about those, and i disagree with you, very strongly, on the interpretation of things. You must accept that people can disagree with you from a place of knowledge and understanding, and that doesn't make them automatically wrong or stupid. Those are the very points that i have been making, using reliable sources, and pointing out here, so please do not lecture me about policies and guidelines here unless you actually get specific and tell me exactly what you are referring to. Otherwise it sounds condescending and uncivil to me. It is rather uncivil to cite policies, essays, and guidelines without pointing out the specific meaning of doing so. It implies that you think the recipient is not aware of them. You know me, Jytdog, and you know that i know about the policies and guidelines. SageRad (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Then please follow them. Paleo is far from the mainstream diet advice offered by public health authorities like the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy & Promotion and the NHS in the UK. As I said, if you can find a public health authority of equal or greater authority to that, which recommends the Paleo diet, please present the source(s). Diet books and articles in magazines flogging Paleo or other fad diets are nothing next to that. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I am following them. You continue to fail to hear. I am leaving this for the time being because there is a far too strong obstinacy at work and an WP:OWNERSHIP problem at this article. It's a shame. I have no strong interest in the Paleo diet but i do have a strong interest in the integrity of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Seems that "integrity" is at odds with our content and behavoral policies. Too bad, because you actually made some interesting comments, but they're overwhelmed with the constant inability to FOC and worse. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC) SageRad again please cite the major public health authorities that advise people to eat Paleo. If there are none, please acknowledge that so that we all know that we are all starting from the same point - namely mainstream authoritative advice about healthy eating, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI and NPOV generally. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Regardless of whether major public health authorities that advise people to eat Paleo or not we should not use unencyclopedic language like 'fad diet',which requires wilkilink just so that people know what it means, in the lead. Better to just state the facts, for example why not say, 'no major public health authorities that advise people to eat this diet', if that is what we mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I didn't say the wikilink is needed so that everybody knows what it means - i said it was there if people don't know what it means. please don't misrepresent me. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC) So where is the RS for 'fad diet'? One source is given to justify the usage of 'fad diet' in the lead and that source does not use the term 'fad diet'. The cited sources is a light hearted article by the BDA called, "Top 5 Worst Celebrity Diets to Avoid in 2015"; not exactly a peer reviewed paper. It does inded have the word 'fad' in it, in its witty opening, 'Jurassic fad!', hardly a scientific classification or a serious piece of terminology. The same article says of the 'Clay cleanse diet', 'Clay away from this diet!', and of the 'urine diet','Literally, don't take the proverbial!'. This is more a case of witty repartee than scientific discourse. It would seem that the term 'fad diet' is just an unsourced figment of WP editors' imagination. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC) This is content! Content with no WP:RS. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC) If the BDA isn't good enough, I'm not sure what is. The "History and terminology" has more. More in the previous discussions. Are they all being overlooked? --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Firstly the BDA does not ever use the term 'fad diet'; that term does not appear anywhere in the source. Secondly as I have clearly shown above, the cited source is not a serious, academic, or scholarly work by the BDA but a light hearted and humorous piece that uses unencyclopedic language throughout. Please find a source that says that 'the Paleolithic diet is a fad diet' or remove the unencyclopedic and unsupported editorial opinion in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) I've changed the citation one of the others mentioned in the previous discussions that is currently in the "History and terminology" section (mentioned above) that uses "fad diet" in both the title and description. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC) well done, ronz. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Martin, to answer your question, the lede sentence was previously only sourced to the one NY Times article by Carl Zimmer. It doesn't even need to be sourced, as the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and the article would contain the sources. But then, in the previous discussion on this topic, i was told that the Harriet Hall source is the supporting RS for this claim. That is found here. Hall is a contributor to Gorski's Science-Based Medicine and is generally in that "Skeptic Movement" wheelhouse. I find that to be not a reliable source to support the definition of this article's subject as a "fad diet" in the lede sentence. It's a smaller point of view on this diet, not the entire mainstream point of view. That's my issue here. There are some other sources that call it a "fad diet" but those in the article are seriously cherry-picked and it's not the general view as far as i have seen. For instance, one source that called it so is the British Dietetic Association, but there are many other references to the diet in similar sources that do not call it a "fad diet" but treat it with other nuance. So it's cherry-picking. I hope that is helpful. I realize that you are in fact focusing on content and i appreciate it. When i do read that Harriet Hall source in Skeptic, i find this is the only mention of the word "fad": Fad diets and "miracle" diet supplements promise to help us lose weight effortlessly. Different diet gurus offer a bewildering array of diets that promise to keep us healthy and make us live longer: vegan, Paleo, Mediterranean, low fat, low carb, raw food, gluten-free ... the list goes on. Obviously they can't all be right. Food myths abound, often supported by the strongest of convictions and emotions. What are we to believe? That does not even call the Paleo diet a "fad diet" directly (though it does imply it) but it also does cast the meaning of "fad diet" to mean that it's about a "promise to help us lose weight effortlessly" which is most emphatically not the only and not the main purpose of the diet, and for many people it's not even a purpose at all. What i have seen is people using the paleo diet concept as a guide to change eating patterns somewhat (not drastically) for better health overall, not generally for losing weight. Of course being of a fit weight is part of general health, but it's nothing like the "South Beach Diet" claims for losing weight as the main purpose, for sure. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe it's not only about shedding pounds, but the paleo diet's proponents make equally specious claims regarding health effects. Amateria1121 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC) I was somewhat puzzled by the link to fad diet. To me it seemed reasonable, until I got there, and discovered that wiki's defn of a fad diet was a diet that makes promises of weight loss without backing by solid science. So I fixed that, a bit [14]. AFAICT weight loss isn't a major claim for the paleo diet. In fact, reading this article I was hard pushed to discover what the claims were for the advantages. There's a brief "Proponents claim that its followers enjoy longer, healthier, and more active lives" but that seems to be about it. Since that's in the lede, I'd expect it to be backed up by a section - perhaps "claimed health effects". We can't be short of sources for what these people claim, can we? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC) But if I google "paleo diet advantages" the top hit is http://eatdrinkpaleo.com.au/paleo-benefits/ which offers (as headings) "You eat unprocessed, real food", "Paleo diet is rich in nutrients" then "Sustained weight loss". The first two aren't really advantages, in a sense, so actually their first real claim is weight loss. In which case, shouldn't our article here say so? Although http://www.paleodietevolved.com/benefits-of-the-paleo-diet.html puts it at #12 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC) This is a very similar problem to that which we have at veganism. 'Fad diet' is rhetoric; it may be justified and it may be mentioned in some sources but it is not appropriate language for an encyclopedia. As can be seen from the discussion above, it is not even clear what 'fad diet' is intended to meant and it is even less clear what our readers will make of it. If the facts are that the diet is not recommended by or criticised by good quality sources then fine, we should say that here, in plain language that everyone can understand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) The sources indicate otherwise. I'm glad we've settled that "fad diet" is verified. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Sources to not write an encycopedia for us; we do that using the appropriate language, not rhetoric. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I was once told by a wise man that you need three things to edit here. Sources, sources and yes, sources. I'm satisfied that the sources are fine for this fad diet. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC) A fad diet isn't necessarily about weight loss. It's a diet that becomes popular over a short period of time that makes promises it can't deliver on - which is usually rapid weight loss. The paleo diet has been around for a while, but it's certainly spiked in popularity in the last few years. Its main touted promise, to essentially cure Diseases of affluence, is patently false. There are reliable sources that support these statements in the article. Plus, its supposed scientific basis is highly questionable; I wouldn't go so far as to say disproven, but it's far from widely accepted. This is to say nothing of the actual benefits this diet presents. It's not a bad diet at all, really, there's just nothing special about it, and certainly nothing to warrant its surge in popularity. I think that can be attributed to larger societal shifts (among well off people, at least) towards a more farm-to-table mentality - or in this case, hunt and gather-to-table. But as I said, it has many widely touted specific health benefits for which there is little to no evidence. Therefore I would call it a fad diet, just not one that promises you'll drop 75 pounds in 2 weeks. Amateria1121 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Roxy, there is a difference between a tabloid newspaper and an encyclopedia. Newpapers use sensationalist, emotive, rhetoric to language to describe facts. We can derscrobe the same facts, and even use the same sources but we should use different language. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Martin as I said to SageRad - if you can bring citations from major public health authorities that advise people to eat Paleo (in other words, that treat Paleo as a mainstream healthy diet) please bring it. Otherwise we rightly treat this as the fringe-y fad thing it is and I will just ignore you per WP:SHUN. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC) There are good sources to not use "fad diet" as the main noun for the lede sentence. There is IDHT going on here to the max degree. See long, long discussion above and see many other discussions at this talk page, and see serious sources that refer to the diet not as a fad diet but an actual approach to eating with merit, including secondary articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. An editor cannot repeat oneself endlessly, and there is filibustering and obstructionism happening here. It's not resulting in a good article. SageRad (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Not providing sources when asked for them, is obstructionist. Again SageRad, if you cannot provide sources showing that Paleo is advised by major public health authorities, you have to acknowledge that it is not mainstream dietary guidance and that we have to treat it that way per NPOV. I will not be responding further to you either, until you do that. This is a waste of time we are all not discussing per policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Well then, look at the comment below, which i'd posted before you wrote yours. SageRad (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) That is not a major public health authority. Mainstream advice about diet - about what is best to eat on a regular basis - comes from public health authorities like the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy & Promotion with "choose my plate" and the NHS in the UK with their "eat well plate". the article below is a primary source reporting on a small clinical trial if that is the citation i think you mean. not on point and not even close. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC) The article i cited is a secondary source reporting on other studies about diets, in a peer-reviewed journal on public health. There is not a requirement that a source must be a government source. "Mainstream" is not defined as government agencies only. SageRad (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Katz/Meller -- boom -- there you go, a source. We're at the point where this is a circus. Well past that point. It's shameful. SageRad (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks for adding the link to the Katz/Meller article. That review does not advise people to eat Paleo in fact it argues against all these fad diets: "The message that there is a clearly established theme of healthful eating, relevant across generations, geography, and health concerns could, theoretically, exert a considerable and advantageous influence on public nutrition. This message, however, is at present a relatively feeble signal lost in a chorus of noise. In pursuit of marketing advantage, notoriety, or some other bias, the defenders of competing diets tend inevitably to emphasize their mutual exclusivities. This pattern conforms well with prevailing media practices and the result is perpetual confusion and doubt." That "pattern of healthful eating" is exactly what public health authorities advise. You should actually read those two sites I linked to. Just plain common sense based on good science and no pseudoscience gimmickry. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC) First, it does not even use the word "fad" or the term "fad diet" so i don't see how you represent it that way honestly. Secondly, it doesn't argue for any particular diet but it does evaluate the premises of the diets and the evidence for or against them, and says that there's not all that much evidence because of lack of studies by what evidence exists is generally supportive of benefits of the diet. I know David Katz's general message is "just eat healthy" and i support his message very much. See also his recent comments on the U.S. government's recent dietary guidelines -- he is very critical of them. But in general his paper in Annual Review of Public Health says that there is a genuine and valid premise for the paleo diet, and that it's generally a decent diet comparatively, though he recommends simply eating healthy by general standards as the final arbiter. Interesting, though, how he's rather critical of the government dietary recommendations, too. And, the fact remains that reliable sources are not required to be government sources, and there's also the considerations i wrote below about the meaning of NPOV in regard to content here. SageRad (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Other sources do, and the point here is that even Katz/Mellen does not say "eat Paleo" but lumps it with the rest of the fad diets that are part of the rather than a never-ending parade of beauty pageant contestants. He is not "very critical" of the dietary guidelines in this source. You continue to read very hard against the mainstream. WP is not counter-cultural. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Again, the paper does not even use the word "fad" and you are kind of misrepresenting the spirit of the paper as well. Where i said he was very critical of the recent government dietary guidelines is at this link in Time where he says: [W]here the Guidelines are good, and there aren’t many places, it’s where they preserved key components of the DGAC report. They respected recommendations about key nutrient thresholds—limiting saturated fat, not limiting total fat, limiting added sugar—and they preserved the idea of healthy dietary patterns, and provided examples. But overall, there is a disgraceful replacement of specific guidance with the vaguest possible language. There is disgraceful backtracking on recommendations to eat less meat and more plants. There is disgraceful shoehorning in of advice to keep consuming “all food groups,” clearly a bow to industry and effective lobbying. That's pretty down on the government dietary guidelines. SageRad (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) This is a complete waste of time and I am sorry I continued to engage on this theoretical level. . Per my note below please propose some concrete change to the content, with sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC) The nature of the question You do not need only a single source that says that the paleo diet is a fad diet to define it as such. You need to show that the general mainstream definition of the paleo diet is that it's a "fad diet" in the sense that is meant here. There are some sources, many even, that do write of the diet as if it's a fad, but there are more sources that write of it as a diet with merit and a basis in reality. Therefore, the general definition of this diet as a "fad diet" would be unencyclopedic. The nature of NPOV is to represent the field of valid viewpoints that hold weight on the subject. If there are multiple valid viewpoints, then the definition of the subject of an article falls back to the lowest common denominator, and then the differing viewpoints are explained. To favor one viewpoint over another valid viewpoint is bias, and is editorializing in the article -- exactly what NPOV is against. SageRad (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) No. you continue to argue for giving WEIGHT based on your own preferences. Again when public health authorities come out in favor of any of these fad diets (paleo, atkins, what have you) you will have a leg to stand on. As of 2016 they are just part of the noise in the marketplace - if you want to stand over there with the snake oil salesman offering pseudo-science based gimmickry and fads, knock yourself out. But WP will not go there. And I am not pursuing this discussion further. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) No, i am arguing to follow sources and policies and guidelines, and to not push POV into the article. Simple as that. SageRad (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC) By the way, your comment above is very uncivil. SageRad (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC) As I said I am not pursuing this further. I suggest that you propose some concrete change to the content here on the talk page. We can only work DR process with concrete proposals for changes. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC) The clear concrete proposal was to not call it a "fad diet" in the lede sentence. SageRad (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Which has, of course, been dealt with. -Roxy the dog™ woof 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC) You have not gained consemsus for that change, SageRad so please pursue some form of dispute resolution if you feel strongly. Please see WP:DR Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I realize that there is not consensus for this content, but neither is there consensus for "fad diet" to be the lede sentence, and generally there has not been since it's been being discussed from a while back in the archives of this article's talk page. SageRad (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) You want to change existing content and there is no consensus for the change. Please initiate some DR process. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC) If you look at the extended edit history for this article, you will see that there has never been a consensus for the content. SageRad (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC) We are where we are now. You want to change it. You have no consensus for that. Please initiate some DR process. No one is going to do that for you. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The status quo is not relevant when it comes to finding consensus on content. WP:BRD is an essay and refers only to the status quo ante, but this does not mean that the status quo has an upper hand in any way in discussions about what is right for an article. There is no consensus on what is right, here, and you cannot shut down the dialog by asserting that the status quo is what it is and ordering someone to seek dispute resolution. DR may be useful but it's not required on demand from another editor. SageRad (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The way things work is that if you want to make a change and it is rejected, you talk about it and if you fail to gain consensus, you pursue DR. Please read WP:DR. No one is going to hold your hand here. I am not making any demands, I am telling you how things work. And I am not responding to this further, either. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC) You've been around here longer than i, Jytdog. Can you tell me where in policy and guidelines this is stated as the way things work? I'm continuing to discuss as a means to build consensus. I'm not asking anyone to "hold my hand". I'm rather asking people to act with integrity and follow policies and sources. I'm finding surprisingly little actual engagement regarding policy like WP:NPOV as regards applying the reliable sources to discuss the content of the article. I've outlined a serious and well-defined argument here about why the lede should not use "fad diet" for the primary definition of this subject, because it is does not reflect the point of view of many of the mainstream sources on this subject. That is a legitimate thing to discuss here. It's completely legitimate to call this a diet and then say that there are many critics who call it a fad diet. On the other hand, to define it as a fad diet while there are many legitimate sources that do not call it that is not neutral. There's a real distinction here. Wikipedia should not engage in biased presentation of subjects. SageRad (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Please stop yammering about your integrity. Everybody cares about integrity. You honestly think your version has more integrity and in my view your version completely ignores the actual mainstream views on diet as expressed by the bulk of reliable sources, and tries to elevate a minority view to the center by cherrypicking a few good sources and ignoring the rest (and helps unscrupulous pushers of pseudoscience snake oil make yet more money off gullible people). Whatever. Look, you have made this talk page into a huge sprawl, pushing and pushing for a change that is not getting consensus. I am out of patience and am done with this level of DR. One by one the others here will run out of patience and will just stop talking to you as well, per WP:SHUN.. If you want to keep trying to do something that is failing and will leave you talking to yourself and isolated, knock yourself out. A sensible and experienced Wikipedian walks away at this point, or initiates the next step of DR. That is how things work here. And now I am really not responding further here. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) It is always better to discuss things and try to find points of agreement. A consistent problem in this respect is the increasing use of rhetoric (please do read the link) rather than plain language facts. It is hard to reach agreement regarding 'fad diet' simply because it has no well-defined meaning. If we say 'not recommended by X' or 'has been shown to be deficient in Y' or even 'promoted by people with no dietic knowledge' then we can logically argue about whether that fact is supported by a reliable source. Rhetoric like 'fad diet', 'commodity status', 'climate change denial', or 'wage slave' is designed not to propagate or explain facts but to change opinion. Such terms of often intentionally ambiguous so that, according to one definition or understanding, they are easily defensible but have another meaning that is obviously pejorative. 'Wage slave' is an excellent example of what I mean. At one extreme it is a perfectly logical form of words; most people need to get a job in order to live (at least to the standard that they would like) so they are, in effect 'slaves' to their employment. In the other hand the words have an obvious and extremely negative and emotive connection to slavery; something that is generally regarded as indefensible. It is an entirely unsuitable term for use in an encyclopedia not just because it is rhetoric but because it is ambiguous; the reader has no way of knowing which particular meaning it is intended to have, thus it conveys almost no information at all. The term 'fad diet' is very similar. It can be argued that it is just a diet observed by relatively few people (Are veganisn or vegetarianism fad diets?) or one that has been in fashion for a short time; relatively innocuous meanings. On the other hand people may take it to mean that it is positively dangerous or proposed with fraudulent intent or just to make a quick profit. Does a fad diet have to be connected with weight loss? I defy anyone who wants to argue this point to tell me in a few words a generally accepted meaning of fad diet and everything that the term implies. The answer to these disputes is very simple. Use plain language to say exactly what you meant to say. Use words that have a clear meaning without the need to look them up or to follow an explanitory link. Now it is easier to resolve disputes. We only have to decide whether the sources support the facts that we are saying. Of course, finding sources that use rhetoric is easy, they will be sources that for various reasons are trying to persuade or influence people but that does not mean that we can use their language in WP. In my experience those who fight to keep rhetoric in articles are those do who want to use WP as a means of persuading people of something or other. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I'm going to repost this since it seems to have been ignored. A fad diet isn't necessarily about weight loss. It's a diet that becomes popular over a short period of time that makes promises it can't deliver on - which is usually rapid weight loss. The paleo diet has been around for a while, but it's certainly spiked in popularity in the last few years. Its main touted promise, to essentially cure Diseases of affluence, is patently false. There are reliable sources that support these statements in the article. Plus, its supposed scientific basis is highly questionable; I wouldn't go so far as to say disproven, but it's far from widely accepted. This is to say nothing of the actual benefits this diet presents. It's not a bad diet at all, really, there's just nothing special about it, and certainly nothing to warrant its surge in popularity. I think that can be attributed to larger societal shifts (among well off people, at least) towards a more farm-to-table mentality - or in this case, hunt and gather-to-table. But as I said, it has many widely touted specific health benefits for which there is little to no evidence. Therefore I would call it a fad diet, just not one that promises you'll drop 75 pounds in 2 weeks. Amateria1121 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Fad diet" is clearly heard as a pejorative by most people, and this term is not shared by the bulk of reliable sources on the diet, so it's a partial point of view on the diet -- the point of view of some (and not the great lion's share, either, only some) -- so therefore, it's not reasonable to define the diet as a "fad diet" in the lede. We follow sources, and in the lede, we define the subject by the least common denominator possible and do not use loaded terms that are used by only some of the sources on the subject as the definition. That seems like Wikipedia neutrality 101 to me. For you to reason out why you think the diet is a "fad diet" would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. That's the heart of my issue here and why i called this section "The nature of the question". SageRad (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Fad diet" is clearly heard as a pejorative by most people because it is rhetoric. It is intentionally ambiguous. That is the whole idea of rhetoric, it is not intended to inform but to persuade. Our job in WP is not to persuade but to inform. We do not 'follow the sources' in WP. We write encyclopedic English that is supported by reliable sources. To give a simple example, a tabloid newspaper might report an event perfectly accurately and we could use it as a source, but we would not use their language to describe the event in WP, because they are writing a tabloid newspaper and we are writing an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have again editing to call the subject a "fad diet" in the first sentence of the lede despite there not being consensus for this, and this being contentious. So... are we going to be able to discuss this reasonably and with integrity, or are we going to have another long round of edit warring and POV pushing back and forth? That is the question. SageRad (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I hate to break this to you, but it is a fad diet, and the first source (the one whose wording I edited a while ago, mentioned in the section directly above this) clearly states so. This may be contentious to some people, but it's not contentious enough to justify leaving out the label "fad diet". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Addendum Before this gets used as an argument, I just want to point out that whether or not this is a fad diet is not a medical issue. It doesn't require a WP:MEDRS source to establish it. Even if it did, the source in the section above meets MEDRS standards and calls it a "fad diet", even if it's no longer the one used to justify the lead sentence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Agree, it's obviously a fad diet. Enough with Sage's disruptive pov-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Enough with your uncivil personal attack. Comment on content. I am not disruptive and i am not POV pushing. You are simply cluettering up this space and making it toxic. That is not good Wikipedia editing culture. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Oh come on, grow a pair. This is Wikipedia, debate can be robust. If you are advocating the diet then do so, if you're not then make it clear. You must have realised by now that Wikipedia has a massive and long-term problem with proponents of every kind of bullshit coming here to hawk their wares, and it's important to raise yourself above the fray by being honest about your personal views yet open to the possibility that they could be wrong. That's not a very big ask, and it makes for a much less fractious debate. If others think you're playing poker, they will treat you as if you have something to hide, but if you lay your cards on the table I think you'll find that we're all eager to compromise and collaborate. Because that is why we are here, isn't it? Me, I am skeptical of the claims of the paleo diet for the reasons stated in the article - there is, in essence, no such thing as a single paleolithic human diet, and sciencey-sounding fad diets are ten a penny. It's way too soon to tell what, if anything, in the paleo diet is evidentially supportable, yet proponents claim it will help you live, just like cave men, to the ripe old age of thirty. Oh, sorry, they forget to mention the low life expectancy of paleolithic humans. Odd, that :-) Guy (Help!) 00:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Understand it's not a MEDRS claim. But the issue is the failure to apply WP:NPOV in terms of representing the sources proportionately and honestly in accord with the full universe of sources on a subject. There are sources that consider it a fad diet, but there are many good reliable sources that consider the diet not a fad diet, and therefore it is not right for the article to define it as such. You don't write an article that represents only one valid view of a topic when there are multiple valid views of very similar weight. That's as obvious as daylight in regard to NPOV. The article needs to define it as the bulk of reliable sources define it, and it's simply not the case that all or most reliable sources define it as such. You can cherry-pick sources to make it look like that, but it's not the actual case. So, we have here a failure to understand and apply NPOV correctly, and a resulting edit war at this point, as a revert has been reverted while dialogue is in progress. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Consider how you'd like it if you're editing on climate change, and someone writes "I hate to break it to you, but climate change is a hoax." Seriously, we are not the experts here. The sources are the experts. We take the sources and use them, survey them, and get the sense of what the sources say. You can cherry-pick and pretend that all sources say this is a fad diet, but that is contradicted by the many sources that say it's a valid diet with merit. You can't write an article that is a clear POV attack piece with good conscience and expect all other editors to ignore it. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC) When a source is silent on the question of whether the paleo diet is a fad diet, it is WP:OR on your part to say this means it isn't a fad diet. Many sources simply don't consider the question. Those that do state the point that it is a fad diet. It's a canonical example of one. As has been said, it's the bleedin' obvious. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC) SageRad, please read WP:REHASH and reflect on it. That's all I will say here. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Well, i can see these points but not fully agree that it represents a genuine good faith editing to the sources. Also i would cite the parallel to the "parity doctrine" that most sources won't say it's not a fad diet because they don't write to counter every critique, same argument that others make about parity in another sense. And lastly, rehash? no... if you stop rehashing then i'll stop repeating the same reasonable arguments in response. Anyway, good day to y'all. I'm not edit warring or going at length on and on... just registering this solid dissent from what's happened here by a group with a very similar point of view causing this article to reflect that point of view, which is not the mission of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yup, it's well past time to drop it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Did you pause and reflect at all? Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I've been reflecting on this article for over a month now. I find your tone condescending. As for dropping the stick, others need to do that or respond with better arguments than brute force and repetition. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC) @SageRad: If you look up the common definition of a fad diet, you will see that it is held pretty much universally to be "a diet that promises dramatic weight loss." There are usually a number of other indicators, though they're inevitably presented as being optional, as a list of common characteristics of a fad diet. Not that this matters, because the paleo diet meets most of those characteristics, as well. So the question is, do I need to google a hundred web sites claiming that the paleo diet will cause dramatic weight loss, or can we all agree that we've seen such claims enough already? Now this is extremely different from someone saying that climate change is a hoax. I can prove that climate change is not a hoax (not deductively, but rather by any reasonable inductive standard). No-one can prove that the paleo diet is not a fad diet. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC) ...a group with a very similar point of view... A group into which you immediately toss the guy whose edit history on this topic has been the exact opposite of that point of view. Seriously. You found a specific legitimate grievance with the skeptical side, I came to your defense, acknowledged that you had a legitimate grievance, worked to correct it, and the moment I dissent from your view, I'm just another faceless inquisitor, trying to burn you at the stake. This is why fringe pushers don't get taken seriously: you're all POV, and any substance is there by sheer coincidence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry you made assumptions here. As for the slinging, no thanks. Please be more civil. I'll return when I can write at length and have more time. Until then please reconsider your charged words. SageRad (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) It does not belong in the first sentence because there is no explanation. It can be explained later in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) The lede discussed fad one rather than twice. There is no reason to mention it twice. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC) There's no reason not to, either. Get rid of the last sentence, move the sources to the first. Oh, and don't put pop-medical books up as WP:MEDRS sources. They'll only be reverted again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Allow me to explain my reasoning. There are many sources that describe the Paleolithic diet. Most of them describe it for what it is, an approach to eating that emphasizes foods that would have been found in pre-agricultural human diets. Some of them describe it as a fad diet. Some of them say that it's not a fad diet. These are not fringe positions, but mainstream points of view about eating practices based on the Paleo diet premise. There are scientific papers that support some beneficial effects claimed by the diet being real. Therefore, to define it as a "fad diet" is to privilege one point of view over others in the lede sentence. That would not be neutral as per WP:NPOV. If we define it with the minimum common qualities, and then describe these points of view, then we can write a neutral article. SageRad (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Fad diet, yes

