Talk:Weston A. Price Foundation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archives: Feb 2006 - Current

Content debate: sponsorship information

The WAPF appears to contradict its own claim that it does not to accept funding from private corporations in its promotional information for its 2007 Conference, which list three levels of "sponsorships" - Gold, Silver and Exhibiting Sponsors. Because they claim to be a research foundation and do indeed publish controversial dietary recommendations, knowing their funding sources is very instructive. Therefore, I added this information, which has twice been removed and replaced with obfuscational terms such as "scholarships" and removing the word private "corporations." Indeed many or most of the sponsors are private corporations but since some may be sole proprietorships or partnerships, I added the word "organizations"

Presenting the properly sourced list in its entirety expands the article and makes it more complete and instructive - consistent with the purpose of wiki. Why would anyone not want the list on the page? Watering it down or obfuscating averts the NPOV guideline IMO. Therefore I argue that the list should remain part of the page and have restored it pending further discussion. OccamzRazor 17:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The list referred to takes up about half of the page (unprofessional appearance). The list itself was removed, not the text mentioning it or the reference link to it which links to the Foundation's own site. It is something that is certainly not hidden. As mentioned, the list consumes way too much of the page, the reference and link to it were never removed, it is not encyclopedic, and it is transitory (2007). To be honest, this is not an overly important issue to me and I don't want to waste any more time with it. Other editors can decide whether to keep this list or not. The matter is closed for me. --Historian 1000 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason this list takes up half the page is that the primary article is only minimally developed and really should have been tagged as a stub. I'm attempting to research and add properly sourced and informative content, and encourage others to expand the article as well to give the fullest understanding of this topic (assuming it meets the notoriety guideline). OccamzRazor 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see where another editor has agreed with my assessment that the above referenced list is not encyclopedic and does not belong in the article. He or she has removed it. Here is the quote from their edit summary: "The enumerated list of sponsors is not encyclopedic or necessary for this article." --Historian 1000 09:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Information request

Does anyone have any information on the credibility of the Weston A. Price's claims? It seems so confusing these days: who do you believe about nutrition information?

Most WAP documents have extensive footnotes and references. -- Stbalbach 02:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

just because it it has footnotes/references doesnt help much... you can show anything with a scientific study... but okay -alan

I have found the footnotes and references very helpful. Good luck to you. -- Stbalbach 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a title for this section on the talk page. --Historian 1000 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd views

Some of the foundation's views are strongly at odds with contemporary medical science, e.g. the view that cholesterol does not cause heart disease. This fact is not mentioned in the article. Does anyone know what kind of inpact the Foundation has had, and whether major criticisms have emerged? JFW | T@lk 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Even "contemporary medical science" is looking at other factors such as C-reactive protein, but there are new theories and lines of reaearch about heart disease on a weekly basis, "what causes heart disease" is still one of the most researched questions there is, it is controversial; so to suggest medical science has a final answer is simply incorrect: the AMA has issued an official policy, but that's a political issue, not a scientific one. What WAP did is a systematic study of native peoples around the world such as the Masi in Africa who drink huge quantities of raw cows milk and beef, the Inuit who eat orders of magnitudes more saturated fats through seal and whale blubber, the pre-modern Swiss who ate huge quantities of milk, cheese and beef, etc.. none of these groups had or have heart problems, but after they went on a "modern diet", they started having heart problems (and other problems). This is the core of WAPs findings, that traditional diets are healthier and modern diets less so (a reductive summary with lots of qualifiers). -- Stbalbach 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of new research...2008: "Smoking may be the main reason why heart disease is on the rise among Alaskan Inuit..." Perhaps the studies claiming 'Inuit got unhealthier as they moved to non-traditional diets' weren't well controlled, leading to ad/cum/post hoc fallacies? (In other words, they started smoking more at the same time as they left the Traditional Diet. Thus, smoking, for which causality is proven --smoking causes bad health-- might have been the culprit causing worsening health during the studies that only proved correlation between diet and health: correlation is not causation.)

