Talk:Paleolithic diet

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)

Fad diet label?

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 [1], 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)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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 [3] and [4] and [5] 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)

Latest revert

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 [6]. 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)

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 [7] 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

Here we go again

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)

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 doing the stick, others need to do that or respondylitis with better arguments than brute force. 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)