Talk:Weston A. Price/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

comments on "criticism" section

Is the Web site Quackwatch (referenced in Criticism section) really a reliable source? Seems like an opinion page to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.82.44 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some nobody with a blog attempting to contradict a world traveler? A keyboard isn't a certification. --24.218.62.223 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Price-related "historical perspective" section of [http://web.archive.org/web/20080203105419/http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html controversial commentator] Stephen Barrett's essay, with its almost entirely unreferenced and opinionated statements, only contains 2 refs about dental infections (for the rest of the article, 9 out of 15 references actually point to other essays by Barrett himself, many on the same Quackwatch site). Moreover, Barrett's essay only relates to the very first sentence of the "criticism" section. Nowhere does Barrett talk of "racial bias" and, for that matter, I don't recall racial bias entering into Price's work either - he was simply pleased to find heathy people, whether they were black, white, red or brown, and learn from them. Price's theory was that industrialised foods were causing problems, and so his inquiring mind led him to seek out places and cultures where such food had not penetrated the local diets. Far from having any bias as to race, Price reported what he found after seeking out people who fitted his "unsullied traditional diet" criteria from wheresoever he could find them: "sequestered villages in Switzerland, Gaelic communities in the Outer Hebrides, Eskimos and Indians of North America, Melanesian and Polynesian South Sea Islanders, African tribes, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maori and the Indians of South America." The "criticism" section is (apart from the low-quality essay ref) unreferenced and uninformed with regard to Price's publication Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, in claiming "facial features have more to do with genetics than diet" - obviously the writer had not contemplated the fact that Price photographed and studied genetically similar people from the same or closely related communities who had lived on traditional or industrial food, and in one case was even able to study twin brothers with different long-term dietary preferences. The "racial bias" statements appear to be personal opinion and are not supported by respectable citations, and thus may contravene WP:POV and WP:OR. The entire article of course needs more polish and citations, but have removed the "criticism" section as its only ref is poor quality and the rest is unsubstantiated and makes POV statements while ignoring Price's evidence. Bezapt (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia embraces pseudoscience. This uncritical look at Price and the Foundation proves that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.3.15 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I find these sorts of statements peculiar, since this is an online encyclopedia. It doesn't embrace anything. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed the Norwegian skull reference. A couple problems with it. It's synthesizing original research. The study is only about Norway and Price was not focused on Norway. Further, Price would probably say the Norwegians are a good example of a native people with ample access to nutrition and thus one would not expect to find crowding ie the research confirms his theory, not contradict it. I would concur to add the cite back in if it directly contradicted something Price said about Norway. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's article conveniently ignores the fact that at the time Price wrote his book there was a lot of research going on regarding the idea of a connection between nutrition and tooth decay that showed there were something there:

Agnew, M. C.; Agnew, R. G.; Tisdall, F. F. (1933) The production and prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association, JADA 20; 193-212.

Anderson, P. G.; Williams, C. H. M.; Halderson, H.; Summerfeldt, C.; Agnew, R. (1934) Influence of vitamin D in the prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association 21; 1349-66.

Bennett, N. G.; et al. (1931) The influence of diet on caries in children's teeth. Special Report Series - Medical Research Council, UK No. 159, 19.

Day, C. D.; Sedwick, H. J. (1934) Fat-soluble vitamins and dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition 8; 309-28.

East, B. R. (1938) Nutrition and dental caries. American Journal of Public Health. 28; 72-6.

His Majesty's Stationery Office, London. (1936) "The influence of diet on caries in children's teeth. Report of the Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease".

McBeath, E.C. (1938) Nutrition and diet in relation to preventive dentistry. New York Journal of Dentistry Dentistry 8; 17-21.

McBeath, E.C.; Zucker, T.F. (1938) Role of vitamin D in the control of dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition 15; 547-64.

McBeath, F.C. (1934) Vitamin D studies, 1933-1934. American Journal of Public Health , 24 1028-30.

Mellanby, Edward (1930) The relation of Diet to Death and Disease; Some new investigations BMJ Apr 12, 1930 pg 354 ((Edward Mellanby was the discover of Vitamin D)

Mellanby, May C. Lee Pattison and C. W. Proud, (1924) "The Effect of Diet on the Development and extension of caries in the the teeth of children" BMJ Aug 1924 pg 254

Mellanby, M. (1937) The role of nutrition as a factor in resistance to dental caries. British Dental Journal, 62; 241-52.

Tisdall, F.F. (1937) The effect of nutrition on the primary teeth. Child Development 8(1), 102-4.

So contrary to Barrett's implied idea that Weston Price was some sort of maverick, his ideas were very mainstream for his time. --BruceGrubb (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

After running into "Metabolic Disturbance in Relation to the Teeth" by Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. from the laboratory of Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York Delivered November 3. 1933, which says

"The findings of the Agnews, Boyd and Drain, Eddy, Percy Howe, Hanke, Martha Jones, Marshall, McBeath, Klein and McCollum, May Mellanby, Price, and others show that dental disorders may be greatly reduced by a proper adjustment of the diet. Some of these investigators maintain that a lack of vitamin C is principally responsible for the activity of dental caries (Howe, Hanke). Weston Price regards vitamin B and mineral salts as the important elements in a caries free diet. Some believe that the lack of vitamin D is the offending factor (Mellanby). Finally, a disturbance in the cal cium-phosphorus balance (which includes vitamin D) is the factor to which most recent investigators point as being responsible for the high activity of dental caries"

I have to ask did Barrett do any degree of real research? Where is the research that shows any of these ideas was wrong? Barrett certainly doesn't provide it. I am seriously questioning using him as a reliable source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section Part 2

I've removed the juxtaposed information about the medical research of the time per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You also removed a quote using such reliable sources such as Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association. Claiming that quote is OR and NPOV is insane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk does not superceed WP:NPOV and the fact is the quote from a DDS from the Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery was deleted along with the rest. The plain fact is we have a psychiatrist making dentistry claims when this and similar papers of Price's time period show that there was a great deal of supportive research in reliable sources of the day there was thought to be some sort of connection between nutrition and tooth decay and modern medicine agrees that this does play a role.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not continuing with your previous line of discussion that violates WP:TALK.

You appear to be making a rebuttal against Barrett. Wikipedia is no place for such disputes per WP:BATTLE, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I originally placed the tags directly above the disputed content, and have moved them back to that location. I think placing the tags at this location is more helpful than at the section header. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask why by WP:RS is the word of a non-specialist on what amounts a blog being taking as criticism especially when most of his claims have no references. In fact the only thing that does have a reliable reference was Price's position on focal infection theory and the 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley pages 136 throws doubt into that statement as well as it admits that the idea never really died and that more recent research indicates that there may be some merit to the theory. Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 goes even further: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."

So it is Barrett who is using out of date references (1951 and 1982) to make a claim not supported by current textbooks published by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. Explain to me how Barrett is a reliable source in the light of this evidence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's beginning to appear like an edit war. If this continues it may become necessary to elevate this to an administrator. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You only go to administrator when other methods fail. I have taken the Barrett claim to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F with the relatively simple question--is a psychiatrist's claim on what amounts to a blog regarding dentistry valid especially when one of his claims is not supported by current textbook material?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This just appears to confirm my concerns. Again, this is not a place for original research in order to respond to criticisms, attack critics, etc.

Repeatedly referring to Barrett as a psychiatrist borders on WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the Institute for Science in Medicine and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. " (Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch. This is a quote straight from quackwatch.com itself which he heads! He himself lists himself as a psychiatrist despite the honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association and teaching health education at Pennsylvania State University for two years. Mind telling us how this is OR?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No one mentioned OR in this context. I mentioned BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since he himself on his own site calls himself a "retired psychiatrist" this is allowed under WP:SELFPUB. Also WP:SPS is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources: In some circumstances, self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications(sic).

The "in the relevant field" part is the sticky one as the article in question involves both nutrition and dentistry.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that you're presenting him here on this talk page and in other discussions as if this is his most relevant expertise in authoring this article. It certainly is not. In doing so, you're echoing his critics, hence WP:BLP and yet more WP:BATTLE concerns. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the way the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F is going the claims of WP:BLP and WP:BATTLE do NOT apply here--there is nothing to show that Barrett has the needed expertise for what amounts to largely unsubstantiated opinion regarding the quality of Price's work to be usable in an article about Weston Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment The criticism section really doesn't belong in the entry. Isn't the real criticism of contemporary proponents of holistic dentistry who are using Price as a source? That doesn't belong in the entry on Price. It is odd in general to put in contemporary criticism of one individual for expressing views close to a century ago which were mainstream then but not now.Griswaldo (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree though the Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. paper and the references in the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine article can be moved into the biography section to allow a reference to a what looks to be a major school of thought by Price and his contemporaries.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

In regards to this revert [1] I fail to understand what WP:NPOV has to do with it. All Wikipedia articles do not contain "criticism" sections "per NPOV". Barrett's criticism is not notable, and indeed its rather odd and out of place. Ronz can you please explain why this belongs in the entry, and more specifically what NPOV has to do with it. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having a "Criticism" section is problematic. As pointed out in the RSN discussion, we need better sources. Until we do, there's no reason to remove the Quackwatch ref. I see it as a placeholder until we can expand upon the topic. It represents a significant viewpoint, and so removing it violates NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Griswaldo and Hans Adler on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard talk Barrett does not meet WP:RS regarding Weston Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any such conclusion there.