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We had a visitor from Turkey during the little flurry over the lead, who added this EL. This is what fad diets are all about - hokey websites spewing pseudoscience. The internet is full of this garbage. Our article is not going to become another Fan Site. It just isn't. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Not clear. Are you saying that this article is not going to become another fan site for the Science-Based Medicine website? If so, i agree. Are you saying this article is not going to become a fan site for the Paleo diet? If so, i agree. It's not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. We need to write neutral articles, and we need to assess the universe of reliable sources without bias. We need to represent the subject without bias. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly. So when numerous reliable media sources refer to it as a fad diet, we might find that irritating, but we must represent it in the article, especially when we can see for ourselves that it meets the criteria. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry, you seem to be completely missing my point. I am not supporting the paleo diet in any way, I am objecting to the unencyclopedic wording 'fad diet'. If the diet has no benefits then we say. 'it has no benefits', if it is likely to cause malnutricion then we say 'is likely to cause malnutrition', if it promotes some other problem then we say 'promotes some other problem'. I have to ask you again, what exactly does 'fad diet' tell our readers. Please, just imagine that you know nothing about diets and you read the WP article. You see 'fad diet', what specific information about the diet, except that WP editors do not like it, does it give you. It is not our job to split diets into fad diets good diets, we just give people information about the diets. I do not want to hide or whitewash anything, I just want WP to be an encyclopedia not an advice centre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "can see for ourselves that it meets the criteria" is WP:OR. And sure, you can find four sources that call it a fad diet. I can also find sources that say otherwise and i can link them in the same way... and there are also other sources that say things in the middle or orthogonal to it, etc... there are many sources and we need to look at them without having a deathwish for the subject of the article to begin with. Anyway, i'm also not a Paleo advocate, nor do i follow the diet (although i do think about it) ... I mainly want articles on Wikipedia to be well written and not subject to extreme POV bias. If a Paleo diet, poorly planned or badly followed, can cause health risks, and this is said by sources, then so be it, then say it. If there are benefits, then say it. Say what the sources say, that's all i'm saying here. And the reaction is really revealing. There's a strong wind blowing here. It's like trying to build a house with a continuous strong wind blowing. You just can' really do it. So.... i'm not interested in subjecting myself to continuous contentious dialogue, either. So this article is WP:OWNed. SageRad (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC) "can see for ourselves that it meets the criteria" is WP:OR. By that logic, going out and finding sources is OR, as well, and we must instead wait for reliable sources to present themselves. Hell, for that matter, summarizing the contents of those sources is WP:SYNTH, so we should just quote them directly. But then that would be WP:COPYVIO, so I guess we should just make Wikipedia a collection of links. WP's policy against original research only applies to article contents. It's not OR for you to personally read the sources and think about things in order to form an opinion. Why do I need to explain this to you? Why isn't this blatantly obvious? These are not rhetorical questions, I really would like an answer. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC) There is nothing unencyclopaedic about the term fad diet. Look, we even have an encyclopaedia article on the concept. Wikipedia's mission is to inform. We inform people about the beliefs of paleo diet proponents, we also inform them that it's a fad diet based on obvious fallacious reasoning. No problem. Oh, and your sources that claim it's not a fad diet? You undermine yourself rather with these. http://paleoleap.com/is-paleo-a-fad-diet/ - site devoted to promoting paleo diet, and not an RS. http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/04/08/the-paleo-diet-debunked/ - bullshit "level up your life" blog http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10555433/Paleo-diet-is-eating-like-a-caveman-healthy-or-a-fad.html - not in the article at all, only the comments. http://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/paleo-diet - does not contain the word fad even once. http://paleozonenutrition.com/2015/02/18/10-reasons-why-the-paleo-diet-works-why-it-is-not-a-fad-and-is-here-to-stay-part-1/ - site promtoing paleo diet. So I have to wonder: did you actually check any of the sources or evaluate their reliability at all? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/16/paleo-isnt-a-fad-diet-its-an-ideology According to RS it is not a fad. QuackGuru (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) An opinion article published in the guardian is FAR from a reliable source. Please stop your disruptive editing behaviour. Mrfrobinson (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) And in any case, an ideology is pretty much what a fad diet is! Guy (Help!) 20:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) All these comments are gamy. I countered a linked list rhetoric device with a linked list rhetoric device just to show it can be done. Many sources that say it's a fad are also B-grade and POV-laden sources. There isn't a genuine and unbiased attempt at discerning the reality here. There's rhetoric and POV pushing. Like i said, you can't build a good house when there's a constant high wind blowing. There's not an atmosphere here in which a real dialogue can be had to determine the best way to write this article. There's a constant wind blowing. Have fun writing thousands of words. I'll be around when an actual conversation with integrity can be had. Until then, this article is WP:OWNed and locked into an extreme POV take on the article's subject. SageRad (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I've got an idea. Why don't we write an article about a subject, and emphasize only those sources that are negative toward the subject? Why don't we select the 10 or so sources that are overtly hostile to the subject, and emphasize those over the other 90 sources that are available? Does that sound like a good way to write an encyclopedia entry with the goal of a neutral point of view? If that doesn't sound right to you then maybe you'll understand the issue that i have with this article and its current state of lock-down. If you can't understand this, then i wonder what you're doing here. SageRad (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic The term 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic because it a vague pejorative term. It is not factual, it is not even opinion, it is pure name-calling. For example let us look on the fad diet article to see what it means. The first sentence of the lead says, 'A fad diet ... is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science, and in many cases are characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices'. There we have several points: A fad diet promises weight loss. A fad diet promises a longer life. A fad diet promises some other health advantage. A fad diet has no backing by solid science for any of its promised advantage. A fad diet is characterised by an unusual food choice. A fad diet is characterised by a highly restrictive food choice. A reader seeing the term 'fad diet' and following the link to the article has no way of knowing which of these points is intended to apply the PD. Luckily, there is a very simple way to solve this problem, we tell our readers exactly what the facts, as supported by reliable sources, are. For example we might say, 'The PD claims to give its followers a longer life (1) but there is no scientific evidence for this claim (2)' (where 1 and 2 are refs to reliable sources). Now we are giving encyclopedic facts rather that trying to set up the 'Wikipedia diet assessment service', basically saying X is a good diet Y is a bad diet. This approach also has the advantage of making discussion here easier and more civil. All we need to discuss is whether reliable sources do show that the PD claims to provide longer life and whether this claim is supported by scientific evidence. Those are simple factual claims which are relatively simple to resolve. If on the other hand, we choose to say 'fad diet' we are pushing ourselves into endless and pointless arguments about exactly what 'fad diet' means and how accurately and completely that term applies to the PD. Reliable sources cannot easily resolve this problem because that would entail doing our own OR to see what proportion of soirces use the term compared with those that do not. I am sure that you all think I am supporting SageRad here. The reality is that I do not know whether I am or not and, because the whole complex argument it centred round a piece of vague pejorative rhetoric, there is no way of telling. Once we get down to discussing facts rather than trying to give health advice to our readers the whole dispute will become much clearer to everyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I do agree with talking about specifics and facts. One fact is that there are a number of scientific studies that lend support to some health benefits of following a Paleolithic diet, so it would not be true that there is no scientific support for it. In an above section, i listed around 7 or 8 papers in response to a question from Jytdog, that supported the premise of the diet or specific hypotheses about health effects. A second important point that people are not admitting if they're primed to paint this subject in a negative light, is that this is not only a branded diet like the "South Beach Diet" where there is a single origin. Sure, there is this guy Loren Cordain who has written books and trademarked the name "Paleo diet" but he is not the only source of knowledge about this diet and he is not the only person that defines it. There is a real community of people who discuss this concept and this is also part of what constitutes this diet. Therefore, it's not so easy to nail down the "Paleo diet" in a single form as specified by a single book or article. It's got many variations. One problem with this article as it stands is that it uses an extreme form of the diet's proscriptions in many instances, and therefore it's doing strawman argumentation: portraying it in an extreme way and then "refuting" that extreme portrayal. SageRad (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I agree. The article is more of an attack page than an encyclopdia article. Unfortunately many editors now seem to completely misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are not here to give dietary advice, help people live longer and happier lives, promote any form of politics, prevent polution or climate change, protect animals or people from abuse or indeed to right and great wrongs, however right we may feel we are. We individually may hope that, presented with the facts, people will make the choices that we personally think are the right ones, but we cannot express or promote those thoughte here. There is considerable agreement that humans are not evolutionarily adapted to the modern western diet. We need to distinguish between this, quite reasonable assertion, and any over-specific, unsupported dietary advice and unproven health claims. To do this we need to drop the rhetoric and talk about the science in a sensible manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Please read WP:TPG. This is not the place for posting long-winded, bullshit spiels about what you think is wrong with wikipedia's process or editors. Nor is this the place to whine about your inability to convince others to turn this page into a glowing review of the subject. If you keep this up, I think admin intervention might be needed. When you're done reading the last link, please read WP:STICK. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Wow. Inappropriate. SageRad (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Actually Mjolnir this is the place to discuss editing of this article on wikipedia. It is not the place to make personal attacks like you have just done. If you think admin intervention is need by all means arrange it. You might be surprised by the result. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)Martin, you (and proponents of other fad diets) are missing the absolutely key point that mainstream science makes on these matters -- it is not all about diet - it is about lifestyle. All of these fad diets have the "get rich quick" mentality that if people just fiddle with their food choices, they will be magically healthier or less fat. How does mainstream advice for people in the developed world go? "eat less, move more, eat lots of fruits and vegetables...go easy on junk foods.". Please mind what it starts with - "eat less, move more". To the extent that the paleo diet coincides in part with the food choices aspect of mainstream advice, well that is great. It doesn't mean that the whole effort isn't misguided or just another somewhat goofy food cult in a long, long line of them. And to the extent that they make all kinds of strong claims about "foods to avoid" and their own kooky, pseudoscientific reasons to do so, they miss the boat completely and they just add to the noise in the room. Mainstream advice, based on our best science, about being healthier is really simple - "eat less, move more, eat lots of fruits and vegetables...go easy on junk foods." Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Jytdog it is not up to us to assess diets on behalf of our readers and then classify then fad or not fad for their benefit. If the diet makes incorrect recommendations about foods to avoid why not simply say that in plain English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Just to repeat, the arguments against the "fad diet" label appear to be based upon original research to promote a pov not in any of the sources, while asking us to ignore the pov actually in reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Patently untrue. SageRad (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Such comments don't help the case, or you. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I beg to differ. Anyway, the arguments against the "fad diet" label as the main descriptor for this subject are simply adherence to NPOV. The argument in favor of using "fad diet" as the main noun for this subject appear to be to promote a POV in some but not most of the sources. Note that the argument here is not whether "fad diet" is used in the article at all, but whether it's used as the main noun in the first sentence. SageRad (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) We are currently using nydailynews in the lede. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/3-diets-paleo-gluten-free-weight-watchers-article-1.2346244 Then we can also use the guardian in the lede. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/16/paleo-isnt-a-fad-diet-its-an-ideology QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) If only we were writing a Newspaper. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) There have been almost 8,000 words written about this issue in the past couple of days. So far, the only thing resolved is that the words "fad diet" needed to be linked to the WP article. Seriously, it's time to drop the stick and back away slowly from the horse. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Please feel free to drop the stick and back away slowly from the horse if you wish. I prefer civil discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC?