It's also funny that WAPF cites JAMA sometimes, because AMA --and most research they publish in JAMA-- says lower saturated fat is OVERALL healthier and AMA supports veg diets for that reason, among others[1]. WAPF loves AMA whenever they can cherry-pick a JAMA study (e.g. saying high cholesterol has _benefits_ in the WAPF "know your fats section") and quote a few JAMA studies, ignoring that the OVERALL data from AMA members and published in JAMA including THOUSANDS of studies on saturated fats or cholesterol say OVERALL that saturated fats ARE bad.(such as AMA says, in a non-technical way, in the last link I gave), and instead, cite the small minority of JAMA studies that said high cholesterol is _healthy_...ignoring any methodological flaws that taint the results (and are the normal cause of why a small minority of studies differs with the vast majority of results). I've seen WAPF members often complain in blogs about how idiotic the medical "establishment" is...and they cross the line when they make BLANKET statements* as if anything AMA says is untrustworthy (why, then, do you support WAPF, who cites JAMA studies? ;-) ). * ...and yes, some AMA leaders have problems of often focusing on "politics" rather than science, but the common accusations about "politics" I've seen have always been related to their positions on things like how members (MD's) can advertise, or private vs socialized medicine, whereas their position on saturated fat etc is scientifically based.

24.155.22.160 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WA Price was a dentist and nutritionist, NOT a dietitian --and even today's WAPF professional "experts" describe themselves as nutritionists which is a lower standard than dietitians-- differ with the vast majority of dietitians and doctors. Might I suggest that WA Price and his followers have put some "political" to quote Stbalbach's accusation against AMA, well let me say instead "ideological or other non-scientific" bias in their "research," rather than vice-versa? e.g. Are the "mainstream" of the scientific and medical community ALL vegetarians (or even mostly vegetarians), thus having vegetarian ideology as a bias? Hardly, IMHO...and the reason I think that is vegetarians are <5% of the population in Europe/Japan/N America/Aus, and I've yet to see that the research population is much different. IIRC, this includes Karen Collins, Mark Messina, and other prominent pro-soy/pro-vegan RD's who have said they're not completely vegetarian. It would be fairly difficult to have a vegetarian bias if you're not even vegetarian. ;-) Just MHO that doesn't belong in the article, but since I wrote this to answer Stbalback's last post:

cum/post hoc fallacies. This is just one mode of what Alan in the discussion above was talking about, but there can be many more modes of flawed methodology. For the Inuits Stbalbach mentioned, it could even that "white flour" (which few dietetic professionals disagree with WAPF on) plus smoking are shortening their lives, but it's important to note that it's white flour, not vegetarianism or lower saturated fats, etc etc (BTW, "orders of magnitude" more fat would be at least 100 times, so you're exaggerating JUST a bit, Stbalbach). Is it actually white flour causing that much health damage? It's hard to say b/c the only thing I've personally studied in the Inuit is PCB's, of which they _do_ have worse toxicity (yet another "hidden factor" that could be the real cause of some of their health troubles; basically despite that they live far from PCB-producing factories, hydrology brings the toxins to them, and the food they eat; SOC's, a class of chemicals that includes PCB's & many other toxins, concentrate ~20 times more for each step up the food-chain they go, and they especially concentrate in...fat; trim the fat and you might only ingest 10 times more than an herbivore. SOC = synthetic-organic, a bad combo since 'organic' means they typically interact with your body easily, 'synthetic' meaning that your ancestors didn't have a chance to adapt to them until about 2 generations ago...nasty stuff, but anyhew).