I think it would be best to keep the content in the article while it's being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"maintain the appearance of good faith"

Anytime criticism is to be added to an article, there should be a rational benefit to be gained. WP:GAME becomes problematic when edit warring over questionable content occurs. Now BG has a proper discussion going on as cited above, and all are welcome to participate. However, I think it is proper to err on the side of caution (lack of criticism) when the content is questionable. It can even be moved to the talk page for continued discussion. The rule should be that criticism is only included for good reason and with good sourcing, in order to maintain the appearance of good faith on the part of Wiki. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

FTN discussion

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

Extended content

Huh? I told you not to remove my content from this talk page. This page does not belong to you, and it is against policy to delete discussion content here. I will report you if you cannot stop removing content of other editors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The only person that's removing content is you. WP:CHILLOUT. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) That is a violation of WP:Civil--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Everyone, quit with the accusations of WP:GAME or violations of this or that. Stick to the content of the discussion, and not the editor.Yobol (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding better sources

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

I think I may have found Weston A Price's obituary in the New York Times but the problem is it costs to find out and there is no information saying when the article was published in January 1948.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more searching produced Dental items of interest, Volume 70 which in addition to appearing to having some details provided us with another reference: Forman, J (1947) "Tribute To Weston A. Price, DDS" Journal American Academy Applied Nutrition 1:2, 3-4 (Summer) 1947. The Forman article also appears in Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, American Academy of Nutrition, American Nutrition Society 1951--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Biography

I see a lot of back and forth about Barrett on this page, but in reading the article that's the least of the problems. The most obvious problem is a lack of biographical information. Only the first three sentences have any conventional information about the events of his life. Rather than focusing on criticisms from others, we should first give our attention to the person we're writing about. Even cursory research into his life shows he traveled to remote spots to study primitive nutrition. We simply say he studied them. Its omission is an oversight that's more important than reporting on what Barrett says. More important, too, would be reporting on his "marginalization". Considering that there are three foundations devoted to him, we can surely do better at reporting the basic facts of his life. As for his ideas, that'll inevitably be split between this and the foundation article. However if we ever write an article on the book it would become the most logical place for an extended discussion of the ideas.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you're saying, however the problem in the criticism section is the validity of it. To me, criticism of someone's work should be handled with care. We shouldn't put it in there unless it adds value to the reader and is properly supported. Barrett appears to assume bad faith on the part of Price as well as incompetency, and doesn't provide any quality supporting evidence of his claims. Barrett uses himself as a reference to support most of his paper. If Barrett were a wiki author, wouldn't we consider this WP:OR? Look, if there is legitimate criticism of Price's work, let's see it, and I would support it's inclusion. Will, you make good points but we still have to resolve the Criticism section. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Someday, yes. But there are more pressing problems with this article. Since the criticism issue is contentious, working on less contentious issues is likely to be more productive anyway.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is material out there--the problem is it is so old that it is not easy to get to.

Forman, J (1947) "Tribute To Weston A. Price, DDS" Journal of the American Academy of Applied Nutrition 1:2, 3-4 (Summer) 1947. in Dental items of interest, Volume 70 and Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, American Academy of Nutrition, American Nutrition Society (1951)

Possible obituary in the Jan 1948 New York Times

"The Life and Work of James Leon Williams" By George Wood Clapp pg 101 reveals Price was Chairman of the The Callahan Memorial Award Commission and on December 5, 1922 gave its first medal to Dr. James Leon Williams

There is a maybe in Contributions - Scripps Institution of Oceanography: Issue 366 "One of the finest tributes to Weston Price is contained in the 1947 Annual Review of Bio-Chemistry", Volume 15, page 353

"A younger brother, Weston A. Price, dds, mbsc, of Cleveland, a well known pioneer in this field became president of the American Dental Association." (Gullett, D. W. (1971) A history of dentistry in Canada)

"Weston A. Price was awarded the silver medal for his contribution on "Diet and Dental Caries" at the Cleavland session of the American College of Orthopedic Surgeons" (Delta Sigma Delta-Desmos, Volumes 42-43, 1936

It's annoying that the key sources that could clean up this article are so hard to get to--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So do you have any idea how we might include it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I am going to try and get a hold of the Journal of the American Academy of Applied Nutrition (later Journal of applied nutrition) and see what it says. If we are lucky it may give enough details to go forward. I found this by the way: "Weston A. Price dies in California on January 23", Journal of the American Dental Association. 36 (April/May 1948) 416

The American College of Dentists Otto W. Brandhorst (1971) has similar details.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job hunting down some basic biographical information [2]! --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and it was a pain going through snippet after snippet to get that much.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's looking better already.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Foreword

I am in agreement with Ronz that this foreword fails WP:UNDUE. This isn't a tribute website to Weston Price, this is an encyclopedia article, and that quote is very much unencyclopedic in tone. I also note that the person who wrote the foreword is an anthropologist and not a nutritionist or dentistry or medical profession that would be better able to evaluate his nutritional/medical claims. Independent nutrtional/dentist/medical support from WP:RS for his theories would be more appropriate.Yobol (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

By it's very nature, the forward of a book is biased. Even in a Wikipedia article about the book itself, I'm not sure how quoting from the forward would be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by 'reliable sources,..." Earnest A. Hooton was a physical anthropologist teacher of Harvard University who is commenting in a book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. Reliable source ever step of the way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we simply summarize his statement in a sentence?   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really as he gives us so much information on the state of things when Price wrote his book (in fact I trimmed it down to the basics as it is--the original is three full paragraphs). If you break it down to factual points he is telling us an insane amount of information:

• A great deal of elaborate and patient research and experimentation has been expended upon this problem of the etiology and control of dental caries (confirms that much research has been done, reaffirming the Bodecker, Charles F. (1934) article)
• I do not suppose that anyone would claim that it has been solved. (reaffirms the Bodecker, Charles F. (1934) article content that has been lost in recent update to this article)
• A quantity of excellent evidence has been amassed which indicates that dental caries is, to a great extent, connected with malnutrition and with deficient diets. (Provides the focus of Price's work)
• For I think that we must admit that if savages know enough to eat the things which keep their teeth healthy, they are more intelligent in dietary matters than we are. (supports Price's view that natives eat better than "modern" ie 1920'3 and 1930's people)
• I consider that Dr. Price has written what is often called "a profoundly significant book. The principal difference between Dr. Price's work and many others so labelled is that in the present instance the designation happens to be correct." (Establishes the noteworthiness of Price's book separate from the organizations that bear his name)
• I salute Dr. Price with the sincerest admiration (the kind that is tinged with envy) because he has found out something which I should like to have discovered for myself. (sets the quality that Price puts in his work.)

I don't see how you reduce all that into one sentence without tripping over WP:OR issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, he's an anthropologist, not a medical professional. Since we are describing medical claims, a medical review of this books would be more appropriate. Yobol (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for not knowing what physical anthropology is, and for failing to take into account that the paper was published in a book by a medical publisher.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by your sarcastic comment; does being an physical anthropologist make one as qualified as a medical professional to speak on nutritional studies, or does writing a foreword in a book published by a medical publisher do so as well? Anyhow, since people seem intent on including this foreword, I have trimmed it down to one sentence, with emphasis on the anthropological perspective. Yobol (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well your comment makes it seem like you don't understand the relevance of physical anthropology, particularly at that time, to the subject matter at hand and to medical research at the time. It was virtually a medical field, if not literally one at the turn of the century in the United States.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If your point is that physical anthropologists in 1920s were equally versed in "the study of human health" (i.e. medicine) as physicians, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. It is almost incomprehensible to me that one would argue that someone who's primary area of study is the difference between races would know as much about overall human health as someone trained as a physician, but I digress. Yobol (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

From my own limited understanding, physicians are not, and were not, primarily medical researchers, but professionals trained to detect and treat disease. Our etiological knowledge of disease comes from medical research, performed by medical researchers, and it did back then as well. What you seem to fail to understand is that physical anthropologists and medical professionals (like Price) were conducting cross-cultural medical and health related research back then. However, most physicians wouldn't have known squat about cross cultural dietary differences. Why would they have? I can't vouch for Hooton's particular expertise, but the fact that he was a physical anthropologist makes it more, and not less, likely that he did have some in the cross cultural study of health and medicine.Griswaldo (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe physicians (and physician researchers) would understand medical knowledge (like the causes of TB) better than athropologists (and anthropological researchers). You obviously disagree. This is going nowhere, so I'll let you have the last word. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What would a psychiatrist know about the research? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No point really.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Of course according to his Wikipedia entry, Hooton appears to have had some rather suspect racialist ideas based on his research in physical anthropology. Perhaps not "suspect" at the time of writing, but certainly now. Of course that is one of several recurring problem when you dig into the views of historical figures in general.Griswaldo (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the time to point out the obvious, Griswaldo. As a museum anthropologist one of the things I was trained to do is to try and put people and events back into the context of their time and explain those concepts to modern day people. Weston Price is a problem as many of the ideas he held were mainstream for his time but as they say things change. --BruceGrubb (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources possibly containing contemporary reviews of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Here are some possible sources for reviews of or commentaries on Nutrition and Physical Degeneration contemporary to Price.