We seem to be making little progress on the neutrality of 'fad diet'. I do not think it is an appropriate term for an encyclopedia, including WP, to used in its own voice about any diet. Maybe wider community input would help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think you must be reading a different talk page. This page (Talk:Paleolithic diet) is the one to read. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Martin, are you saying the term "fad diet" should appear nowhere in the article? Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC) No, I would not put it as strongly as that but I do not think it is our job to classify diets into fad and non-fad diets, even if some sources (that are not encyclopedias) do so. Have a look at SageRad's suggestion. I was happy with that even though it did mention 'fad diet'. If you want to discuss why I think 'fad diet', as it is in the lead now, is not encyclopedic read my comments under the heading, which I have just added, 'Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic'. No one has yet addressed any of the points that I made there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I think the problem is that whenever the claim it should be excluded is rebutted, a tiny handful of editors simply put their fingers in their ears, chant "LAA LAA LAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and then make the same statement again as if it had not been rebutted. Meanwhile, there are lots of reliable sources calling it a fad diet and pretty much the only RS that explicitly denies it, instead characterises it as basically a cult. Which, in case it was not obvious, is a subset. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC) To repeat my previous comment, "the arguments against the "fad diet" label appear to be based upon original research to promote a pov not in any of the sources, while asking us to ignore the pov actually in reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)" If you're not going to even propose new sources, or demonstrate that the current sources are somehow are being used in a way that violates NOT or NPOV, let's not waste any further time. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC) User:Ronz there is original research in the lede. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede. The word fad should not be repeated twice in the lede. These are obvious problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) People are requiring there to be multiple sources that say "No, the Paleo diet is not a fad" in order for it to not be reported as a fad diet here? Well there are such sources but they tend to be from Paleo related websites, many of them. However, wouldn't it be true by expectation that plenty of sources speak about the Paleo diet as a valid thing and some speak about them as a fad diet, and a few refute the "some" that speak about it as a fad diet? Some sources that are within a Paleo umbrella say "No, it's not a fad" [15] [16] Other more mainstream sources simply describe it not as a "fad diet" but as a "diet" [17] [18] .... and that is the basis for saying that "fad diet" is not the correct primary noun for this diet. I see a slanted presentation of it being made by some editors here, preferencing sources that are negative to the diet in a systematic way. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Is there something new here that hasn't been discussed before? If so, I'm having a hard time seeing it. "Some sources that are within a Paleo umbrella..." Having to rely upon non-encyclopedic viewpoints rather demonstrates that it would be a NOT and NPOV violation to remove the info. "Other more mainstream sources simply describe it". So we change the pov of this article because of what some sources don't say?! That's a NPOV violation as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, there is something new that you have not addressed. Please respond to the points that I have made above under the heading "Why 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic". Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC) We use our human sense as editors, and we realize that there are not going to be the same number and type of sources directly confronting the claims that it's a fad diet as there are going to be calling it a fad diet, and we recognize that a source discussing the diet in terms that make quite apparent that it considers the diet to be a valid and worthwhile diet for consideration is saying that it's not a "fad diet" in the sense that other sources are calling it. In other words, if there are three sources saying "The moon is made of blue cheese" and yet there's no equivalent source saying "No, the moon is not made of blue cheese" and yet there are many sources saying "The moon is made out of minerals" then we are not obliged to say in Wikipedia that "The moon is made of blue cheese" even though there are three sources that say so. You must be familiar with this principle, right? We would report that the moon is made of mineral material, and not that it's made of blue cheese. We might report that "Some sources say it's made of blue cheese" but we wouldn't begin the article Moon by saying "The moon is a celestial body made of blue cheese that orbits the Earth" simply because three sources say it's made of blue cheese and no sources explicitly say "No, the moon is not made of blue cheese" -- that's the principle of a sensible editor. SageRad (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Furthermore, in this case, as Martin Hogbin has been pointing out, "fad diet" is a rather unencyclopedic term, more a rhetorical term, and a term of judgment, of opinion, of reckoning. It's completely fine that a number of people think the Paleo diet is a "fad diet" (and they do) but this is not the opinion of all or most people. It's the opinion of some people, and some sources, but it's not the definition of the subject of this article. It does not belong as the main noun for the definition. Paleo diet is an approach to eating. Some people think it's a "fad diet" and some think it's a valid and reasonable approach to eating. There are several people here trying to push that into being the primary definition of this, and that feels a whole lot like POV pushing. SageRad (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin if you would like an RfC, I suggest you propose an RfC question for discussion. Please try to make it neutral to reduce the drama around the question itself. I recommend that you do not simply launch an RfC as one that is not acceptable to the "other side" will create a lot of drama and make it more difficult for the community to provide truly useful feedback for a closer to weigh. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to have attempted to shut down rational and civil discussion on the subject it would seem that an RfC is the only way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