It's important to not only read a footnote on WAPF's website as Stbalbach seemed to advocate, you must then read the whole study it references then ALSO read the comments from peers which were generated as it was peer reviewed, otherwise you won't know whether it's still considered a scientifically-valid citation...and you must especially read any follow-up research, if for example someone says during peer-review "aha, I think I see X flaw in your (or my own, as OFTEN happens) methodology, and I'm going to address it by doing Y".
. . . Also look at whether other studies corroborate it, or if an activist-website is just 'cherry picking' the 1 or 2 poorly-designed studies that suit his ideology and ignoring the vast majority (or even saying "the researchers concluded" something that's NOT quite what you, the researcher, said...). Often a study is even poorly-designed on purpose: study 20 people, with the intent of studying 1000 soon after your preliminary study of 20...and --just as another example-- that won't keep some activist-website from citing your results from 20 people, even though that's not enough to be statistically reliable.
. . . Even credible scientific journals are filled with outdated, since-proven-wrong research, so caveat emptor (or let the, um, reader beware, ya know haha), but that's the nature of good science (including the AMA, achem): It's open to change instead of dogmatic adherence to "tradition"...but only "open" if you can "show us the proof". (show me da money ;-P)24.155.22.160 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So it's institutionalised primitivism? Seriously now, please don't lecture me about CRP. What I was asking was why this article does not mention the obvious discrepancies between the WAP and widely accepted medical views. JFW | T@lk 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah he looked at tribal/native/primitive people around the world (10-year study) and found no examples of any that were vegetarian, they all included animal fats, and the foods were nutrient-dense, in particular vitamins A and D.--Stbalbach 05:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And did you review his methodology of how he did ^that^? :) Studying people's facial features to determine their health? "Price also performed poorly designed studies that led him to conclude that teeth treated with root canal therapy leaked bacteria or bacterial toxins into the body, causing arthritis and many other diseases. This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid[1,2]." ~http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

I also think, that the obvious discrepancies between the WAP and widely accepted medical views should be mentioned. Alex ex 08:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. It should be mentioned what the accepted thoughts on these subjects are and their rebuttals, at least in linked articles. I am more inclined to believe the foundation though. No offence to the medical world, but I think too much trust is put in them. After all, like you and me, they are only human. I find things wrong in myself all the time. While there is saftey in an abundance of councelors, if they all hear the same things from eachother and they aren't questioned too much, serious problems can come about. That's why I do my own research on things. It's a pain to find contradicting views and want to pull your hair out from trying to figure out what in the world is going on, but over all it's better than trusting any one group (no matter how sure they are of what they say). I don't think it is a good idea at all to just trust a doctor, or a pastor, or a theologian, or a workout coach, or anyone else for that matter, just because of their degrees; and I think it's just wrong to trust an idea just because it is the most widely accepted view. Test everything. SadanYagci 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of traditional doctors are bad too... but replace them with WAPF? That's like a smoker saying "This is a stupid, unhealthy habit. I tried to quit cold-turkey but I got nic-fits, but heroin alleviates my nic-fits so now instead of tobacco, I'll use heroin"...at least reviewing the excerpt from quackwatch in bold text 3 paragraphs up, and more, makes me think WAPF advice is even worse than some of the worst 'mainstream' doctors I've heard. Just my 2c that belongs here instead of in the article, just as you gave your own 2c.

Sure, WAPF advocates some things I find sensible (e.g. no white flour) that the "establishment" mostly agrees with too...but sorry, on some other issues...I know too much (with my own eyes) to trust both Weston Price the man, and those trying to revive fads in his name. Traditional doctors...some, I trust...others, I don't trust.24.155.22.160 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research and POV

Regarding this that was recently added:

An article "The Myths of Vegetarianism" ([2]), which is understood by many as an antivegetarian dogma, was disproved ([3]). It's author, an honorary board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Dr. Stephen Byrnes, died June 17th, 2004 after suffering a stroke ([4]). His birthdate is not published by the Foundation, but on the photos he looks relatively young (appr. 35-50 years old), which challenges the point of view on the nutrition, promoted by him and the Weston A. Price Foundation.