(1939) Harpers Magazine, October, 1939

(1939) The Journal of pediatrics, Volume 15, pg 661

(1939) Science news: Volumes 35-36 pg 128 (classified under Anthropology)

(1940) The New York times book review: Volume 1

(1950) National and English review, Volume 135

"The first of Seven Monthly Lectures on the Research work of Dr. Weston A. Price on "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." (1950) Modern nutrition: Volume 3

(1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7 American Academy of Nutrition, American Nutrition Society

Peer reviewed publications with articles that used Nutrition and Physical Degeneration as a source:

(1940) The Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 27 pg 554

(1942) Food and nutrition news, Volumes 13-30, pg 76

History of Dentistry works that appear to have the book as a reference:

Bremner, Maurice David Kaufman (1946) The story of dentistry from the dawn of civilization to the present

Lufkin, Arthur Ward; William Harry Archer, Frank Monroe Casto (1948) A history of dentistry

These might give us a better view of how well received Nutrition and Physical Degeneration was in relation to Price's time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources citing Price

I'm finding a fair number of sources published after his death citing the book. These citations tend to be for facts about the levels of tooth decay in certain cultures that Price surveyed, like aboriginal Australians. In terms of his findings, as opposed to his conclusions, he seems both notable and uncontroversial even today. Here is one example from 1963 - Journal of Dental Research. The point being that I think that his basic survey findings are at the very least not controversial or disputed by anyone, and remain a resource to some.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more contemporaneous and seemingly uncontroversial citation of one of Price's conclusions as well. From - Lamb, Mia Wolf and Ling, Bing-Chung. 1946. "An Analysis of Food Consumption and Preferences of Nursery School Children". Child Development 17(4):187-217:

• "Even though these children were of normal health, some physical deficiencies were present in the group. Among these deficiencies was an anemic condition ranging from slight to severe. This condition in the subject paralleled a low iron intake. Imperfect dental development, resulting in poor occlusion and improper tooth arrangement, was also frequently recorded. That this is the result of improper diet during pre- and postnatal stages of development has been shown by Price (5)." (216)

I'll look for more of these contemporaneous citations.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Another contemporaneous source citing Price, along with W. H. Sheldon, The Varieties of Human Physique. From Stewart, T.D. "Food and Physique." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 225, "Nutrition and Food Supply: The War and After" (Jan., 1943), pp. 22-28.

• "For instance, the permanent teeth formed during a period of malnutrition are usually hypoplastic and highly susceptible to decay.' Indeed, the prevalence of dental caries among civilized peoples in itself probably is witness to the fact of improper diet. And the same perhaps may be said even of the varieties of human physique."

And here is another from the same journal. From Kellogg, Charles E. "Soil and Nutrition". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 225, Nutritionand Food Supply: The War and After (Jan., 1943), pp. 17-21

• "Other examples of deficiency diseases among both humans and animals have been described by Orr, Price, Marett, and others.1 These deficiencies in soil and food sometimes lead to sickness and death; often there is stunted or abnormal growth. Isolation on a particular kind of soil with deficiencies of one or more vital nutrient elements, like calcium, phosphorus, cobalt, iron, or iodine, will cause trouble."

I have yet to run into anything controversial when looking for these. But I'll keep looking.Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this definitive enough?

OK I found a review of Nutrition and Degeneration from 1940, the year after the first edition was published. The review was published as - Vaughn, Warrent T. 1940. "Effects of Dietary Deficiencies". The Scientific Monthly, 50(5):463-464.

• "Dr. Price's thesis may be summarized in a few words. Tooth decay is a result of civilization and is due to the fact that civilized man has, discontinued using, in their native states, those foods which savage man had long ago established as requisite to normal body development. Modern methods of food purveyance have robbed us in great measure of two very important food elements, vitamins and minerals. Modern nutritionists must compensate for this loss by food additions in concentrated form, but this replacement does not adequately take the place of those original foods which were provided by nature. [Next par.] To those who are versed in dietetics this may sound prosaic and self-evident." (emphasis mine)

Critique, from second to last para.

• "Although the volume may be read with profit there are points which are subject to criticism. Dr. Price has carefully studied the oral cavities of the inhabitants of those remote regions. He is a dean among American dentists, and none would question his findings. But in his conclusions he goes much farther than the observations warrant, attributing both physical and moral deterioration and demoralization of the white man to present-day dietary deficiencies. At a time when a Lombroso 's stigmata of degeneracy are passing into the discard, he presents a new series of stigmata, summarized in under-development and mal-development of the bones of the middle part of the face. He presents confirmatory evidence in his study of modern criminals, but very little in the way of comparison with non-criminals or normal controls. Although reason tells us that there may be much to what he says, his conclusions are not justified by the evidence presented. Unfortunately, Dr. Price presents his conclu- sions, as generalizations, in the intro- ductory chapters. As a consequence a critical reader is apt to become slightly dubious after the first few pages."

If anyone is interested in a copy I have this on PDF. As you can see by the critique I also added, it appears that while the nutritional side of his studies were considered "self-evident" Price's conclusions regarding "moral" decay were controversial. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

More Critiques out there?

I found the following statement in a book review of a book that cites Price, and it is much less favorable.

• "In connection with his dietary theories, the author tells us that "the book in this category we consider most important is Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by W. Price," a well-meaning book which the author is apparently unaware has been severely criticized ever since its original publication in 1939."

The author of the review is an anthropologist by the name of Ashley Montagu and he suggests that Price's book was received rather critically. Unfortunately he does not tell us why, but perhaps this means that we can find the criticism yet. Here is the full reference. In Search of Man by André Missenard; Lawrence G. Blochman Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 316, A Crowding Hemisphere: Population Change in the Americas (Mar., 1958), pp. 190-191.Griswaldo (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate contemporary criticism

Here is a reference to Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration that both puts it in the critical light of contemporary anthropology while clearly contextualizing the problem identified as common place amongst his contemporaries. (From: Lewis, Henry T. 1989. "Ecological and Technological Knowledge of Fire: Aborigines Versus Park Rangers in Northern Australia". American Anthropologist 91(4):940-61.

• "The problem that Weaver notes is of course not uniquely Australian. The lack of awareness or acceptance of folk systems of ecological knowledge undoubtedly characterizes the views of all but very few Western scientists. A similar problem has existed for a longer time in the field of folk medicine, where indigenous practices were, after modification, sometimes accepted by medical scientists but without understanding or acknowledging the cultural perceptions of what was involved (e.g., Price 1939; Vogel 1970)."

Sourcing for this entry is thin, but these types of high quality sources are what we ought to be looking for, and not the alternatives -- the Foundation and Barrett. Both are poor choices if we want a reliable view of the matter.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Different approach

The following paragraph is offered as the most basic description of Price's thesis in the Nutrition and Degeneration, but I'm not sure it is accurate. Maybe the manner in which it is presented is the problem here after all. I have consistently thought that some here on the talk page have been mis-characterizing even what we currently have in the entry, but despite that I am now beginning to wonder if what we do write is accurate. I haven't read Price directly but the reviews I'm running into do not have this radical of a characterization in them. Here's our text:

• In his studies he said he found that plagues of modern civilization (headaches, general muscle fatigue, dental caries or cavities, impacted molars, tooth crowding, allergies, heart disease, asthma, and degenerative diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer) were not present in those cultures sustained by indigenous diets. However, within a single generation these same cultures experienced all the above listed ailments with the inclusion of Western foods in their diet: refined sugars, refined flours, canned goods, etc.

Where does this summary come from? How wed are we to it? I think changing this summary might solve some of our above bickering. What do others think?Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and altered this paragraph based on the review I have of the book.Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price and Stephen Barrett in their own words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It most certainly is OR and BATTLE.

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

By saying Barrett claims are correct despite Price clearly referring to the things Barrett said he ignores is having Barrett trump Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying the Quackwatch claims are correct on all points. Can we stick to discussions on what people are actually proposing? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Right and the discussion is regarding Barrett as a reliable source on the quality of Price's work--something that has been shown to be not the case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is proposing that either. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Invaluable source

In terms of content here is the best source I've read yet. It was supplied by ScienceApologist over at the FT/N. I'm not sure this source is considered reliable by our standards. If it is we should use it heavily. Have a look - [3].Griswaldo (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points--it is the best piece of information we have and yet it is at best borderline in terms of WP:RS--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can't make out what this paper is. Any ideas? Here's a bit about the author: [4] Here's more: [5] If I'm reading it right, he graduated Fall '09. His dissertation might be a useful ref if available. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like it's only a "model biography" [6] and may not be a WP:RS. Yobol (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the dissertation is complete yet. I'm not getting anything on the dissertation database, and I believe his information is listed as a current student on those pages, with a current dissertation completion fellowship. Unfortunate.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping the Fall'09 date was a graduation date, but I guess not. Something to look forward to. It would be nice to get a reference list from him. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does someone want to take the lead here and email him? I'll do it if no one else has done it already.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone go ahead. My Wikipedia time is spread too widely already. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Saw the thread on WP:FTN, thought I'd contribute from an uninvolved perspective:

• Price's theories appear to fall into WP:FRINGE territory...(modern foods lead to TB...wha?). While they may or may not have been particularly FRINGE-y in his time, they sure are now.
• Quackwatch is generally considered a WP:RS for WP:FRINGE topics, so I don't see why that wouldn't be the case here as well. Cherry picking quotes as has been attempted in threads above are unconvincing.
• This article is in desperate need of independent sourcing from WP:RS. A quick lit search shows that almost all the current notability of this man is in the context of his theories as promoted by the foundations he is associated with. I would seriously consider redirecting this page to the foundation page if more independent sources are not found on him.
• We have to be very careful that we do not turn this into a WP:COATRACK for his theories. As far as I can tell, modern research has basically ignored his work as a basis for understanding modern nutrition or dentistry, so I don't see why we would want to go into great detail here about them, unless we find WP:RS that does so.
• As an aside, the first ref is published by Bion Publishing which appears to be owned by the author[7] and is therefore a WP:SPS and probably not a WP:RS.Yobol (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Several points here.

• Price's actual points were that poor nutritional balance due to modern foods resulted in lower resistance: "It is important for us to keep this picture in mind in its relation to the high incidence of tuberculosis as we read succeeding chapters and find the part played by modernization in breaking down the defense of individuals to infective processes including tuberculosis." (Chapter 3) Last time I checked good nutritional balance as assistance to disease prevension was still main stream.