draft question

The RfC question is very simple, 'Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

asked and answered. This boring repetition is tendentious. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If you don't wish to add to the conversation, or follow it, then you don't have to. SageRad (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, or perhaps "Should the Paleolithic diet be defined as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lede, or should it be defined as a 'diet' with a later sentence saying that some sources call it a 'fad diet'?" I think that this would make the choices more parallel, and show that not defining it as a 'fad diet' as the primary noun does not rule out noting that some sources call it a fad diet -- which they do, of course, and it's fine to note it, with attribution. SageRad (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin, does the question you posed solve the issue of the use of "fad diet" in this article? I do not want for this RFC to be resolved only to have you open a new argument about use of the term at all. Please be sure pose a question that addresses all of your concerns. If you do not, and after this RfC is over you begin to address some other aspect of the use of "fad diet" in this article, you will be wide open to getting topic banned or more. So please consider carefully. The goal here needs to be ending this endless wrangling. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How about, 'Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a better question might be "Are the sources in the article sufficient to justify the use of the term 'fad diet' in the opening sentence?" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not a neutral question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing un-neutral about it - it just makes it more clear that the question should be answered based on policies and guidelines, not how people feel.Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a two question RfC would be excellent.

1) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article? and

2) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead?

We don't need to wikilink the name of the diet, as the RfC will be here on the Talk page. Is everybody OK with this? Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the word fad be mentioned in the first sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That is there in question 2. Question 1 is there to lay this issue to rest, so we don't end up with another endless debate. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The first question is irrelevant for now.

I want to focus only on the first sentence for the RfC. Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree and if you actually read the arguments of the people arguing against "fad diet" they are saying that is inappropriate to use the term at all. While we have people's attention it would be most productive to have them consider both questions. It would be a disaster if we took up the community's time with the narrow question about the lead and got a resolution, only to have our work here grind to a halt again over the use of the term at all, and have to invoke a second RfC and have people read sources and think about the whole thing a second time. Both questions are the most efficient way to go, for everyone involved. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your first sentence question is irrelevant to me. The problems are the inaccurate information in the lede regarding fad diet. They don't want the term mentioned in the lead because it was misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If 'they' includes me then you are wrong. I do not want 'fad diet' used in Wikipedia's voice because it is unspecific name-calling. If we have RS that say the diet is 'dangereous', 'a money making scheme', 'provides no benefit', 'can lead to nutritional deficiencies' I would be quite happy to have any of those but 'fad diet' tells the reader nothing useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of DR is resolve disputes among actual editors, and to do that, the arguments being made by actual editors matters. Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change. I understand it is not relevant to you and as your change notes, you are not the only one who has a problem with the term. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The editors who do not want it mentioned in the lede have not seen the new accurate text. Maybe they will like it. The previous text was ambiguous. Now it is clear and sourced. My concern was OR in the lead and fad mentioned twice in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I liked your edit. 'It has been called...' is fine; it clearly has. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, in response to Jytdog's comment above, i personally am not opposed to using the term "fad diet" in the article. I would like it to be in the article, attributed to those who call it such, in a reasonable way. Please acknowledge that i, for one, am not opposed to the term "fad diet" being in the article. I am opposed to it being classified as a "fad diet" in Wikivoice directly. That is a reckoning about which there are multiple points of view, and so it should be attributed and this is very simple to do. Please do not make it out as if i am opposed to the term "fad diet" being in the article. Were you speaking of another editor in this assertion? 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageRad (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is clear that question 2 addresses QG/s concern; question 1 addresses MH's and SR's concern. QG doesn't want question 1 but we need it for SH/MH. It is not clear if MH would accept "fad diet" with attribution, but I am assuming that MH would. MH if that is not correct, please say so. MjolnirPants can you live with the two questions? Anybody else?

As a follow up question, should we provide sources with the RFC question so folks don't have to go hunting? Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• The endless bickering here, with the same parties (plural) saying the same things. is not going away, so I plan to launch the RFC with the questions I posed above later today. So last chance for comments... Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad has made it clear that he needs question 1 answered, as has Martin here. Quackguru has made it clear that he needs question 2 answered per this and this, as has SageRad. (SageRad raises both questions at once here and here)

So we need both questions answered. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to ask both questions, except that I would point out that a No to 1 and a Yes to to would be an inconsistent response, so better would be to ask:

1) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article? and

2) If 'Yes' to 1, should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• i"m OK with this. Since we had the distraction of the alternatives today, i will wait a bit before launching the RfC to see if there is any more commentary. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am too. But perhaps QG's alternative proposal would work for folks and we don't have to pull the trigger on the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• New question for RfC. Should we change 'fad diet' to 'popular diet' in the first sentence of the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is just a pointless diversion. What information does 'popular' give to our readers?

There is no need to get agreement on the question so I am going to start an RfC with the two questions shown below, there is some levele of consensus for these. If we need another question and another RfC after this one then whoever thinks it is necessary can call one.

1) Should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in Wikipedia's voice in the article? and

2) If 'Yes' to 1, should the Paleolithic diet be classified as a 'fad diet' in the first sentence of the lead? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm perfectly okay with those two questions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

draft question 2

Should the Paleolithic diet be defined as a "fad diet" in Wikivoice, or should the article say that some sources call it a "fad diet"?

That is the question i would like to see asked.