• 1)which is understood by many as an antivegetarian dogma - POV and unsupported. Who is "many", what is "antivegetarian dogma" except polemic language? Dogma is a pejorative term, as is "antivetarian" - unless WAP used those terms, they don't belong here, that's your POV.
• 2) Dr. Stephen Byrnes, died June 17th, 2004 after suffering a stroke - irrelevant original research. Vegetarians also die of strokes. In fact, vegetarians die of heart attacks, cancer and just about every other terrible disease meat eaters die of. In fact, every single Vegetarian is going to die of something.
• 3) His birthdate is not published by the Foundation, but on the photos he looks relatively young (appr. 35-50 years old) - what's this? What are you saying, he died young, who cares? Original research to imply anything about his death. Do you have his autopsy report, where are your sources?
• 4) which challenges the point of view on the nutrition, promoted by him and the Weston A. Price Foundation. - no it doesn't. One persons isolated death stemming from causes we do not know is not a "challenge". Pure original research, opinions and extrapolations based on a single incident with no sources.

--Stbalbach 20:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I see it so, and also some other people too. But all right - let's just take this line out.

2) One of the the health benefits of the vegetarianism and veganism, promoted by vegetarians, is reducing a risk of a stroke ([5] [6] [7] [8]). Yes, of course vegetarians also die of various diseases, but most vegetarians choose their diet due to the ethical reasons, not health reasons. And they do not run websites like "PowerHealth.net", as Dr. Byrnes did. They have another risks, as iron and vitamin b12 deficiency (see also: Vegetarian nutrition), but I don't know any case of an early death because of this deficiencies (and I read a lot about such things). Dr. Byrnes was like an icon and embodyment of a "Weston A. Price Foundation" lifestyle, which is supposed to be healthy. But if such a person dies that young, it may mean that something was wrong. That's why it is relevant for the criticism.

Dr. Byrnes was not a WAP "icon". I've never even heard of him, and if WAP had an icon, it would be either WAP himself (who died decades ago), or perhaps Sally Fallon. That fact that he died of a stroke has nothing to do with this article or WAP. He may have eaten too much of the wrong foods when he was younger, it may be hereditary - we simply don't know, we don't even know what kind of diet he personally followed in real life. Your extrapolating original research with no sources. Vegetarianism may reduce the risk (maybe), but that doesn't mean vegetarians don't have strokes.--Stbalbach 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3) I am saying, that he died too young for someone who is promoting his own life style as "power health". Of'course I don't have autopsy report. The death reason was published by the foundation ([9]) and in some other articles.

So what? People die of strokes all the time. It's irrelevant, and Byrne is not even that relevant to WAP, he was made an honorary board member for work he did outside of WAP. --Stbalbach 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

4) all right, let's also take this line out but leave just the facts about Dr. Byrnes death. You think that they are not important, I think that they are, because he criticised vegetarianism (imho, with lack of evidence) and died from a disease which risk may be reduced by a vegetarian diet, or at least by reducing the cholesterol levels.

Also this "proved" stuff is silly, there no "proof". --Stbalbach 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is naturally that we have different POV on this issue, as long you are sympathizing the foundation, and I am criticising it. And I think, that more criticism will come, as long as the foundation is based on the over a half-century old studies of the "isolated nonindustrialized peoples" made by a dentist.

Alex ex 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, it's original research and lack of citable sources. --Stbalbach 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

@Stbalbach: Actually, it is not a big discussion, but a dialogue between me and you. And it seems to me, that you are stubborn and you just wish to defend the foundation in any way, deleting the facts you don't like. You say, that I have no sources, but I add links to various sources - you don't. Using the same logic one may delete nearly everything in wikipedia. Most of the articles don't have sources for every little thing. Please stop deleting the ENTIRE contents contirbuted by me. I try to ignore biases, just placing the facts (and one of the sources is WAP itself: [10]). See Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes, we can go this way if you wish. I am just tired of this re-reverts. Alex ex 18:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Look I don't know how else to say it. It's original research. I don't go into Vegetarian articles and say that so-and-so died of so-and-so disease and suggest that vegetarianism is to blame. Or I don't go into the biography article of well known vegetarians and suggest they died because of their diet. You have no right to say that this man died because of his diet, not only is it original research, it's outright insulting and inflammatory. See WP:LIVING. Your making a personal attack against this person that is unsubstantiated. -- Stbalbach 18:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agree, at some points you are right. That's why I edited the text. I am not saying in an article that he dies just because of his diet, and I am also not absolutely sure that it is so. In the previous version I said that he died relatively young and called a reason, referencing to the WAP itself. I didn't mean it to sound unrespectful or something. Even if this line will be deleted, (i repeat:) you should not delete the ENTIRE contributed content.