• I found on online copy of The Journal of the National Dental Association, Volume 5, Issues 5-12 (1915) which states "The Research Department conducted by The Research Institute of the National Dental Association, Cleveland, Ohio; Weston A. Price, M.S. D.D.S President" The Dental cosmos: Volume 59 - Page 1244 (1917) confirms Price as "head of the Research Institute"

• As demonstrated by other references Price was not the only one to hold views that nutrition and over all heath were connected.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that nutrition (or specifically malnutrition) has an effect on the immune system is "mainstream"; I also am pretty sure that the particular theory that modern foods like chocolate leading to drastically higher rates of TB is quite fringe today (unless someone has some modern research lying around saying that...)
• A much better source than the one we have for that information.
• Again, the question is not whether "nutrition" has an affect on health, but whether his theory that modern foods have an affect that matters here. Yobol (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Modern" being foods of the 1920s and 1930s ie little if any supplemental vitamins added as is the case with current foods. This is the key thing we must remember about Price's work. In his time "modern foods" did not have the large number of synthetic vitamins added to them that foods today do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This confusion is essentially what Hans pointed out about Barrett's unfortunate criticism. It confuses the claims made by those who are co-opting Price's conclusions in a contemporary setting with his own historically situated research. Bruce is raising some rather fundamental issues here that cannot be ignored.Griswaldo (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is that Price belonged to what is called the Culture-historical/Historical Particularism/Boasian period of anthropology and archaeology which felt that modern civilization would quickly wipe out these ancient peoples and their way of life and every possible detail worth noting had to be recorded before the end came. (Trigger, Bruce (1989) History of Archaeological Thought pg 148-195) This resulted in a kind of noble past mentality where these "primitive" cultures where thought to have lived a harsher and yet better life than modern man.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page about the article, not a forum for venturing off into a discussion of "synthetic vitamins." If his theories are not fringe for that time, there should be plenty of contemporaneous scientific articles/reviews that corroborate his theory that the 1920s/1930s diet with chocolate and canned vegetables can lead to immune dysfunction to the point that tuberculosis is significantly higher. I look forward to seeing those WP:RS as I find that theory to be, how should I phrase this...unlikely. Yobol (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Price actually say that or is that your own reading of what he says?

"The individuals in the modernized districts were found to have widespread tooth decay. Many had facial and dental arch deformities and much susceptibility to diseases. These conditions were associated with the use of refined cereal flours, a high intake of sweets, canned goods, sweetened fruits, chocolate; and a greatly reduced use of dairy products." (Chapter 3)

In other words Price was saying it was a combination of things. Price also brings up another point true in his time and not so true today:

"Modern commerce has deliberately robbed some of nature's foods of much of their body-building material while retaining the hunger satisfying energy factors. For example, in the production of refined white flour approximately eighty per cent or four-fifths of the phosphorus and calcium content are usually removed, together with the vitamins and minerals provided in the embryo or germ. The evidence indicates that a very important factor in the lowering of reproductive efficiency of womanhood is directly related to the removal of vitamin E in the processing of wheat. The germ of wheat is our most readily available source of that vitamin. Its role as a nutritive factor for the pituitary gland in the base of the brain, which largely controls growth and organ function, apparently is important in determining the production of mental types. Similarly the removal of vitamin B with the embryo of the wheat, together with its oxidation after processing, results in depletion of body-building activators."(Chapter 16)

"The data available on the subject of soil depletion and animal deterioration are so voluminous that it would require a volume to present them adequately. When we realize the quantities of many of the minerals which must enter into the composition of the bodies of human beings and other animals, we appreciate the difficulty of providing in pasture and agricultural soils a concentration of these minerals sufficient to supply the needs for plant growth and food production [...] For example, a high-milk-production cow from southern Texas on a certain low mineral pasture will run behind her normal requirements about 60 grams of phosphorus and 160 grams of potassium per day."(Chapter 20; nearly entire chapter is about soil nutrient quality and its effects on food)

"Many foods and feeds are now regularly supplemented (enriched) with vitamins. The purpose is 1) to make up for the losses which occur during processing (revitaminization, 2) to even out the natural fluctuations and 3) to enrich foods with low vitamin contents to insure and adequate supply (enrichment) (Friedrich, Wilhelm (1988) Vitamins Page 27)

So the destruction of vitamins and minerals via possessing Price saw as well as variations in vitamin and mineral has been countered today by addition of supplemental (ie synthetic) vitamins. Again we must put Price's work back into the time period he made it--few if any supplemental vitamins being added to processed food and that processing wrecking total havoc on the vitamin and mineral content of the food being processed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he compares the rates of tuberculosis between "modern" and "primitive" societies and blames the increased rates of TB on a modern diet. I'm not here to discuss vitamins. Please present WP:RS that back up his theory that "modern" foods leads to TB, since you say his theories aren't fringe.Yobol (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, you still don't get it. Price is saying that it is the poor nutritional content of a "modern" diet that is the cause. He is not claiming that food itself might cause TB as was the case witht Boston medical and surgical journal back in 1889--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Price's general theories

Well let's discuss these basic concepts. In the third paragraph under Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Price basically says that these isolated tribes or villages of people in his studies did not suffer from the dental issues of those people on the "western diet" (i.e., processed food, high sugar, etc). Well is this not supported by Dental caries#History in the third paragraph? Cane sugar in the western world saw an increase in tooth decay, which seems to confirm Prices's findings. Did Xylitol exist in the food supplies of the people Price studied? I'm just asking the question here. How fringe was his ideas, and how much is supported by modern science. Is that why we need to flouridate water? If you don't change the western diet then you have to solve dental issue another way (e.g., flouridation), right? Could it be a nutritional issue as Price claimed? If we change our nutrition, could we possibly stop using flouridation? Correlation does not guarantee causation, however that doesn't mean it can't indicate a cause. Can we find sources that support Price's theories? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiddling around with the Dental interest article (snippet views), I managed to get this:

"On his vacations each year, Dr. Price traveled throughout the world studying the dental and physical condition of isolated tribes which had not, been exposed to modern, refined diets. These studies resulted in numerous scientific papers and books, the most famous of which is "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," published in 1939 and now in its fourth edition. His interest in nutrition dates from 1894 when he began to consider diet as a prime factor in the cause of tooth decay. Calcium Metabolism drew Dr. Price's attention in 1925 when he became active as a student of nutrition. Convinced that it was better to study why healthy people were healthy than to study disease, he began his travels to the remote areashealthy people were healthy than to study disease, he began his travels to the remote areas of the earth, searching out primitive peoples untouched by civilization."

This fiddling coughed up another resource: Washington State dental journal: Volumes 13-16 (1948)--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can continue making progress. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was able to pull the amount of material Price collected on his little project: 15000 original photographs, 4000 lantern slides (about half of which are hand colored) and a library of strip film lectures. From there I got to "introduction of the "Civilized diet" of white flour, sugar, and other refined foods into the eating habits of these once isolated tribes, has brought its inevitable concomitants, dental decay and general physical degeneration." before I couldn't get any further.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

General comment: we really should be limiting how much material we place about his work unless they are particularly notable; this is an article about the man, not his work nor any of his books. We should mark the highlights of his career and seminal works that have been discussed (contemporaneously or not) but not go into any great detail about them unless we have WP:RS that do so too. I would also note that contemporaneous reviews of his work are fine, but I would expect most readers here when looking for information about his work would also equally (and probably more than equally) want to see how it has stood up to how modern understanding of dentistry/nutrition. If such WP:RS do not exist, then it is a good sign modern dentistry and nutrition does not place any significant emphasis on his theories, and neither should we.

As an aside, this talk page is not a place to get into a discussion about his theories. There are aspects to his work that are probably not WP:FRINGE, and parts that almost certainly are (i.e. modern foods -> TB). A complicating factor in this topic is that his views are being used now to promote fringe nutritional theories, which I think needs to be spelled out more clearly in this article. Yobol (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We must be very careful that we don't read things into Price's work that aren't really there. Remember that during and after Price's study vitamins were being discovered and what they did was being worked out. While the first synthetic vitamin (D) was made in 1927 it was 1933 before the next one (C) came to be (Chemical & Engineering News) and the native peoples Price studied likely didn't have access to synthetic vitamins for most of his study. For the purposes of his study nutrition = food and due to the way "modern" (1920s and 1930s) food was prepared for long distance transport many natural occurring vitamins were destroyed.

This brings me the modern foods -> TB misconnect you keep making. It should be 1920s and 1930s food -> poorer nutritional connect than native foods -> greater susceptibility to TB. Today, US National Institute of Health is currently doing studies on the relationship between Nutrition and Tuberculosis (Nutrition, Immunology and Epidemiology of Tuberculosis). Take a good look at what vitamins they are testing: retinol (A), B1, B2, B6, niacin (B3), B12, C, E, and folic acid (B9). In Chapter 16 of his book Price lists the vitamins he deemed most important: Animal A (ie retinal), B (B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, B12), D, E and in the 1945 edition he added a chapter to his book called "A New Vitamin-Like Activator" regarding something he couldn't identify.

Now given the resources available in his time is Price's connection between food and TB that off the wall even to our modern eyes?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially OR and ad hoc justification. Please show me the WP:RS that confirms his findings if they are not fringe.Yobol (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember how tuberculosis treatment was viewed in the early part of the 20th century:

"We know that the treatment of tuberculosis mainly consists in proper hygiene and good food, and that is one of the points I particularly wish to emphasize." (1904) The Illinois medical journal: Volumes 5-6 Illinois State Medical Society Page 61

"The proper preventive measures against consumption, such as fresh air, open windows, clean rooms and good food are pointed out..." ((1909) "The Fight against Tuberculosis" The Western dental journal: Volume 23; Page 389)

(1949) Food fights tuberculosis! State of Idaho Department of Public Health . Published the year AFTER Price died.