If Wikipedia defines it as a "fad diet" then that's Wikipedia taking a position on this, among several positions. The question should provide these two options. We're not just trying to leave out the term "fad diet" so it shouldn't imply that as the opposite to defining the diet as a "fad diet". SageRad (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Current text: The paleo diet is promoted as a way of improving health.[2]

change to:

The paleo diet like other fad diets is promoted as a way of improving health.[2] Rather than state it in the first sentence without any specific context for the reader it can be moved to later in the lede with context. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Quackguru, to be clear, you are proposing to take "fad diet" out of the first paragraph, and refer to it like that, at the start of the 2nd paragraph? Like this? Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this works better because it adds context. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am OK with this alternative proposal, which would like this if implemented. Are others OK with this? Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Would folks please reply to this? Perhaps this would be acceptable and we can avoid taking up the community's time with an RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it is stil unencyclopedic rhetoric in Wikivoice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Martin Hogbin, which version do you think is less unencyclopedic? The current version or this proposal? QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to chose between them in my opinion. 'Fad diet' is an almost meaningless term and should not be used in an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me try to rephrase the question. If there is a RfC and editors read the sources and they agree it should be stated in the lede then what do you prefer? If you had to pick between the two versions would you choose it being stated in the first sentence or later on in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: Why don't you go propose the deletion of the Fad diet page, since you're so opposed to the term? After all, if it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an article about it. If you can accomplish that, I'll vote with you to excise the term completely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note to everybody. It appears that SageRad has left Wikipedia so things may calm down considerably at this article. We have a proposal from Quackguru above, which would remove his objections to the use of "fad diet". Martin has said he doesn't accept it. Alexbrn, Guy, MjolnirPants do you find it acceptable enough? Anybody else? Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that the article state outright that it is a fad diet, but I can live with it being identified as such in passing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, am waiting for others to weigh in before doing anything about this or the RfC. no deadline and whatnot....but am again pinging Alexbrn and Guy to see if we have enough local consensus to go with this...and anybody else of course. As I noted SageRad's departure, i'll note his undeparture...Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm still here. My issue is that it should be called "fad diet" with attribution to sources, as it's not all or even most reliable sources calling it that. That's a point of view that is held by some of the sources, so it should not be used to define the Paleolithic diet as a fad diet in Wikivoice. It belongs in the article, clearly, though with attribution, to follow the policy of WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd buy this argument if I could see two or three reliable sources (not MEDRS, just objective, reputable news outlets would be enough) flatly stating that it's not a fad diet. This would show that there's some controversy or difference of opinion, instead of the current situation, which just suggests that not every source uses the term 'fad diet'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad you have repeated your argument many many times and MP you have asked for that a bunch of times and it is obviously not forthcoming. Please do not re-launch the endless debate. SageRad please note that we are looking for a compromise here that everybody can live with before we take up the community's time with an RfC. The proposed language is a compromise. The question is not "Is this exactly what you want", it is, "can you live with this so we can all move on" Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about non-NPOV content in Wikivoice, but i would be able to live with it much better if it's not the main definitional noun for the whole article, as has been insisted on so far by some editors. So in that regard, i could live with the proposed language above much better, while i'd still hold it to be non-NPOV, but an issue caught up in an editor's logjam and i'd not care as much if it's not forced into being the definitional noun in the first sentence. I'd still consider it incorrect but could live with it for the time being. Thanks for working in this spirit. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The goal here is to resolve this. So if you will only accept this for the time being but you would open this up again later please clarify that. The compromise needs to be authentic or else it is a waste of time. What I mean by "authentic" is that we all work to maintain it - so if we agree on this and somebody comes and wants to add "fad diet" to the first sentence again, I would revert that, pointing to this compromise, and if somebody came along and wanted to remove "fad diet" from this sentence, you would revert that, pointing to this compromise. It means we have actually compromised and everybody involved will defend it and argue for it, because we have worked our butts off and it is "good enough" from all policy-based perspectives. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess, then, that i don't want to contribute to "resolving this" in the same way that the U.S. Congress votes that climate change is not real. I can hold my considered position, which is that there is a subset of the Paleo diet that is a fad diet, and a way to see it that makes it a fad diet, but that there is also an approach to the Paleo diet as a heuristic for thinking about food that has benefits and makes sense, with a sound scientific basis. So i cannot agree that simply calling it a "fad diet" in Wikivoice would be NPOV. We could say that many sources call it a fad diet, or that some variations of the Paleo diet are fad diets, or something like this. I appreciate your insistence on keeping this question real. I suppose that my real answer is that i wouldn't agree with it being called "fad diet" in Wikivoice but if it's not the main definitional noun of the first sentence, it's less onerous of a violation of NPOV and i have other things to do and wouldn't bother caring as much about what i see as a problem in the article. SageRad (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK then "no" it is. Let's see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SageRad, the question is which version do you prefer. The current version or this proposal? It is not about "resolving this". It is about whether you want it mentioned in the first sentence or later in the lede. We can still have a RfC even if all editors agree with the compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• If editors agree or disagree with this proposal there still can be a RfC. This won't resolve the dispute when some editors want it removed from the lede or they don't want it in WP's voice. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

QG if we could have gotten local consensus for this, we wouldn't have needed to do the RfC. Local consensus isn't developing (I am taking the silence of Alexbrn and Guy as lack of consent) and both SageRad and Martin have said no, so it looks like the RfC will be needed. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin was okay with it.[19] SageRad prefers it not be in WP's voice but has not rejected the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That dif is what MjolnirPants said, not Martin. Martin said

No, it is stil unencyclopedic rhetoric in Wikivoice.

. Sage did not consent and withheld his consent very clearly. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. It was MjolnirPants according to the diff. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The reader is having a problem with the wording in the lead.[20] I think we should try the alternate proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page archiving without discussion or agreement

I am against this archiving of recent discussions, especially with the unilateral value judgments in some of the edit summaries: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] These recent discussions are very important to new users who might arrive here to see what's been up, and to others who may like to refer to them more easily than in an archive. This archiving doesn't strike me as a good idea. I reverted one and i'd like to revert more, and have a discussion here about whether we need to change the number of days on the auto-archive or something, but the unilateral archiving strikes me as a poor idea. SageRad (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And [27] [28] Hatting is a similar unilateral action that shuts down active discussions by one person's judgment and especially when they use the hat summary to say things like "endless repetition" and such. Can't you see it's not a friendly thing or a good judgment to do this, especially when there is contention and lack of consensus and ongoing discussion? Can you see how it might have at least the appearance of impropriety and an urge to hide discussions? SageRad (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And, Jytdog is edit warring this away again -- unilaterally and without discussion archiving many recent discussions. I find this to be disruptive. Does anyone else? SageRad (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a very, very contentious editing environment. It's not okay. There is too much unfriendly talk, name-calling, pointy editing, memory-holing, etc.... i don't feel that we're all really WP:HERE with the mission of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The hatted discussions are long and difficult to read, as they are exchanges between more than two editors with more than one thread of discussion. Hatting them is appropriate, as they make reading the talk page difficult for anyone who comes here for the RfC that's been proposed. If those people want to read the entire discussion, they can click on the hats to expand them. As for the titles, by all means, go back and change the titles to something neutral. I can understand how some of the titles don't come across as neutral. If you change them to something like "collapsed discussion" or "arguments" or something like that, I for one, won't revert you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

See this. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That is my talk page -- this is an article talk page with active discussions being closed and recent ones being memory-holed. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SageRad. This is all very unwikipedian and looks more like page ownership. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin please review the Talk page above. There are acres of text debating "fad diet". Nothing new has been said for a very long time. It is time for DR. Your idea about the RfC was excellent. By archiving, I was indeed preparing the page for review by people who come for the RfC. Please focus on drafting the RfC question on the content issue that has ground all other work on the article to a dead stop - namely "fad diet". Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatting them shuts down the conversation, doesn't it? It says "Do not modify it" -- so a conversation that is quite active is completely shut down unilaterally. How is this ok? You may think it's not a great conversation but you're not all people here. SageRad (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

They weren't productive discussions. If you think they were, then it's clear you think you were losing the debate. I'm sorry, but you weren't gaining any traction in those avenues. Shutting down those lines of conversation was doing you a favor. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It is archiving those specific threads for now. The issues in them can be re-opened at any time, ideally after the RfC. With regard to the remaining threads about "fad diet" that I hatted, we are obviously going no where. It is time for DR. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a unilateral declaration that some editors disagree with. SageRad (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's simply not acceptable. People who disagree with the conversations in progress cannot simply delete or hat them because they declare that they are "unproductive" or declare that "nothing new has been said for a long time" etc... that is unilateral domination of the talk page of an article. There are obviously voices saying the opposite, and who have a serious issue with the recent archiving and hatting spree, and this is absolutely unacceptable. This article is WP:OWNed and nobody on Wikipedia appears to give a shit. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

...nobody on Wikipedia appears to give a shit. Ruminate on that for a while. Think about why that may be. If you think hard enough, you might realize it's because you're wrong... WP:STICK.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ruminated on this for a year now, and it's because Wikipedia is broken. We don't have a critical mass of people who actually respect the basic policies, or basic good human behavior. SageRad (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by QuackGuru

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@QuackGuru: While I find your arguments difficult to parse and sometimes frustrating (I get the impression that English is not your native tongue. I was honestly asking before, not rhetorically asking), your edits to the article tend to be constructive. I just want to be clear on that. I've been patrolling changes to the page, and the strong majority of your edits are good ones in my view. That's not to say you have made no bad edits, but I want to give credit where credit is due. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Do you support the removal of the inaccurate information from the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC) That depends on what you mean by "inaccurate information". I support the removal of inaccurate information as a matter of course, but (despite my commendation above) I suspect we may disagree on what is inaccurate. To be clear, I support the lead the way it is now, unless you can convince me that something in it is inaccurate. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Rather than mention "fad" in the first sentence it can be moved to another sentence where it makes sense. It can be included in the following sentence. "It has been described as an "ideology" and its core assumptions as "only superficially plausible".[6]" It is awkward in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Rather then move it why not replace it with words that explain specifically what is wrong with the PD. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Different things around "Fad diet" are important to different people - you and QG clearly have distinct issues. Let's continue working on framing the RFC question(s). Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC) If we spoke in proper language it would be much easier to see what is important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Okay, here's some proper language. The issue is one of whether or not this phrase belongs in the article. There are two main arguments against it, and two main arguments for it. The main arguments against it are: The term is derogatory. The term is inaccurate. The main arguments for it are: The term is used in reliable sources, subject to the condition below. The term is accurate. The dispute this far is summarized by the following points of fact, bearing in mind that an understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines are important to interpreting these facts. The term has not been shown to be derogatory. It has been claimed to be, but no reliable sources indicating this have been presented (to my knowledge). The term is, in fact, used in reliable sources. The accuracy of the term has not been disputed except by fiat, or by sources which instead describe it as a cult, or by non reliable sources. This leads to the following inescapable conclusions: The term is accurate. The term is not derogatory. The term "cult" is well understood to be considered derogatory and seems to be universally agreed upon by all participants not to apply to this diet. Absent the presentation of further reliable sources showing that the term is inaccurate, it should remain. The presentation of further reliable sources showing that the term is derogatory should be sufficient to change the wording such that the reliable sources which use the term are summarized as using it, as opposed to the current condition of the article, in which it is directly stated as a fact. tl;dr If you can prove the term is derogatory, I myself (I cannot speak for anyone else) will support re-wording such that use of the term is attributed to the sources which use it, not to WP. Otherwise, get over it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I made a specific proposal to move the word "fad" from the first sentence to another sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC) No. WP:LEAD is quite clear that the source should be defined first and foremost. As things stand, it is a fad diet, per my outline of the argument above. That means it is important to include the term in the first sentence, unless evidence of it's inaccuracy is presented. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Please stop continuing the endless argument. Let's please focus on framing and launching the RfC so we can resolve this. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I see you've hatted and archived all talk page discussion possible on the topic, with surly and inaccurate edit reasons and summaries... is this how you focus on framing and launching an RfC, Jytdog? At this point, the talk page is broken and we're in no shape for an RfC as people cannot easily refer back to previous discussion, which is what i normally do when i'm called to an RfC, to get my bearings. Were you not liking what people might see if they did find this page to have a mile of discussion on "fad diet"? SageRad (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC) @SageRad: Jytdog was right to chastise me. We need to stop arguing this and either focus on getting together an RfC, or else drop it entirely and leave the phrase in. Seriously, the RfC is your best chance to win this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, but i don't think that archiving and hatting the bulk of previous talk page content is the way to do this. I think that is really counter to doing that in a good way. When i come to an RfC randomly called by Legobot, i typically go back and read previous talk page dialogue. When someone comes here, if we have an RfC, they will find a lot of hats with labels like "endless repetition" and such prejudiced labels. SageRad (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC) For the second time change the labels if you don't like them. Just make them neutral, like "collapsed prior discussion" or something. All the discussion is still there for anyone to read. In fact, it's much easier to read now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV "fad" diet

The statement "Paleolithic diet is a fad diet" is not NPOV and needs to be replaced by something like "scientist X, Y and Z^[1] categorize it as a fad diet"... or likewise. --.js^{WP: [democracy needed]} 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is disputed. WP:CCC. I adjusted the wording. The non-neutral text was restored along with a SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this and work on the draft RFC above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's try a compromise before the RfC

There could be too many questions in the RfC. There is no reason to mention fad diet in the lede twice. I think a compromise might work such as "is not like other fad diets."<ref name=Wilson2015/> added to the end of the first sentence or another sentence in the lede. Adding context is better than merely stating it is a fad diet. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

that does not appear to be possible; see below. I'm waiting a bit longer to give folks the opportunity to comment on the draft questions.... Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The basic question