But I am sure that the diet influences health, and may decrease or increase health risks. And if you don't go to the vegetarian articles, to write how someone died, may be that's because none of the vegetarian advocates die that early from a desease, which risk may be increased by vegetarian diet. It seems that just the opposite situation is the case - see "veg-icons" Donald Watson or Dr. Herbert M. Shelton. Well, may be Linda McCartney died of breast cancer as she was nearly 57, I don't know other examples. And I go to this article and write criticism, because I consider, that WAPF's problem is the lack of evidence (a kind of anecdotal evidence) and misinormation about nutrition, even if some foundation members mean it good. And I am sure that their diet is not so healthy as they promote it. And I am sure that vegetarianism and soy consumption are not that harmful - there are just too many good examples. Alex ex 06:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the counter-article to the Byrne article and they seem to agree on more than they disagree. Anyway, changed it from "proved" to "views" as none of these articles "prove" either side, they are just different pov's. "prove" is a pov term (unless there is "scientific proof", but these are not science papers).--Stbalbach 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if I don't agree in all the points, I am glad that we could find a kind of compromise. Alex ex 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Mary Enig covers the "widely accepted medical views" regarding fats and heart disease thoroughly in her writings. Widely accepted does not mean scientifically supported. 204.218.240.33 07:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC) AJCOLE

Geez. You guys have been busy arguing. Clearly each of you are strong advocates of each side of the debate. Of course, the wikipedia article itself is no place for debate. It is a place for a description of the state of affairs. I haven't read the history of block deletes from Stbalbach, but if it's as bad as Alex says then it is inappropriate. Meanwhile, Stbalback's point is accurate - there is no place for linking Byrnes' death to his diet as evidence of the potential impacts of the diet. Mention of his death appears to me to be quite irrelevant to a discussion of the WAPF. If it were relevant, surely it would also be relevant to note members who have lived a long and healthy life following the WAPF approach. In any case, it does not add any weight to either side fo the debate or any meaning to the description of the state of affairs.

"And I go to this article and write criticism, because I consider, that WAPF's problem is the lack of evidence (a kind of anecdotal evidence)". This statement reflects in my view a poor understanding of what wikipedia is about. If it is the case that many believe that WAPF often provide limited evidence for their claims (which I believe is the case), then that is the precise statement that should be made in the article. Inserting information about how a single member of the foundation died early in order to support what You personally feel is wrong. It is not wrong to say "Many have suggested that the WAPF relies on tenuous evidence (insert references)" if such a belief exists among the health community (which I think it clearly does). If many professional health commentators used Byrnes' death as evidence of the problems in the WAPF nutritional approach then I think it would be a fair inclusion - but that would need to be ascertained through researching and then referenced - I don't know for sure, but I think you'll find that very few serious scientists would consider/use Byrnes' death as a genuine argument - why would they when they have much other scienctific evidence on which they feel they can rely?

I'm surprised that references to Quakcwatch's views on WAPF do not appear on this page (perhaps they've been deleted?), nor have Dr T. Colin Campbell's (author of the China Study). These are examples of the kind of information that should be provided, as they are part of the body of views from doctors that oppose WAPF. I think it also noteworthy that my research online has thrown up zero direct responses to the views of The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS) or its spokesperson Uffe Rafvskov. This is not necessarily worth putting in the article but is food for thought for those contributing to this page. Zeroin147 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points

As far as I know Stephen Byrnes died of Aids. The heart attack was probably very much related to that. It is dangerous to link the longevity of individuals connected to their diet; sometimes their interest in diet is the result of poor health in the first place. Atkins became only 73 years old, but Wolfang Lutz - an austrian doctor that has promoted (and used himself) a diet with 72 gram carbohydrates daily, is still alive at age 93, for example. As far as I know, Atkins implemented and designed his diet due to his own heart problems.