Again i can't point this out enough: Price was a man of his times and the quality of his work needs to be measured by the standards of that time--not ours.

While we are at it show us the WP:RS that directly refutes Price's claim--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one saying his theories were mainstream (in fact, I'm saying the opposite, in that I don't think any significant part of the medical community really believed a "modern" diet caused TB). If I'm correct, you wouldn't necessarily see any RS discussing it because no significant number actually bothered to study it. If you are correct, then there should be plenty of articles showing how the medical community was advocating a "primitive" diet to prevent TB. I eagerly await those WP:RS.Yobol (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And why is that? Where in the entry is this claim even made? Will you stop trying to refute the straw man of Price that you are erecting based upon work of the Weston A Price Foundation and the criticisms made by Barrett and focus on improving this entry with reliable information about Price?Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

From our article, "In his studies he said he found that plagues of modern civilization (headaches, general muscle fatigue, dental caries or cavities, impacted molars, tooth crowding, allergies, heart disease, asthma, and degenerative diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer) were not present in those cultures sustained by indigenous diets. However, within a single generation these same cultures experienced all the above listed ailments with the inclusion of Western foods in their diet: refined sugars, refined flours, canned goods, etc." Yobol (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, that does not say that he was "advocating a primitive diet to prevent TB", nor does the entry ever suggest that "advocating a primitive diet to prevent TB" would have been a mainstream position at the time, nor is Bruce or anyone else arguing that. Do you think that the current text in the entry leads to that conclusion? You seem to be conflating the current advocacy of holistic diets to prevent diseases, based upon Price's observations with Price's actual conclusions/claims.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is logical that if his theories were not fringe at that time and it was mainstream that TB was being caused/significantly exacerbated by "modern (1920s)" diets, that public health officials during TB outbreaks would advocate against "modern" diets. I guess, though logical, it would not necessarily have to be true, so I will settle for WP:RS that agree with Price that show "modern (1920s)" diets increased risk for TB. Yobol (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You are still framing this in a way that the entry does not. What we need is a clear understanding of what he did claim and how it was received at the time, if possible. I will note, however, that his publishing record indicates something much more mainstream than fringe. You do not find fringe theorists published by the most prestigious mainstream publications. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He claimed tuberculosis was seen much more frequently in populations eating "modern" diets and attributed that fact to the diet. All I'm asking for is some WP:RS that corroborates this if this theory is not fringe.

As to whether scientists with otherwise prestigious scientific credentials can be supporters of fringe theories, please see Peter Duesburg, Kary Mullis for HIV denialism, Linus Pauling for Vitaminc C megadosage, among others. The idea that a theory can't be fringe because someone with credentials supports it is horribly misguided. Yobol (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Dr Pottenger, a TB expert at the time, agreed with Dr Price about the benefit of proper diet on TB. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, first of all don't confuse the fringe of today with the fringe of the historical period that the person published in. People don't publish what is considered fringe contemporaneously in respected journals, unless the journals have been duped. They may publish other, non-fringe ideas in respected journals while also holding fringe views. I wouldn't dispute that. Why don't you do some actual work, as I've been doing, to try to discover how mainstream or fringe these ideas were instead of simply making demands of other people. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're off on this tangent about fringe being published in journals as the text we're discussing is in a book. I applaud yours and BruceGrubb's efforts in finding sources for this article, but characterizing a request for WP:RS as "simply making demands" seems somewhat bizarre. His theories on TB are, to me at least, self-evidently fringe, and I was hoping someone who disagrees with could show me how I'm wrong - it is certainly unfortunate you find a request for WP:RS as "making demands". Yobol (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Break

What claims about TB are you talking about? Please help me understand since you have repeatedly misrepresented what is in the entry. If you think what is written in the entry was fringe then please do the research and provide the sources. That's all I'm saying. I'm looking through all the sources I can find on him after the publication of that book and I'm not finding anyone mentioning a fringe perspective. You are making an original claim, based on your own original understanding of Price's theories and you're asking for us to find reliable sources to refute your own original claim. That's simply absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Associated with a fine physical condition the isolated primitive groups have a high level of immunity to many of our modern degenerative processes, including tuberculosis, arthritis, heart disease, and affections of the internal organs. When, however, these individuals have lost this high level of physical excellence a definite lowering in their resistance to the modern degenerative processes has taken place." Or, in other words, eating modern foods leads to getting TB. That you read his work and didn't get this theory of his despite the numerous times he uses tuberculosis as an example in the book is remarkable. Yobol (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You are once again placing causal claims into his mouth. What you quote does not say that a modern diet is the cause of tuberculosis, it mentions the correlation between high "physical condition" and a supposed immunity to tuberculosis. Can you please find a quote that actually supports your claim. I'm looking into this myself, but I was focusing not on primary (is book) but secondary sources first. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I've scanned some of the TB related discussions in Price's book. His argument is that eating foods lower in certain vitamins increases the risk of tuberculosis. He claims that there are higher rates of TB in natives that have adopted a diet lower in vitamins and minerals (e.g. the modern foods of the time) than in natives still on a native diet high in vitamins and minerals. It is based on this correlation that he concludes that diets lower in vitamins and minerals increase the risk of TB. Can we at least agree on this? I'll be happy to clutter the talk page with quotes from Price if you don't agree. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems straightforward to go to the source of the claim to find out what he actually said, but I digress again... Actually, your summary is not quite accurate either. He ties the nutrtional deficiencies to facial and dental malformations that lead to TB. "To illustrate, the narrowing of the facial and dental arch forms of the children of the modernized parents, after they had adopted the white man's food, was accompanied by an increase in susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis." So, primitive diet = good, "modern" diet = bad = nutritional deficiencies = narrow dental arch = much higher risk of TB. Again...wha? Yobol (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing correlation with causation. "Accompanied by" = correlation, but makes no claim to causation. Price suggests the same causation for both conditions, the higher risk of TB and the dental malformations, but he is not in any way, at least not in the quote you have provided or any other I've come across, claiming that the vitamin deficiency leads to dental malformation which in turn leads to TB.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I haven't confused anything, the clear implication from that sentence is, in simplified terms, what I wrote. That he didn't specifically use the word "causes" means, frankly, nothing. Under your interpretation, he mentions TB about 50 times in his book in correlation with the primitive diet and poor facial/dental structures, but did not, in any way, mean to imply any causation between those while grandly espousing the virtues of the primitive diet? Are you for real? Yobol (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of question even is that? Can you produce a quote that actually establishes a causal link between the two? You're now arguing against plain English. The sentence you quote clearly establishes a correlation and that is all. He does make claims about diet as causal agent, but I don't see any about physical deformities. I'm simply asking for one and you have not produced it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the most complete thing that Price says on the matter:

• This work throws important light on why in the primitive groups the children born to parents who are living on the imported nutrition lower in vitamins and minerals than the native foods, not only showed a greatly increased incidence of tuberculosis over the children born to parents on the native diet but also proved to be those individuals who, in facial and dental arch form, presented positive evidence of prenatal injury. We also have a direct explanation for the observations that have been emphasized by Dr. George Draper, that physical form has a direct relationship to disease susceptibility of certain types, frequently spoken of as diatheses.

In earlier sections of chapter 18 he also discusses the relationship between physical deformities of certain kinds and higher rates of TB, but he seems careful not to make causal claims, probably because he knows he doesn't have the data for them. It is clear that he claims there is a direct relationship between certain types of deformity and risk of certain types of diseases, and that he thinks both are in turn related to diet. Knowing that certain symptoms are correlated with certain diseases is helpful but it doesn't mean that one caused the other. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand that correlation does not imply causation. I hope maybe you'll take some time to think about it more carefully.Griswaldo (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. While it is true that in the most technical sense, he never explicitly said "modern diets increase risk for TB", I feel a plain reading of his book very clearly shows that was what he was implying. (As an aside, I note the pesky habit most researchers I've read have had of actually saying explicitly "this does not imply causation" in their research when they are trying to be "careful" not to make or even imply causative claims). Again, it seems we're at a point where further discussion is a waste of (my) time, and I will let you have the last word (again). Yobol (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yawn????? What's that suppose to mean? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean Price advocated a diet EXACTLY like primitives. The nutrient levels in their diet is what mattered. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that Price's book was originally published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. One would assume (or at least hope) that such a publisher would not let fringe material in anything they published.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the discussions in this section?

We build articles and settle disputes based upon the application of appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm at a loss as to the purpose of the discussions in this section. Can someone please indicate the applicable policies and guidelines, or simply the purpose of the discussions under the parent section, "Price's general theories"? --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We were arguing about a significant detail related to his theories about native diets and TB. I think its plenty relevant to the article. Don't you?Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I think we'll make more productive use of our time if we spend it finding, evaluating, and incorporating references. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP policies and procedures are all that matter here, I suppose; not writing quality articles. I thought this was an encylopedia. You want to argue policies and procedures, enjoy yourself. That's not why I come to WP to be an editor. Gris, let me know if you want to continue discussing the article content, I'll join you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the situation, nor disrupt the discussion. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the article and add something of substance. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett, again

Good work, everyone, in improving the article. Now we can return to the issue of criticisms of Price's work. At the movement, the existence of critical views is only hinted at in the section on one of the foundations:

• In 2002, Stephen Barrett of the website Quackwatch published an internet essay a portion of which criticized the Weston A. Price Foundation and Weston Price's premises and conclusions. The Weston A. Price Foundation has written a point by point rebuttal.