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the basic question is whether we call the diet a "fad diet" in Wikivoice or in an attributed way. As simple as that. Does the article begin with: The Paleolithic diet is a fad diet that emphasizes foods eaten by pre-agricultural humans... or The Paleolithic diet is an approach to eating that emphasizes foods eaten by pre-agricultural humans... Many mainstream sources call it a fad diet. I'm not ok with the first because it violates WP:NPOV and is inaccurate to the full range of sources, but i'm fine with the second because it's accurate. As simple as that: Is the main definitional noun for this article "fad diet" or not? SageRad (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Seriously, even faith healing and Bill Cosby get more respect in their first sentence than this diet which has some reasonable support in reliable sources, as well as some strong critics. Why don't we begin the article by saying, "The Paleolithic diet is a load of hooey believed in by unicorn riders who are afraid of dihydrogen monoxide and mumble about foods eaten by Neanderthals..."? SageRad (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) No, I thinkt he following is more accurate: The paleolithic diet (also called the paleo diet, caveman diet or stone-age diet) is a fad diet based mainly on foods which advocates think were available to paleolithic humans. The reason is obvious: there is no such thing as a "paleolithic diet", no evidence that diets eaten by paleolithic humans were uniquely appropriate in the course of human evolution, and no evidence that a paleolithic diet is even possible now since pretty much nothing we eat is in the same form as in paleolithic times, due to agriculture. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Well i guess since Guy knows the answers, we're done here and can go home. All those sources, no need to read them. What i actually mean to say is that there is a typical range of Paloelithic diets that can be somewhat surmised by evidence, and what we have called the "Paleolithic diet" here is a modern approach to eating based on many ideas about how diet has changed from pre-agricultural times to now. Those are two separate entities -- the range of diets of earlier humans as best we can glean from limited evidence, and the modern phenom of the Paleo diet. Many aspects of what Guy mentioned are indeed written about by modern people in the umbrella of the Paleo diet concept -- differences in food composition, differences in various diets of different peoples in earlier times and at present in hunter/gatherer societies, etc.... there is a lot of nuance within the discourse. It's not the "Flintstones diet" that's being caricatured throughout the current version of the article. But in the end, i think the basic question is: Should Wikipedia define the Paleolithic diet as "a fad diet" or should it say that many commenters call it a fad diet? I advocate for neutral point of view meaning the second option. We should say that many have called it a fad diet. That's true, verifiably. But we should not define it as such in Wikivoice as that is a reckoning and many sources also disagree with that reckoning, so there are multiple points of view on it. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) But in the end, i think the basic question is: Should Wikipedia define the Paleolithic diet as "a fad diet" or should it say that many commenters call it a fad diet? As I've pointed out before, there are two aspects to this: Many reliable sources refer to it as a "fad diet". It unarguably fits the generally accepted (and much of the more nuanced, individual) definitions of "fad diet". So there's really no room for debate. The only legitimate concern brought up is the issue of the term not carrying an NPOV, but while that may be a legitimate question, so far no-one's provided any answer other than "It's a neutral enough term," or "It's not neutral because I say it's not." Of the two, only the first one carries any weight whatsoever. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) There really is room for debate, and there is debate. There is NOT a monolith of most sources calling it a fad diet and therefore it's wrong and not neutral for Wikipedia to define it as such in Wikivoice. Period. The RfC if we must do one should ask simply whether the article calls it a fad diet in Wikivoice or attributes the term. Simple and done. If those here would agree to simply attribute the term then we could be done with no RfC. But people are pushing for Wikivoice to take sides among several valid points of view here and that's created this issue. I don't think some editors understand what NPOV requires of us, for very good reason. We are not the arbiters of Truth. SageRad (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Many mainstream sources call it a fad diet." is original research. None of the sources state it is "mainstream sources". QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I dislike the term "mainstream" that is overused by some. There is an essay WP:MAINSTREAM which is not Wikipedia policy and which is completely incorrect and misleading by my standards. The policy demands reliable sources, not mainstream sources. So, in response to your comment i would say that "Many commenters call it a 'fad diet'." would work. SageRad (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Your proposal does not summarise any specific source. I think this could work. It matches the source per WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC) References

Last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just yeses or nos, please. What would you think of replacing "fad diet" with "popular diet"? Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) No. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC) User:Martin Hogbin, do you think using the term "popular diet" is better than the current wording? QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC) No, it means almost nothing. Despite the opinion of some I am neither for nor against the PD. I am for plain language that conveys some significant meaning to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC) User:Martin Hogbin, do you prefer "fad diet" or "popular diet"? QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Good quesiton: Maritn Hogbin is reliably wrong per policy, so the opposite of his view should be a useful guide. Guy (Help!) 00:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Please keep your rude remaks to yourself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Yes. Good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Nice idea/gesture and sounds a little better in the flow but still means the same thing, and many sources actually do call it a "fad diet" so i see no reason to change to another term. I have no issue with the term "fad diet" but i strongly feel that it should simply not be in Wikivoice as it's not a definitive point of view. Sorry, that was more than "yes" or "no". SageRad (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC) No. All fad diets are popular, what you're doing by dropping the f-word is simply bowdlerising. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Last last attempt at solution for "fad diet" thing How about "Many critics call it a fad diet"? In other words, a simple attribution so it's not in Wikivoice? SageRad (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Who says they are critics? --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Please don't bait, it goes no where. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I'm certainly not baiting. I hope SageRad isn't. Labeling sources as "critics" is a rather blatant pov violation, unless there are far better sources that verifies the label. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I am not baiting. I'm offering a reasonable solution. If "critics" doesn't work then "sources" or "commenters" or "mainstream sources" or something. As long as it's attributed to sources, and not in Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Question - just out of curiosity. For those opposing popular diet/fad diet, are you aware of what the opposites are - what the buckets are, into which the world of diet advice is divided? I am wondering if part of this problem is lack of context.... anyway, please do answer, simply, if you would. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I'll just tell you - there is mainstream diet advice (see Healthy eating), and there is stuff your doctor/dietician tells you to eat (or not eat) because there is something medically wrong with you like Phenylketonuria - this is called medical nutrition therapy. And then you have all these popular diets that are sold in self-help sections blah blah blah and which Katz so aptly refers to as "the never-ending parade of beauty pageant contestants". People giving mainstream advice write over and over things like "The message that there is a clearly established theme of healthful eating, relevant across generations, geography, and health concerns could, theoretically, exert a considerable and advantageous influence on public nutrition. This message, however, is at present a relatively feeble signal lost in a chorus of noise." Popular diets are that "chorus of noise". That is the world of diets. Paleo is not mainstream science-based advice about a healthy diet, it is not medical nutrition therapy -- it is a popular diet, which class of diets are often called "fad diets". Do you all really not understand that? (that is a real question, not a rhetorical one) Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I'm aware that the Paleo diet advice is not aligned with mainstream advice like the food pyramid and USDA recommendations, but also aware that there are many other sources of diet advice, and some like Katz are critical of that mainstream advice as well (see his recent comment on that in Time magazine). I also know that the Paleo diet, though, is not thought by everyone who uses it, to be a "diet" in the sense of "follow this diet fully" but more a heuristic for thinking about food, with some recommendations, and a looseness as well (see the 80/20 guideline for instance). Veganism is another diet approach that can be healthy and good or can be harmful if poorly followed, and can have some useful elements even for the non-vegan. Veganism and vegetarianism are both endorsed as healthy by the ADA as well, despite not being "mainstream". So my points are that (1) mainstream doesn't mean correct and doesn't mean unison, and (2) alternative approaches like the Paleo diet can have some good things to offer while some of it may not be useful. SageRad (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) You are not operating with WP:NPOV in mind. NPOV says that we acknowledge what is mainstream and what is not. Paleo is not a mainstream advice about eating. It is very very clearly a popular diet with respect to three kinds of diet advice that exist. I do understand that you believe it is important or something, but you have never said it was mainstream. Thanks for answering. I am going back to not responding to you, since you are not working according to the basic content policies here. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Hmm... so you end your comment by saying you are going to not respond to me, with a claim that i am "not working according to the basic content policies here". Well, i assert that i very much am working according to the basic policies here. In fact, i'm working very strictly to them. What WP:NPOV says about "mainstream" is: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. The Paleo diet may not be the recommendation of the USDA, but on the other hand, it is supported by at least some mainstream scientific sources. It's nothing like the examples given in NPOV in this regard. I would say that the Paleo diet is in fact regarded as valid by many mainstream sources. In fact, the other day while out food shopping (and buying generally "Paleo" items) and leafed through book called Obsessed about food by a mainstream TV news anchor, and i found the Paleo diet spoken of in that book in fairly good terms. Anyway, Annual Review of Public Health seems a mainstream scientific journal, as well. I am most certainly working with the policies of Wikipedia in mind very clearly, and i invite you to continue this dialogue. If you don't, that is your choice alone. SageRad (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC) For the record, i'm not opposing the term "fad diet" being in the article -- i think it should be in the article, but it must be attributed because it's not an across-the-board judgment among mainstream sources. SageRad (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Martin Hogbin and QuackGuru would you please respond on this context thing? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) The part "critics" is not supported by the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks for replying QG -- I shouldn't have asked you, as you expressed openness to keeping the lead as it is, but replacing "fad diet" with "popular diet". Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Not sure why you are asking. Jytdog, you can go ahead and replace it with "popular diet". The talk page is a waste of time. QuackGuru (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) In what sense is the talk page a waste of time? SageRad (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) The question was simple and some editors are not focused on the question. Too much time is being wasted. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) We have time to discuss things. SageRad (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC) No. Critical analysis does not make one "a critic". It is a fad diet, according to sources, determined apologists don't make that any less true. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC) oh poop. Well there goes that. Guy I do ask you to reconsider. "Popular diet", "diet cult", "fad diet" are all the same thing, and the literature treats them all the same way. What we need to make clear is that this is not mainstream advice about diet and "popular diet" does that.... no? btw "popular diet" is Marion Nestle's preferred term.... Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Here is what Dr Nestle says about the Paleo diet -- neither the term "fad diet" nor "popular diet". She doesn't recommend it highly but she says it can be useful and healthy in some ways, but you'd miss variety that she likes. SageRad (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC) For those following, to the question "is it healthy?" she said No. and the title is "Paleo sigh". (And this is great, and becomes a new source for the article) She doesn't characterize it at all, except to call it a "restrictive diet". (which is one of the hallmarks of popular/fad diets) When she does characterize diets like these, she calls them "popular diets" as she does in "What to Eat" On her blog says exactly what Katz says here: "Of course Americans need more information about eating well. ...In my daily teaching and contact with the public, I hear endless confusion about what to eat. People are bombarded with conflicting advice, much of it from sources with a vested interest in selling particular foods, supplements or diet plans.... No wonder people have a hard time knowing what or whom to believe. This is too bad, really. The basic principles of healthy eating could not be easier to understand: eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, balance calorie intake with expenditure, and don’t eat too much junk food." Paleo is clearly part of the "bombarding... with a vested interest in selling... diet plans." Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Ok, didn't want to take up column inches with this, but since it's been misrepresented, i must report that if you really read it without an attempt to bias the outcome, you see she wrote: The Wall Street Journal, hoping to generate some controversy, got me involved in a point/counterpoint about the Paleo Diet: “Is a Paleo diet healthy?” It can be, but this is a point/counterpoint. Hence, I took the position "NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits." And then you see she wrote: Any restrictive diet helps to reduce calorie intake, so it isn’t surprising that there are studies linking paleo to weight loss, lower blood sugar and a reduced risk of cancers for which obesity is a risk factor. Eating less works every time. So does eating a largely plant-based diet. Research suggests that we can reduce risks for today’s diseases of affluence by eating more foods from plant sources and balancing calorie intake with expenditure. To the extent the paleo diet achieves these goals, it is a reasonable choice. In the end, she says that the diet can be healthy, but that it's too restrictive of foods that she likes for her taste, and that it's not the only way to eat a healthy diet. Sure, it's a great source. I love Dr Nestle's work. Please don't misrepresent this source if you do add it to the article. SageRad (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) In fact, it was in the article and it was misrepresented in terms of a "verdict" by Nestle, so i changed it to follow the source. This is the wind blowing, the portrayal of all things in the worst possible lawyerly way against the Paleo diet. It's not pretty. SageRad (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Wow, you try to make "no" mean "yes". She took the position that it is not healthy. We must reflect that. I reverted your POV edit. Alexbrn (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) No. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC) No what? Unhelpful kind of comment there Roxy. SageRad (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Refocusing: Substituting "popular" for "fad" and keeping everything the same I also am interested to hear what Alexbrn, Ronz, MjolnirPants, and Martin Hogbin still have to say on this too.... Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC) (corrected, he already said no Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) Looking forward to hearing from you all. above we have "yes" QG and me, and "no" from Martin, SageRad and Guy. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (corrected in my last dif, redacting here Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)) hmm ok it looks like we will have no consensus to solve this, this way. Am giving up this effort. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Hatting active and very recent dialog] at whim is not acceptable, Jytdog, nor is deleting another user's comment. Dialogue that is active and recent must be allowed to stand, for the record, and to be obvious for all to see. There is much in that dialogue. SageRad (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Responding to the section title, please add my "No" in regard to substituting the word fad, per mainstream sources. In regard to hatting, well done to Jytdog for a valiant attempt to refocus discussion. Please note that hatting doesn't make the (TLDR rehashed endless discussion by pov editors) text less available to interested editors. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Popular diet and fad diet are synonymous: either would do. And yes, it should be in Wikipedia's voice (We should also however quote the "jurassic fad" moniker from the BDA, at least). Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC) No, I do not think they are. A popular diet is defined by popularity, a fad diet is defined by being based on some arbitrary factor not anchored in sound science. The Five-Two diet may be popular but not a fad (it grew out of actual research), whereas things like the cabbage soup diet are simply fads. I think it was naughty of Jytdog to move fad diet to popular diet without prior discussion in order to support this claim. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I'd say 5:2 was a "fad diet" too ("Cabbage soup, blood group, the 5:2 diet and other fad diets are often far-fetched"[29]). But it could also be termed "popular". I suppose the trouble with "popular" might be that it connotes "much liked" to the naive reader without also connoting the "amateur/unscientific" aspect the word also should carry in this context. Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 'Popular' is even worse than fad. It has no real meaning in this context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Did I miss an analysis of sources that demonstrate "popular diet" is being used by more and better sources than "fad diet"? --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry I didn't respond sooner, this page is a swamp of text. In response to the suggestion we substitute "popular" for "fad", I say no. "Fad diet" carries more meaning (not necessarily negative meaning), and I believe "popular" may be misleading. I'm quite certain that the south beach diet, the mediterranean diet, the raw foods diet, jenny craig and the atkins diet are all much more popular than this one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC) There is obviously no consensus to make the change. Jytdog 21:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC) It's easy. Attribute "fad diet" and it's done. Why the resistance to attribute the claim? SageRad (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC) The edit note here is inaccurate. There is no consensus to include "fad diet" with attribution. Do not write inaccurate things in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC) It's ridiculous to call this "last attempt" and close it after only two days and only ping your likeminded friends. Add my YES. --.jsWP: [democracy needed] 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Stop manipulating my comments, Jytdog. --.jsWP: [democracy needed] 05:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fad diet with attribution