However, Byrnes, Lutz or Atkins is not related to WAPf, but is mentioned as an example.

I do believe this article should be expanded significantly. It should also be emphasized that what the Weston A Price foundation recommends is not necessarily the same as Mr. Price's, although they embrace some of his ideas such as the importance of vitamin A & D and the necessity of STRICTLY avoiding refined flours and sugars.

I believe this article should mention these facts. Mr. Price said as far as I know nothing about soaking nuts, drinking raw milk, avoid soy products, eat saturated fats, having probiotics or a high fat diet (such as the diet recommended in Fallon/Enig's book eat fat lose fat). The foundation implement ideas and theories from a range of other researchers as well as what they believe to be the diet of several traditional cultures. In my opinion they sometimes make erroneous points or at least exaggerate them in order to make them fit into their theories.

In the end, the foundations recommendations - as exemplified in Sally Fallon / Mary Enig's book "Nourishing traditions" - does only represent a mixture of all several traditional diets, and therefore for example end up both high in fats AND carbohydrates at the same time, which researchers such as Jan Kwasniewski (see The Optimal Diet) and Udo Erasmus, among others, see as the worst possible diet. Such a diet is, if I am not mistaken, the one's that caused the poorest health according to Price's findings (the Swiss is the closest - they were also the one's with the highest incidence of dental caries).

It may be important to incorporate in the article a discussion of to what extent the foundations recommendations actually are in line with Price's findings. It is my belief, for example, that although Price emphasized the importance of vitamin A & D, and that the intake was 10 times that of HIS FELLOW AMERICANS; it does NOT SAY in "Nutrition and physical degeneration" that the intake was 10 times as high as TODAY'S present recommendations for vitamin A & D. Thus the foundation, in my opinion, recommends an amount of vitamin A & D that may even be dangerous, particularly when incorporated in their recommended home made milk formula.

Bottom line: the article should first of all be expanded, and secondly it should clearly separate the findings of Weston A Price (and perhaps discuss them) from other of the foundations recommendations.

It seems to me that this foundation hide itself behind the Authority of Weston A Price to claim just about whatever they feel like.

Well, WAP is much more than a "diet" (ie. a list of things to eat or not eat). This is where most people get confused. I agree the article should be expanded. It should focus on nutritional issue and not "diets". There are very few things WAP says you should not eat, it is a question of what form they are in how they are processed - the number of potential WAP "diets" is endless and varied as cultures from Korean to Swiss to Eskimo to Masai. -- Stbalbach 13:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article

Yes, I agree. But I think the article may deal with both. ONE issue is the nutritional aspects - preparation techniques (soaking, fermenting, cooking methods and so forth) and food selection (avoidance of pasteurized milk, soy products, animal foods from commercial agriculture etc).

The other issue is the DIET. That is, many people use for example "nourishing traditions" as a diet book in order to improve their health. Now, this can be problematic if "nourishing tradition" as a diet book end up with recommendations that does not fit any traditional culture - my main concern is (as mentioned) the problem with a "mixed" diet, because most traditional cultures either had a relatively high carbohydrate diet OR a relatively high fat diet. I also think that many of the recipes in the book actually don't really represent that of a particular tradition. An example is the oat meal porridge with large quantities of butter.

I have now added a "please expand this article box", as I believe there's several reasons that the article should be expanded:

(1) Wikipedia is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA; short articles should be avoided.

(2) The English Wikipedia now have 1.5 million articles; it is supposed to be a catalogue of human knowledge, thus it is now possible to add much "smaller" themes and less important issues than it was previously.

(3) "Weston A Price"@ google has 123.000 hits; this is probably higher than for several personalities and celebrities that have much broader coverage on Wikipedia. Additionally: The fact that health may be a more IMPORTANT theme than, say, the information about a certain celebrity, a cd record and so forth, because health issues and diet have a much larger and pervasive impact on an individuals life (can literally concern life and death).

(4) www.Alexa.com lists www.westonaprice.org #2 in "most popular in food, drink and nutrition", www.realmilk.com is #3. www.westonaprice.org is also #7 in "Nutrition". (Maybe also listed in other categories.)