From my minimal research into this matter, it appears that Barrett is not the only critic. The article says he was "marginalized" by the ADA for his views on root canals, but there's no documentation of his views or the reaction. As for Barrett, the text is not a correct summary. The cited article is not especially critical of the foundation. It doesn't say what his criticisms actually are. We shouldn't give his views excess weight, but we should at least say what they are. I suggest starting a section titled "Reception" to cover how Price's views have been received that would include both critical and positive material.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of using those let's use some of these:

White, J. D.; John Hugh McQuillen, George Jacob Ziegler (1936) The Dental cosmos: Volume 78

McGehee, William Harper Owen (1936) A text-book of operative dentistry

"In 1901, Weston A. Price,38 of Cleveland, pointed out the advantages of the x-rays in root canal work and for diagnosis of pulpless teeth."

(1945) The Journal of the American Dental Association: Volume 32

Grossman, Louis Irwin; Elsie Gerlach (1946) Root canal therapy

(1946) The Penn dental journal: Volume 14--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the source I post on technology? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and it says "He conducted studies to determine the effect of x-rays on cancer" but nothing on him pointing out the advantages of x-rays in dentistry which was part of my point. Another part of my point is that both the "Stay Away from 'Holistic Dentistry" article and "Quackwatch on Dr. Price" sections have major problems in that most of the claims are unreferenced. The "Nutrition and Moral Character" section regarding Price's time at least has references but is also severely lacking. The references above are clearly better than either source so let's use them instead.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it was very interesting stuff, that's all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting but so is this: "Another thing that Dr. Price gave us is the use of resin and chloroform as root-canal filling material." ([The Journal of the American Dental Association: Volume 6]; Page 346).

On a side note, Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic seems to be what many of the holistic and biological dentists seem to reference regarding Price's research on root canals but that work was published in 1923 and yet Price was publishing articles in the Journal American Dental Association least as late as 1933 some 10 years after this book was put out. In fact just the year before "To recognize the great work that has been done by Dr. Weston A. Price, a resolution was passed to the effect that after all obligations against the property have been paid the fund accruing shall be known as the Weston A. Price Fund." (The Journal of the American Dental Association: Volume 9: Page 899) That doesn't look like marginalization to me.

Price: "It is very important that in the consideration of the dental caries problem it shall be kept in mind continually, that it is only one of a large group of symptoms of modern physical degeneration and when teeth are decaying other things are going wrong in the body. Fluorine treatment, like dental extractions, cannot be a panacea for dental caries." (Chapter 24-Fluorine in Plant and Animal Growth, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration)--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I venture to guess that directly attacking the foundation would have libel implications, but attacking Price would not. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

American Dental Association research division

Someone recently deleted some rather uncontroversial information from the lead because of WP:SPS. A very quick search would have come up with this however showing that the content was accurate. Please do not delete uncontroversial content because of WP:SPS. Please act in good faith and try to find a better source. Does anyone have better access to the sources I got on Google books? Let's use one of them.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually more concerned with the statement he was "marginalized" which I had not come across. That he was leader of the research division of the ADA is already mentioned in the lead. Yobol (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. The National Dental Association is not the same as the ADA. I'm not sure if there is a mix up in the lead or if he was actually the founder of the research wing of the former as well as the chairman of the research wing of the latter but they are not the same. Either way, a tag or at least a deletion of the offending content only would have been a much better approach here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe two orgs joined and became the NDA, which later changed its name to ADA. He did start the reseach institute and is praised for that in every old article I have read. There needs to be more balance, we can't have only negative info on Price because it is totally unwarranted. Just because some views fell out of favor, that doesn't mean he was some incompentent old fool. He was well respected, and other prominent doctors also support focal infection at the time. I have found not source supporting that he invented an endodontic procedure, however it appears true that he was initially very involved in its research until he began to suspect some related illnesses. Furthermore, if we're going to say "poorly designed" research then whoever wrote that needs to provide additional detail to make in encyclopedic and not a hit piece, so to speak. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK so today's National Dental Association is not the same as the one back then. Then there was a mix up in the lead indeed. Let's fix it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like from 1913-1922 there were two National Dental Associations in the United States: the one that Price was part of that became the ADA that had been founded by in 1859 and the one that still bears that name founded in 1913.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're looking into this. "He was later marginalized by the American Dental Association (A.D.A.) for his outspoken views on the detriment of root canals." was part of the article creation [8], and didn't include a source. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before what we have so far seems to contradict this statement. The book in question seems to be one written in 1923 while Price was publishing articles in the ADA' publication as late as 1933 if not later.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)On a slight side note it looks like everyone missed just what the 1925 The Nebraska state medical journal said: "Weston A. Price has been doing research on oral infections and their relation to systemic and degenerative diseases for the past twenty-five years and has for the past twelve years been chairman of the Research Section of the ADA..." The 1914-1923 range originally state made no sense as the difference between those is only NINE years (Ten years if you count 1914 itself). Ergo Price must have been chairman from at least 1914-1925 (Twelve years inclusive) and might have been chairman as early as 1913. Given the British Society for the Study of Orthodontics of 1925 identifies Price as still being "Chairman of the Research Section of the American Dental Association" that sets the 1925 end so all we ahve to find is something that tells if it was 1914 or 1913 that he became chairman.

If anyone want to argue against this please explain to me how you can have someone be a chairman of anything for twelve years in what is at best a ten year period because as a math minor I would love to see how that works. Oh it gets even better as I have found a 1928 British journal of dental science (Volumes 72-73) Page 101 that says "In the dental profession no man has had greater influence in moulding opinion than has Weston A. Price, DDS, of Cleveland, Ohio. He has been chairman of the research section of the American Dental Association from 1914 to the present."

We really need something that gives just when Price was Chairman because right now all we have is a WP:SYN range of 1914-1928 and we are not even sure of that ending year--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the current dates are probably inaccurate; the correct dates are probably hidden in one of the articles on Price that we can't get our hands on. Yobol (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source for book content

As I don't usually edit articles on books, I'm not sure, but it is my understanding that the information explicitly about book content (rather than analysis of the book content) does not require (and is usually not) sourced to a secondary article as the source for the content of the book is the book itself. (And a quick look through some nonfiction book articles here confirms this). It seems quite odd that we're sourcing the content of the book to secondary articles. Yobol (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't because they provide good summaries where we would otherwise be arguing about what to include and what not to include.Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Price's writing style doesn't always lend itself to easy summation hence the use of secondary sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's odd that we would have an "argument" about what the book is about, though I agree his writing style does make it difficult. If that is the consensus on how people want to do it here, I will see if I can find more reviews to expand that section. Yobol (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Focal infection theory

We now have an entry on Focal infection theory so there is no need to go into details on it here. Also please note that Price seems to have played a very limited role in spreading this theory. Neither of the sources I used to write that entry mention him once. The source used here probably mentions him because the resurgence of the theory today and one fringe dental researcher who traces his own scientific lineage to Price. Either way the source used here discusses Price's experiments after establishing the theory's lineage and after mentioning what it lead to. Way too many liberties were taken with this source so I seriously edited the section here.Griswaldo (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to disagree, but sometimes things take time to get their name, that doesn't mean he wasn't involved. Not to say he started it, but apparently other prominent physicians supported the theory, and given the research at the time it may have seemed wise. Our research today may be far superior, but from what I've read they certainly weren't cave dweller by comparison. Many breakthroughs in vitamins and other nutrients at that time. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 21:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Rather than mass deleting well sourced information, please be specific about which statement are not sourced and I will provide you with the paragraph and sentence I was using for sourcing. The two sources used clearly meet WP:RS (and even WP:MEDRS) guidelines, and the fact that the two reviews you found don't mention him with regard to focal infection theory doesn't mean he did not contribute to them; I have another review article that mentions him in that context, but did not use it as it did not have any additional information that the Baumgartner source did not already have. Deleting sourced information is disruptive and needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

He was a supporter of the theory by the time it was already accepted by the medical establishment. That is pretty unremarkable. He did apparently contribute to the evidence when it was in full swing. There are some serious liberties being taken with these sources here, see below and compare it to what the entry read before I edited it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That he was a supporter and contributed to the theory is mentioned in two separate textbooks (and a review article I haven't used, reference can be given if needed). We're scraping around 70 year old Dental Items of Interest articles and we can't use textbooks for referencing him? Really? Yobol (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything on Price

Here is the grand total of all the text devoted to Price in the source(s) -- the second source isn't about Price but focal infection theory more generally. Please explain how the extraneous materials I removed are justified by the source:

• Weston Price began a 25-year study of pulpless and endodontically treated teeth and their association with focal infection. He published a series of rabbit experiments and case reports purporting remarkable improvement after dental extraction of non-vital teeth (teeth with non-vital pulps)."
• However, recent publications have resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price."

Also please note that the second piece of information belongs in a "legacy" section. Please feel free to spearhead that effort.Griswaldo (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are you reading the 5th edition (the one originally supplied in the lead) or 6th edition of Ingle's Endodontics (the one I am referencing and has additional information on Price)?
• The second source mentions Price in the context of focal infection theory; it is absurd to say it cannot be used in an article on Price and describing his involvement with his theory.
• If you want to move it to a legacy section, that's fine, but do not just delete it.Yobol (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• 6th edition. I added information from the second source back in, exactly how you wrote it, after starting this discussion. If it goes into a legacy section please make it NPOV, which you didn't the first time around (see below).Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported and unrelated text

Unsupported claims:

• "Price's research, along with other testimonials in the literature at the time, led to the widespread acceptance of the practice of extracting ... "
• "Price's research has also been criticized for using inadequate controls, using too large of doses of bacteria in his studies and bacterial contamination of teeth during tooth extraction."