Hatting endless repetition about "fad diet" by all sides Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why don't we give it a shot and see if there's consensus with attribution? I've stated that I'm ok with it. Who is not ok with it? Maybe MH because he sees it as rhetoric? Maybe if it's attributed then that concern is alleviated because it's then not Wikivoice stating it. SageRad (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC) By the way why do you insist on hatting things at your whim and knowing there is opposition to it by others? And active conversations, no less. Would be a lot easier and congenial if you wouldn't hat whatever you feel like hatting. SageRad (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC) SageRad has stated innumerable times that he would accept "fad diet" with attribution. Here are several of them: here; here; here; and here. There are many, many, many more. Martin Hogbin and Quackguru agree. Everyone else has said "no", repeatedly and have also repeatedly stated their reasons for that. See the several hatted sections above. There is absolutely not consensus for this. The question is mind-blowing in its absolute refusal to even hear that others have said "no" repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC) First of all, it's not "everyone else" who has said "no" repeatedly, but rather several who want to state in Wikivoice that the diet is a "fad diet" and who even insist on this being in the very first sentence of the article as the definitional noun, as in "The Paleolithic diet is a fad diet that..." Let's be clear. I think we would have consensus to quote the term "fad diet" or say that many sources call it a fad diet. We do not have consensus to declare in Wikivoice that it's a fad diet, or to define it as such in the first sentence. That is not a consensus view among reliable sources, so Wikivoice cannot state that definitively. That would violate WP:NPOV. But there is a corps here who insist that Wikivoice must declare that this diet is a "fad diet" or no deal. That is the essence of the logjam. SageRad (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC) I prefer context. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Alternative_proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Marion Nestle content

"In 2015 while Marion Nestle noted that the Paleo diet can be healthy, and confirmed the benefits of avoiding processed food, salt, and sugar, she noted that because the Paleo diet is restrictive, and because "what we know for sure is that the fundamental tenets of nutrition are variety, balance and moderation," she found that the loss of pleasure and the chance of nutrient deficiencies overwhelmed the "dubious benefits" of the diet. Nestle stated "Any restrictive diet helps to reduce calorie intake, so it isn’t surprising that there are studies linking paleo to weight loss, lower blood sugar and a reduced risk of cancers for which obesity is a risk factor. Eating less works every time"."

References

Previous text without unreliable opinion piece. Is the foodpolitics.com article reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose misrepresents her overall judgement of the diet as "unhealthy". I also view this as a distraction from the more fundamental issues we need to address and will not respond further here. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - reads as the opposite of her actual view. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Support a reduced version of the above. Her, clearly stated, view was not 'unhealthy' it was that 'the loss of pleasure and the chance of nutrient deficiencies overwhelmed the "dubious benefits" '. How about:

"In 2015 Marion Nestle said of the diet "Any restrictive diet helps to reduce calorie intake, so it isn’t surprising that there are studies linking paleo to weight loss, lower blood sugar and a reduced risk of cancers for which obesity is a risk factor. Eating less works every time," but added that the loss of pleasure and the chance of nutrient deficiencies overwhelmed its "dubious benefits".

References

-Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What is her actual view using the source? QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is another question. Is the foodpolitics.com site reliable? It seems like a blog. If the site is unreliable then we cannot use it and the discussion is moot. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I support Martin's version above, but the end of the quote needs either a comma or some ellipses (I can't view the source from work to know which). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support either QG's or Martin's versions. Note that the text of the WSJ source is also duplicated here with a brief meta-comment. SageRad (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the same link as the op supplied. You know, where she says it isn't a healthy diet. Didn't you check, Sage? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course i've read it. I am the one who flagged the misuse of this source to begin with. An honest reading of the source does not let us say that she calls it an unhealthy diet inherently. “Is a Paleo diet healthy?” It can be, but this is a point/counterpoint. Hence, I took the position “NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits. This is quite plain. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as usual cherry picking sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's cherry picking- in Sageworld, NO seems to mean yes. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to read the article and see what it means if you can read without bias. SageRad (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You should take your own advice. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop your contentious and hostile personal attacks. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"You should take your own advice." is not a personal attack. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The previous comment was. SageRad (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As was your response. My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you weren't being hypocritical. Or we could chalk both comments up to legitimate concern over the ideological bias of other editors and the way it affects their interpretation of source material. In that case, there was no personal attacks, and we should all focus on the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You actually consider "in Sageworld, NO seems to mean yes" to not be a personal attack? And then you write "My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you weren't being hypocritical." which is another one... dressed as apology. Fucking personal attacks left and right without care. bullshit. SageRad (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death:Do you mind if I ask why you oppose it? One could argue that any quote is cherry picked as a matter of general principles, but to me, this one (the one Martin proposed as an alternative to the one at the beginning of this section) reads as undermining the notion that the paleo diet is any different than other fad diets while mentioning its possible dangers. I don't see this as an endorsement of the diet, which was why I supported it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I originally asked if the source is unreliable. The source appears to be a blog post. Why are people arguing over including a MEDRS violation? QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the need to represent it accurately, I guess there is that point as well. SageRad (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Source regarding the scientific basis of the paleo diet

This is a distinguished Yale Professor pointing out the fundamental fallacy in the theory behind the paleo diet. He does, in fact mention the paleo diet by name at about the 45 second mark. This is a part of the Open Yale Courses, meaning it's a formal part of the lecture series of his class. In fact, it seems to be the actual lecture series for an online version of the course (Evolution & Medicine). Also, I'm a little surprised he doesn't have a WP article. He seems notable enough according to his university bio page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This article also might be of interest (archived version). It is by Melvin Konner, who is already mentioned in the article as being key to the early development of the Paleo diet, discussing, among other things, how discoveries since he originally published have disproved the idea that there have been few genetic changes in humans over the past 10,000 years. Torven (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the article needs to have some more criticisms on the idea. There are sources to support it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to have the article's subject represented more accurately. SageRad (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I just said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really. You said that the article could benefit by more criticism inclusion, whereas i said that the existing sources need to be represented accurately, and the article needs to describe the article's subject accurately. If your idea of accuracy is to pack in as much criticism as possible while not caring if the article is slanted already in how it represents the sources that are middling to positive on the subject, then i suggest checking the bias in your strong desire to portray the subject in a certain way. SageRad (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you said The article needs to have the article's subject represented more accurately. I'm not sure if you can't remember what you typed (when it's on your screen about 1/4" above you claiming you said something else) or if you think I can't remember it. There is more criticism of the hypothesis behind this diet than the article currently shows. Therefore, to accurately portray the subject, the amount of criticism needs to be slightly increased. One or two more sentences about it is all I'm talking about. Also, I'm glad to see you took down the TTFN note. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Content sourced to UC Davis

The content below was added today:

• The paleo diet is not effective for sustained weight loss.

References

QG questioned whether this is a MEDRS source. I removed it from the article and am copying it here for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that this is a reliable medical source at all. Regardless of the veracity of the claims the interviewee makes, there's no actual evidence presented - his position as the in-house "registered dietitian" is supposed to float his word. To be clear, "registered dietitian" is a legitimate position in the US (meaning degree-holding, internship-passing). However, this article isn't meant to be any kind of scientific press release at all, eg. an article that's presenting a new methodology or review paper. It's a quick-and-easy guide for the layman about whether or not the UC Davis Health System recommends that its patrons pursue the paleo diet. That, to me, is clearly not a MEDRS. Whether or not it's a generic RS is debatable, but for claims like "paleo diet doesn't help with weight loss", I need to see a source with actual data to support that. Amateria1121 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MEDORG. Statements like this are specifically included in WP:MEDRS. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi MjolnirPants actually we do not generally interpret MEDORG to refer to this kind of source. That piece is part of a "Features" series by the PR department of the UC Davis med school - see here for the index. Things you would find at http://www.nutrition.gov/ are what is meant; this too. I would not have used this source and I think QG was correct for tagging it. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog. I skimmed it briefly and it just looked like a position statement to me. I didn't notice that it was part of a feature news type series, but between your link and a closer look at the intro shows that this is so. I suppose that does give the author a lot more leeway, as it's not necessarily the position of the university. I struck out my statement above, because of this.

As an aside, I have a friend who works there, in genetics. I might be able to ask her to point me to any positional statements the university has issued or endorsed, or anyone working there who has published on the paleo diet. She has an interest in this sort of thing, so she might be a really good resource for good sources, now that I've thought of her in this context. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

New source

I was seeking reliable sources with a position on the Paleo diet and found this one from Australian Family Physician (2016) with a basic and serious perspective on the diet without an apparent POV.

Abstract: Background: General practitioners (GPs) are commonly asked about popular diets. The Palaeolithic diet is both highly popular and controversial.

Objective: This article reviews the published literature to establish the evidence for and against the Palaeolithic diet.

Discussion: The Palaeolithic diet remains controversial because of exaggerated claims for it by wellness bloggers and celebrity chefs, and the contentious evolutionary discordance hypothesis on which it is based. However, a number of underpowered trials have suggested there may be some benefit to the Palaeolithic diet, especially in weight loss and the correction of metabolic dysfunction. Further research is warranted to test these early findings. GPs should caution patients who are on the Palaeolithic diet about adequate calcium intake, especially those at higher risk of osteoporosis.

May be helpful for our discussions. SageRad (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well i downloaded the article, and here are some quotes. Unfortunately, it doesn't resolve a "yes" or a "no" on whether it's a fad diet. It notes that fad diets come and go, but then says that the Paleo diet is "one of the most controversial diets" without calling it a fad or not. Anyway, the conclusion is interesting and appears balanced and it's a decent reliable source here, a review article in a medical journal.