But there's a question if "weston a price", "weston a price foundation" (and "Sally Fallon") should be separate articles. Don't know how long the article should be. More than 5 pages, less than 10? There's also important information missing on Wikipedia regarding traditional diets. Of special interest to me would be an article about the (traditional) "inuit diet", as this concept is so widely mentioned, yet so misunderstood and loaded with confusion.

I am willing to do some writing, but have not time to complete a whole article. How about you, Stbalbach?

I will try to think about a possible outline for an article. Jakobat 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nourishing Traditions isn't a diet book - I'm fairly sure WAP has avoided being labeled a "diet" for a reason - they are a non-profit organization made up of degreed nutritionists who study nutrition and traditional foods - they publish a journal, make recommendations to Congress, support small farmers, etc.. I've known about this article needing expansion for a long time but honestly I'm not up to it but support any positive energy put forth here - I think the WAP website says it all best, just need to paraphrase what they say in an encyclopedic tone. Also need to be careful with critics, WAP is a target for any number of groups such as vegetarians, anti-cholesterol people, etc.. it already has had some POV attacks made (see prev discussions and the criticism section). -- Stbalbach 22:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the article would be good. I believe WAP and WAPF should be separate articles which point to each other.

I am concerned by your apparent pro WAPF bias Stbalbach. I am neither for nor against the WAPF, but I think this issue needs to be raised. "I think the WAP website says it all best, just need to paraphrase what they say in an encyclopedic tone. " - this is contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia article. "Paraphrasing" to achieve an "encyclopedic" tone sounds very much like "spinning" to me. Also, we need to be careful of critics?? It is because of critics that there is a debate, and it is this debate that ought to be documented here. In the case of "anti-cholesterol people", this happens to represent the majority of the health community. Any suggestion that such criticism should be avoided is very unwise and to me betrays either a determined unwillingness to enhance wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a propaganda tool, or a serious lack of awareness and appreciation of the purpose of wikipedia. Zeroin147 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

POV?

I removed the following text from the end of the Criticisms section:

"However unlike Byrnes' work, Paterson's contains few citations and makes statements which he does not support with appropriate references."

I did this because it sounded more like a personal attack than an encylopedia article. I also removed a few "beautiful"s, "impoverished"s, and other POV adjectives from the Dr. Weston Price section to achieve a more neutral, encyclopedia-like tone. --PsychoCola 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paterson's work should probably be removed entirely as a non-reliable source, it's basically an OpEd. Either that, or leave in the qualifier about it being unreliable with no citations or references. 71.191.40.106 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and actually, I agree with Stbalbach in his debates with Alex ex (despite disagreeing with Stbalbach on some things).

In contrast to googling John Robbins +vegetarianism, or Marie Oser +vegetarianism, with "Andrew Paterson" +vegetarianism I can't see any pattern showing notoriety (other than bloggers and "internet forum" discussions citing his name as they copy this WP article again and again). Even the "Energy Grid" magazine that published it doesn't seem reliable or notable, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So I'm putting it here, but maybe someone can show us whether he has noteworthiness among vegetarians (or nutritional credentials, though that's not quite HOW he was trying to be cited...), or some reason to cite Paterson instead of the other xxx.x million vegetarians in the world, in contrast to Robbins and Oser who are 'verifiably' popular in the veg world:

Andrew Paterson counters an article critical of vegetarian diets entitled "A Response to Stephen Byrnes' 'The Myths of Vegetarianism'".

24.155.22.160 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits

In the last couple of days, I changed a lot. Questions? Ask. Friarslantern (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a link to Joseph Mercola?

Heading pretty much says it all. --WayneMokane (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose new article title

The title includes the word "the" at the beginning, which isn't normally part of the actual name of an organization, but a grammatical device, and thus shouldn't be part of the title of the article. I suggest we move the article to Weston A. Price Foundation. We can leave a redirect here. What think ye? -- Fyslee / talk 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment or objections? I'll do it and make sure wikilinks are updated accordingly. -- Fyslee / talk 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)