On the border and definitely POV as written

• "Although this research supporting teeth extraction over endodontic treatment has been disproved, publications still cite Price's "poorly designed" research as support for focal infection theory."

Publications do not still cite Price, they have started to cite Price once again. You also, oddly chose to add the phrase "poorly designed" but not the phrase "outdated". In the end this, written in a NPOV manner, belongs in the "legacy" section anyway. And why did you separate "reception" out of the nutrition book but blend it in here?Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I ask again, are you reading the 5th or 6th edition of the book? If you're reading it in the 6th edition, the first "unsupported claim" is supported beginning with the sentence at the end of page 221 and the following 3 sentences. The second "unsupported claim" is supported by the 2nd sentence of the first full paragraph of page 222.
• Your objections could have been easily resolved with the changing of the words "still" to "once again" and adding the word "and outdated" to the quote. Removing them entirely is unnecessary.
• WRT to the "borderline" quote, that sentence is paraphrased FROM THE SOURCE. It is certainly not "POV".
• I am more than happy to have a "reception" area right under the description of his endodontic theories.Yobol (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added the most current sources we have regarding focal infection theory. I will likely work into that article as well but the sources show three very important things:

1. Focal infection theory while marginalized never became fringe in the dental community
2. More recent studies have shown that some (but not all) of the concepts of Focal infection have some validity.
3. Dentists and doctors are cautiously reevaluating the focal infection theory

This what three current reliable sources tells.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed synthesized material; Price is not mentioned in the sources in the context that he is known for with regard to focal infection therapy: the dispute between extraction vs. endodontic therapy - which per WP:RS is where his research lie. Sadly and surprisingly, the editors so willing to remove material which did mention Price and did place his research in proper context (but called it "unrelated" anyway) left this material in, for whatever reason. Yobol (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol I actually share your concerns about the material and was trying to figure out how to approach it. The fact is that any general information on focal infection theory is on a level plain here. The reason I quoted the the exact text about Price from the Endontics source above was to show you how much you were putting in there which was not about Price but generally about focal infection. Here's my proposed solution. Use these materials to work on Focal infection theory instead of this entry. We need a bare minimum summation of that information here. Just enough to say what the theory was and that it was mostly abandoned. Bruce I think you're pushing it with this stuff personally.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I resotred material that clearly referred to Price's research, as seen in the sources. I think any further removal of this clearly well sourced material as "unsourced" - which is clearly false - will be viewed as disruptive and will need to be taken to the appropriate venue as such. I have incorporated changes suggested above including change in wording and placement of material in the legacy section. Yobol (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

NO you conflated general comments about the theory with Price, and have presented him as a much more prominant figure in the development of the theory than he was, by presenting material directly about him and material not directly about him in a synthetic manner see "Price's research, along with other testimonials in the literature at the time, led to the widespread acceptance of the practice of extracting ... ". Above and beyond this you presented other material about him in a fashion that is POV, by picking and choosing the language from the source to skew the picture ... like including "poorly designed" but not "outdated" while the source uses both -- see "Although this research supporting teeth extraction over endodontic treatment has been disproved, publications still cite Price's "poorly designed" research as support for focal infection theory." Also, the first sentence there, is not directly about Price but generally about the theory of focal infections.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't conflated anything, and the material is clearly supported by the text. There is no synthesis, the book talked about Price's work and the testimonials and came up with that conclusion. I have included your recommendation regarding adding the word "outdated". I do not know what you are speaking about when you say "the first sentence" doesn't deal with Price - first sentence where?

That was a sloppy mistake, I meant the first part of the sentence, "Although this research supporting teeth extraction over endodontic treatment has been disproved ...". You're mix an matching here. That's a general statement that comes from text that follows a statement about Price, because recent writers are promoting Price's theories. Price's research was disproved, along with research by the rest of the medical community at the time. The focus on Price in this context has to do with his use by contemporary fringe writers. Whatever this isn't a big point for me anyway.Griswaldo (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the other issue you are synthesizing. The book reports on Price's studies in two sentences, then follows it with a more general statement that the reports contained in the dental literature "during that time ... wrongfully supported the continued extraction of teeth without scientific reason." They do not say, Price's theories "and" these reports. Clearly it is implied that he contributed to these reports, but the extent of his role is not so clear, and your writing implies that it is important enough to mention side by side.Griswaldo (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually see your point about pointing out Price alone and have added some wording to clarify. Given that the paragraph starts with a statement specifically on Price (and don't mention any other researchers by name before that sentence about "wrongfully supported..."), it is seems clear (to me) that the authors feel his contribution is noteworthy in the context of that paragraph. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think you need to WP:CHILL. I haven't seen any bad faith going on, so throttle back on the disruptive accusations. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing material as "unsourced" that is in fact well sourced is disruptive by any standard, and should not be tolerated. Yobol (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said "unsourced", I said "unverified". The second example I posted above is still unverified. I have the 6th edition and I can't find it anywhere. Please quote me the appropriate text. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated, on page 222, 1st full paragraph, 2nd sentence: "The studies by Rosenow and Price were flawed by inadequate controls, the use of massive doses of bacteria, and bacterial contamination of endodontically treated teeth during tooth extraction." You're welcome. Yobol (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying. I could not find this when I looked, honestly. That was my mistake and I'm sorry I made it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, can happen to anyone. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you need to raise your tolerance, this article is in transition and the other editors have not shown you anything but a cooperative spirit in my view. You need to just tone it down and work with other editors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will never tolerate disruptive behavior such as calling material unsourced when it is quite clearly sourced, and neither should any other Wikipedia editor. Yobol (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of his works

I found a review of one of his articles by a doctor at the time. The doctor was at the American Journal of Public Health. How can it be posted? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Endodontic Therapy

The last sentence in that section makes me pause. I'd like to see a quote that proves that Price was a dunderhead in the lab. If you want to paint that picture, it had better be accurate. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like Yobol to provide quotes for every piece of contested text he just reinstated. Please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied above.Yobol (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The current section is biased and unbalanced. Price was obviously an expert at endodontics at the time, shown here in Chapter 15. He even credited withinventing a specific technique. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That book is the same book I got the quote from that criticized his lab techniques; in any event, it is likely based on the same book you are citing that his thoughts on endodontic therapy were mainstream up to the 1920s, but they fell out of favor beginning in the 1930s (which is how it is described in our article here). Yobol (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Price was on the cutting edge of using radiography as a diagnostic tool for dentistry. Before that, what did they have, nothing! So we need to see the context when placing excerpts from various books. Sure radiography experience improved, and the quality of diagnoses improved. But at the time, Price was out front. Current research is confirming is correlation per focal infection, but cautions against implying causation. Nevertheless, the fact alone that they are relooking at FIT, means they see something there. FIT is the only reason Price moved away from endodontics due to its imperfection. He chose between cure systemic infection cause by poor endodontics or allowing the infections to continue. Pulling teeth was the only alternative regardless of the fact that they pulled tons of them. Did he make perfect decision in every case? What dentist does? Are we going to center the article around his imperfect decisions and disregard what he accomplished? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Added info from chapter 15, any other additions need to be sourced rather than a general discussion of his merits by editors. Yobol (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are at it; Yobol, could you stop removing the reliable sourced material about the current status of focal infection theory. As long as we have Barrett's "Stay Away from 'Holistic Dentistry'" with its "demonstrated that the theory was not valid" claim in the article (even if it is not being used to document that) we NEED something reliable to refute it. In the 1955 version of Root Canal Therapy Grossman states "In the opinion of the author, two successive negative cultures should be required of those with limited experience in taking a culture, eg, undergraduate students and dentists who practice root canal therapy only occasionally."

"Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders" ("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951)

"Grossman believes that foci of infection, where in the mouth or elsewhere, should be removed (...) Elimination of such foci does not, however, necessarily mean surgical removal since infection may also be eliminated by destruction with antiseptics or antibiotics" (E.R. Squibb & Sons (1956) Dental infections: treatment and prophylaxis; Page 46)

"Much of the clinical evidence supporting the focal infection theory is of the case-report type." (Burket, Lester William (1971) "Oral medicine; diagnosis and treatment")

"The allergic condition called angioneurotic edema may be related to food allergy, hypersensitivity, local or focal infection, and endocrine or emotional disturbances." (United States. Dept. of the Army (1971) Dental specialist: Sept. 20, 1971: Part 1 - Page 5-14)