General practitioners (GPs) are commonly asked about popular diets. Fad diets come and go, some gaining more traction within the public sphere than others. One of the most controversial diets in recent times is the Palaeolithic diet, otherwise known as the Stone Age diet, or simply as Paleo. Even without controversy, the Palaeolithic diet has been increasing in popularity over the past few years. The diet has been the subject of intense criticism by health professionals because of wellness bloggers’ and celebrity chefs’ exaggerated claims about its purported effects – for example, that the Palaeolithic diet could prevent or cure polycystic ovary syndrome, autism, mental illness, dementia and obesity.1 Does the published medical literature support the vast and extravagant claims made by the Palaeolithic diet’s celebrity proponents? Should GPs recommend the Palaeolithic diets to their patients, or caution them? This article seeks to review the published clinical research on the Palaeolithic diet.

...

Overall, conclusions about the effectiveness of the Palaeolithic diet should be considered cautiously. Positive findings should be tempered by the lack of power of these studies, which were limited by their small numbers, heterogeneity and short duration. Nevertheless, there appears to be enough evidence to warrant further consideration of the Palaeolithic diet as a potential dietary option in the management of metabolic diseases. Larger independent trials with consistent methodology and longer duration are required to confirm the initial promise in these early studies. Claims that the Palaeolithic diet could treat or prevent conditions such as autism, dementia and mental illness are not supported by clinical research.

Conclusion

The Palaeolithic diet is currently overhyped and under-researched. While the claims made by its celebrity proponents are not supported by current evidence, the Palaeolithic diet may be of benefit in the management of various metabolic derangements. Further research is warranted to test these early findings. GPs should caution patients on the Palaeolithic diet about adequate calcium intake, especially those at higher risk of osteoporosis.

SageRad (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it's very useful to the discussion going on. It pretty much lines up with part of what everyone's saying, without contradicting any positions espoused here. It says there's a lot of hype, which the skeptical side agrees with and the pro- side doesn't refute. It says there have been trials (which we all agree on). It says those trials are 'underpowered' which the skeptical side agrees with and the pro- side doesn't refute. It says those trials have shown positive health effects, which the pro- side agree with and the skeptical side doesn't refute. It says more research is needed, which both sides agree on.

All that being said, that is a pretty good find, and I'm sure we can work it into the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"popular diet" = "fad diet". It is just less confrontational language to say: "This is a diet plan with a pseudoscientific basis that people flog to make money and that is not aligned with mainstream advice about how to be healthy and that adds to the noise that confuses the public". People who want to communicate with the public make rhetorical choices. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments. I acknowledge that the article seems to tend linguistically to implying that it's a "fad diet" but it doesn't actually go there and say it is one. It does acknowledge that there is some pseudoscientific basis (exaggerated application of discordance theory) but that there is some real scientific basis as well. it acknowledges that there has been a lot of criticism as well. I'm not on the "pro" or "anti" side of this thing, but only on the pro-NPOV side. I posted this paper's abstract before downloading it, and if it had said definitively "it is a fad diet" then i was ready to say, ok, we have a good reliable source that kind of trumps other sources. But as such it leaves it still open, so we can handle this by attributing the POV that it's a "fad diet". I agree with the assessment of MjolnirPants above, and it was actually in relation to their question about sources above that i went off searching for better sources. Anyway, it is what it is, which i think is a little but of everything. A bit of genuine scientific basis, a bit of pseudoscientific exaggeration, a bit of genuinely good critique, a bit of strawman-based critique, and we can handle this as editors by explaining this situation in the article concisely and accurately. SageRad (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• The article is here. It is not in pubmed yet, but the journal is MEDLINE indexed so this appears to be a MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:"popular diet" = "fad diet".I tend to agree, but using a source that says "popular diet" to support the specific verbiage "fad diet" is just asking for trouble. I think it's good enough. Hell, as an alternative to the alternative above, I'd be fine with using the phrase "popular diet" in the opening sentence, if we linked that phrase to the wiki page for fad diet. But I know that won't go over any better with the pro- side. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MP. yes we tried for "popular diet" and that got no consensus.

SageRad, the article makes it clear that from the perspective of mainstream science there is no credibility to the theory behind it. It says:

Such views have drawn criticism from anthropologists, who argue that there is no blanket prescription of an evolutionarily appropriate diet, but rather that human eating habits are primarily learned through behavioural, social and physiological mechanisms. Other commentators have noted that the claims of the Palaeolithic diet are unsupported by scientific and historical evidence. The Palaeolithic diet’s anthropological validity notwithstanding, is there scientific support of the various health claims made of it? Pragmatically speaking, is a diet sans dairy and refined carbohydrates beneficial, even if it is not historically accurate?

There is nothing unclear about "even if it is not historically accurate". This article does not give "A bit of genuine scientific basis". This is exactly the kind of thing that mainstream scientists write about acupuncture: "Given that meridians and qi do not exist, let's look at whether acupuncture procedure X is safe and effective to treat Y." SageRad please stop misrepresenting sources and please stop advocating pseudoscience. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

When you write "no credibility to the theory behind it", this is exaggeration. Let's see the whole passage of that section:

The rationale for the Palaeolithic diet stems from the evolutionary discordance hypothesis – that human evolution ceased 10,000 years ago, and our Stone Age genetics are ill-equipped to cope with our modern diet and lifestyle, leading to the ‘diseases of civilisation’.2–8 Thus, only foods that were available to hunter–gatherer groups are optimal for human health – ‘Could I eat this if I were naked with a sharp stick on the savanna?’.9 Therefore, meat, fruit and vegetables are acceptable, but grains and dairy products are not.10 Such views have drawn criticism from anthropologists, who argue that there is no blanket prescription of an evolutionarily appropriate diet, but rather that human eating habits are primarily learned through behavioural, social and physiological mechanisms.11 Other commentators have noted that the claims of the Palaeolithic diet are unsupported by scientific and historical evidence.12 The Palaeolithic diet’s anthropological validity notwithstanding, is there scientific support of the various health claims made of it? Pragmatically speaking, is a diet sans dairy and refined carbohydrates beneficial, even if it is not historically accurate?

The thing about the phrase "even if it is not historically accurate?" which you quote is the word if which is critical to understanding that sentence. The author is not saying it's not accurate, but saying might there be merit to the diet even if the premise is not accurate. The author also writes, "Other commentators have noted that the claims of the Palaeolithic diet are unsupported by scientific and historical evidence" but does not endorse that position here, only notes that "other commentators" have written to that effect. That's not a conclusion. And his conclusion differs and is nuanced.

Please don't accuse me of misrepresenting sources. Please stop accusing me of advocating pseudoscience. Both of those are untrue and are personal attacks if untrue. Please assume good faith, and speak to the specifics in a genuine way with integrity. I have done so here. SageRad (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm . With regard to the lack of scientific grounding of the Paleo diet, you are reading with zero integrity, hard against the surface meaning of this text. No integrity. Completely tendentious. Am going back to WP:SHUN Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is right about it undermining the claim that there is a solid scientific basis for the diet. There's not. It's not science, but more something anthropologists might talk about on their lunch break. It's not doing you any favors to suggest otherwise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There may or may not be a solid scientific basis for the diet. You don't know and i don't know. There are sources that say there is a solid scientific basis for the diet, reliable scientific sources. Papers in anthropology say that there is a scientific basis for it. I'm not here to "do me any favors" and what that implies is a battleground behavior. I'm here to read sources and transform their content into articles. And i stand by my reading. SageRad (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, you can "shun" me if you want, but if you do then you're not in the dialog here fully. And the things you said above are rather uncivil -- facepalming and "zero integrity" etc.... i suggest you chill out and speak in a civil way. So.... after all that tempest in a teapot, let's look at the source again, shall we? The footnotes 2-8 are papers in nutrition and medical journals that speak to the scientific basis of the diet's premise. Whether it's correct is not up to us to decide. But there are sources listed, and it's a serious thing that people have written about in peer-reviewed published papers. So there you go. And then the review notes criticisms of the premise as well. All is fair. But speaking in polemic superlatives is not helping out, and using mean language is not helping either. SageRad (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a PDF file of the review. I added "The Palaeo diet may be useful in managing various metabolic disorders." Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I posted that link above. That content was already in the article; this source could be used to support it, sure. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (strike sloppy response. didn't read what QG wrote carefully Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

I think the current wording is different than other claims. Is there anything else that can be summarised? QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As both SageRad and MjolnirPants noted, this review doesn't say anything that is new. So there is no new content to be added. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is new content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is the language I am talking about. We don't make those kinds of speculative claims in WP about health matters. You know that and you have fought tooth and nail against adding content like that in other articles about alt med interventions. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not speculation. It is the conclusion from the review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that it is sourced, please stop repeating that. The conclusion is speculative. The review says lots of other things we could also pull out and quote, like the thing above about it having no scientific basis. It doesn't bring anything new - we still don't know if the Paleo diet is good for anything as the data is still insufficient. It might be useful, and it might not. What we transmit in WP is "accepted knowledge" not speculation, even if that speculation is sourced. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was or was not speculation is a matter of opinion. If you think the conclusion is speculative is not a reason to delete the conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

QG, you need to read that PDF. The conclusions was that more research is needed. The conclusion was not that it might help certain people, that was part of ambiguity that was being discussed in the conclusion. There is a reason papers like this have a conclusion which is explicitly titled "Conclusion." We cannot under any circumstances state that speculation made in the body of an article represents its conclusions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The conclusion was also that more research is needed and that part was also summarised.[30] QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the available evidence -according to that article- is not enough to make a statement, one way or the other. This is cherry picking. Look at the sentence in it's entirety:

"While the claims made by its celebrity proponents are not supported by current evidence, the Palaeolithic diet may be of benefit in the management of various metabolic derangements."

That sentence says two things for the explicit purpose of contrasting them. It says that the health claims are not supported by evidence, but that it might not be completely useless. The purpose of that sentence is to contextualize the actual conclusion, which was that the diet is "over-hyped and under-researched," and that "GPs should caution patients... about adequate calcium intake..." This is very common language for scientific articles, full of caveats and conditions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"While the claims made by its celebrity proponents are not supported by current evidence,..." This part is not about health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Um... Yes, it is. What claims do you think the celebrities are making? That it will get you laid? No, they claim it has positive health effects. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

WP's voice vs attribution in health section

We have enough MEDRS sources that we can say things in WP's voice, so i just rewrote the health effects section to accomplish that. Articles that say "A 2015 review found x" are crappy and tend to be the result of severe conflict among editors. I think we all pretty much agree on what the actual data shows and what the best sources say. I do not anticipate the rewrite to be controversial. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You deleted text that was not repetitive. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "can be useful" language you added, we don't make claims like that about health. Acupuncture ~can~ be useful to treat all kind of things according to acu-proponents, right? We don't make those kinds of speculations in WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourced text is not speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

are you talking about the "may be/can be useful" language? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I much prefer this version to the lists of reviews in text attributed, which largely repeated itself. Much more readable/encyclopedic. Yobol (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I also don't like the "may be useful" claim as the source is more cautious than that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The text said it was more cautious when it included "though better trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results". QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

right, and the reason for that is, that further trials may show that the Paleo diet does nothing or is actually harmful. Please stop pushing for language that you would never support about other alt med interventions that had only similar weak, suggestive data. . Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The content accurarately represented the conclusion. Language that is suggestive is allowed in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not responding further. You know this is not how we edit about health in WP and you know that if we brought this to WT:MED you would get no support there. Do you want that further evidence built up against you? Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You can bring this up at WT:MED or I can start a RfC for the text too. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The content accurarately represented the conclusion. That is categorically false. The conclusion was that more research is needed. Speculative language in the conclusion is not the conclusion itself, but a clause which helps explain and establish the conclusion. The first and last sentences of the conclusion section are what matters. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting perspective

ABC presents the paleo diet controversy as a dispute between scientists and celebrity chefs, which is how I have always seen it too. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive link?

Is it worth putting a perm link in the above to the relevant 'fad diet' discussions indicating the current consensus? There have been many and I am pretty sure now they have been archived someone will take the opportunity to rehash it in a month... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What is said "current consensus"? i don't think there is one. SageRad (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And look how "squeaky clean" this talk page is. Nothing was ever discussed about this topic it seems. SageRad (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to a long discussion about the "fad diet" label and the fact that there is not consensus about it, if that's what you mean. SageRad (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: In principle it's a good idea, but in practice it doesn't help: just look what happens at the homeopathy page (richly decorated with FAQs), or see what just happened here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is because there are indeed multiple points of view in the world and sometimes others are valid. SageRad (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, not in this case. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a productive conversation. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)