As all these references show focal infection theory was not so much shown not to be valid but that it fell out of favor as important factor in the cause of disease. Squibb gives us a hint as to why: antibiotics.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the previous material that actually mentioned Price, as the new material is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. None of the new sources mention Price at all. That material may be appropriate for Focal infection theory but not here. This is the wikipedia article on Price and should mention focal infection theory in the context of Price; if readers want to know more about focal infection theory in general, they can click on the appropriate wikilink. Until new sources are found that mention Price, that material is inappropriate here. Yobol (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, we either discuss the historical and contemporary context of focal infection theory or we don't. You are using sources that bring this context up in discussion here, when you do that you open the door to sources that make that picture more complete. Your justification is that your sources mention Price, but their proclamations about the historical context and the contemporary context are not about Price but about the larger context. I tried pointing this out to you earlier to no avail. It is not a violation of WP:SYNTH to use sources that cover the subject being discussed in an entry already.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The current material I added speaks specifically about the relation of endodontically treated teeth in relation to Price and focal infection theory (as, of course, that is how Price is known with regards to the focal infection theory: he advocated extracting teeth instead of endodontically treating them). None of the sources in the material I removed speak to endodontically treated teeth as they related to Price or focal infection theory; instead they talk about focal infection theory in general (the material I added specifically does not hold a position on focal infection theory in general).Yobol (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, it was a very purposeful move on my part to title the section "Endodontic therapy" and not "Focal infection theroy" as the focus is endodontics, not focal infection. Yobol (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so why exactly did you chose to call the section "Endodontic therapy" and not "focal infection theory" in the first place? Isn't it for the most part based on a book section titled "The theory of focal infection (revisited)"? The text from that book about the contemporary revival reads - "However, recent publications have resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price." It doesn't say anything about "endodontic therapy". In other words these contemporary publications may or may not be speaking "to endodontically treated teeth", but we are told that they are certainly resurrecting focal infection theory. I should remind you as well, that Price's research was on "pulpless and endodontically treated teeth." If you want to go by what the sources say, you are definitely adding generalizations in about focal infection theory as they suit you while not allowing other such generalizations as they don't suit you. That said, I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of Bruce's additions or wording choices but it is really hard to sort that out when you are pushing this so sharply from the other end.Griswaldo (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is clear they are talking about root canals because 1) it's a book about root canals 2) every paragraph in that section talks about root canals 3) the sentence right before the one you quoted talked about root canls 4) the "recent publications" (citations 25, 26) are anti-root canal books. To say this is about the theory in general and not about root canals given the above strains credulity. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right it's a book on endodontics, but in that section the book discusses focal infection theory more generally because it was related to the removal of endodontically treated teeth. And you are not only using materials that are clearly related to endodontic therapy either, but to focal infection theory more generally. But you know what, that's not the biggest problem here. I take issue with how you've framed the material in the entry, in the first place. The very book you use makes it clear that Price's work on focal infection theory was not only in relation to endodontically treated teeth, so why are we focusing on that aspect only in the entry on Weston Price? Again, why is the section in the entry not about focal infection theory but only about how it related to the extraction of teeth with root canals? Probably because you only want to highlight the negative consequences of research like Price's. Griswaldo (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that endodontics is the specialty of dentistry that deals with the tooth pulp, I fail to see how he has any research dealing with focal infection outside the field of endodontics (which covers pulpless teeth as well). What WP:RS has brought up focal infection theory and Price outside the context of endodontics, and if you have them, why haven't you added it already instead of complaining about it here? Yobol (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Yobol, readers need to know why Price's 1923 focal infection research is getting the focus it is. Even the 1951 Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7 American Academy of Nutrition pg 32 said "His books on Focal Infection are masterpieces. But the work for which he will always be remembered has to do with Human Nutrition." So it is no surprise JADA report that formally marginalized focal infection theory in dentistry that same year didn't really say much about Price as it involved living experts on the matter (Price being dead 3 years at that time). The 1952 Southern California State Dental Association Volume 20; pg 32 states "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection..." while mentioning Price's work.

Google books doesn't show anything useful on Price past that point until 1978 when he is mentioned in The International journal of environmental studies: Volume 12 1978 but NOT due to his root canal work but rather his nutritional work.

The dental office: a pictorial history by Richard A. Glenner (1985) mentions Weston Price in his 1900 suggestion of "using radiography to check adequacy of root canal fillings"

Endodontics (1985) by John Ide Ingle, Jerry F. Taintor pg 244 comments that Weston Price was "caught up in the focal infection fad following World War I"

1994 brings us to to George Meinig's Root canal cover-up which coupled with the 1989 report suggesting some possible evidence for focal infection seems to kicked off the whole Weston Price as dangers of root canal pioneer craze that last to the present day.

I'm not too thrilled with the wording either but we need to show why a 80 year some old work on root canals is being made so important now.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The context is already given by the textbook cited (recent publications are resurrecting his theories). You're just WP:COATRACKing information about the general theory (which does not mention Price) into the biography of Price. I have started a thread on the Original research noticeboard to get some outside opinions. [9]. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced material

For the last time, stop removing sourced material. [10] It is disruptive. Yobol (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I is not disruptive. We don't add every sourceable piece of information into an entry. I was trying to edit out extraneous details. Please WP:AGF. Stating that deleted pieces of text are sourced is not needed here. If sourcing is not in dispute then we disagree on what is and is not pertinent to keep in. I think you are dwelling excessively on negative details. I also think that bruce's overuse of "balancing information" is an unfortunate reaction to that. Can we make an effort here to succinctly star the facts without the unnecessary detail please? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you twice ([11] [12] tried to delete well sourced material when I placed them as "unrelated" (false) and "not supported by source" (false) - which is all the more interesting given your speech about tagging unsourced material rather than deleting them earlier that same day. Now, after realizing you can't use those excuses to delete that information, you're deleting it because apparently the textbook is too "negative"? And you're going to lecture me on WP:AGF? Pfft.Yobol (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking someone to please AGF is hardly "lecturing". There were a lot of different rationales in those edits and I apologize for the confusion. Some of the material isn't directly related to Price and I haven't abandoned that fact but you don't agree so I'm trying to move on. When information was verifiable and you verified it i not only accepted the verification but apologized for my mistake. The bottom line is that there is excessive detail in there whether or not it is directly related to price. I don't mind your revert but can you consider how the basic information might be maintained in a more efficient manner at least. Perhaps you don't think it is excessively negative. Fine we can disagree on that for now but what about pure efficiency here?Griswaldo (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can this be tightened up?

By the 1930s, the theory of focal infection began to be reexamined, and new research shed doubt on the results of previous studies. One researcher in 1940 noted "practically every investigation dealing with the pulpless teeth made prior to 1936 is invalid in the light of recent studies" and that the research of Price and others suffered from technical limitations and questionable interpretations of the garnered results.[15] In terms of more modern research, Price's studies lacked proper control groups, used excessive doses of bacteria, and had bacterial contamination during teeth extraction, leading to experimental biases.[5]

Most basically this tells us that focal infection theories, including Price's were disproven by research a decade later and abandoned. Something tells me you don't think that's enough to state. What else is vital to state from segment? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If I were to remove anything, I'd probably remove the part about technical limitations and interpretations as that is basically repeated in the following sentence. Yobol (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Description of Price

Avoiding the heady stuff, should we add anthropologist to the intro paragraph, or some anthro/cross-cultural angle to his dentistry/nutritionist titles? Ocaasi (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, would it be inaccurate to call him a 'pioneering radiologist'? Ocaasi (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate, on either count. Price was not trained as an anthropologist, and the fact that his medical/dental investigations crossed a bit over into anthropological realms is just normal a cross-disciplinary occurrence. Unless he has a PhD in anthropology that I don't know about (or at least a decent track record of other anthropological works accepted by anthropologists), then it's best not to give him the title. As far as radiology goes, again, it was something he dabbled in in the course of his work, not something that he can really claim to have made a specialty of. Plenty of doctors these days are using computers in novel ways without being called computer scientists; adapting a tool does not by itself make one a specialist with the tool. --Ludwigs2 03:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts; numerous physicians use some radiological equipment in their studies (cardiologists, etc) and are not radiologists. Yobol (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think that from an ontological sense, there's of course no difference between cross-cultural science and 'science', but it does seem relevant to his general area of study that he looked to other societies and their diets. That certainly distinguished him from many dentists/nutritionists with similar training and employment. Maybe if not in his actual titles it would just fit in the overview of his area of study.

As for adapting a tool, maybe I just appreciate those entrepreneurial turns as much if not more than the standard-bearers. Anyway, if his invention of the furnace is notable for the intro, maybe his radiological contribution is as well, if not for title then for achievement. Ocaasi (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ludwigs and Yobol as well. I wonder even if "nutritionist" is correct.Griswaldo (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about how we label his credentials, just about giving him a thorough description. He was a dentist by training who studied the effects of nutrition across cultures. He also furthered dental and radiological techniques through his innovations. Call him whatever you like as long as it covers the scope of his contributions. Ocaasi (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the current wording gets it about right; he's a dentist and researcher with emphasis on nutrition (and I would not object to anthropology if it were added). Yobol (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all need to be careful with labels, here. Price was not a 'nutritionist'; Price was a dentist and scientist with an interest in nutrition as it relates to dentistry. Incautious labels like this end up makin Price look a bit like superman, which is something we need to avoid. I'm going to rewrite the lead a bit to capture this. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked into this. Nutritionist is okay to use because it's kind of an open "profession". Now dietician is another animal altogether since is requires licensure. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone with a degree in anthropology I must point out that Price lived much of his life in what Trigger calls the Culture-historical/Historical Particularism/Boasian period of anthropology and archeology but Price's methods are more similar to the functionalism approach that eventually replaced it as mainstream thought in the 1940s and 50s.

As for Price being a 'nutritionist' his obituary in the New York Times said he "won reconnection for his work in dental research and nutrition" The Journal of the American Dental Association Volume 36 1948 pg 416 says much the same thing: "From 1925 to the time of his retirement in 1943, Dr. Price was especially interested in the importance of nutrition in the field of preventive dentistry. He gained international recognition for his studies in nutrition." So at his death in 1948 Price's work in nutrition was recognized the world over.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this clarification?

I added the following clarification earlier because I think it helps sort out some of the confusion, but it was removed along with another edit.

• These publications are unrelated to recent mainstream re-examination of focal infection theory in periodontal areas of the mouth, which rely on sound, contemporary methodologies.

The endodontics book, for instance, at times simply mentions "focal infection theory", but as Yobol has pointed out, they mean focal infection theory in terms of endodontics. Reliable sources show that periodontally related focal infections have made a mainstream comeback, while there is also a fringe revival of the old endodontically related focal infection theories (like Price's). Given how confusing it has been for editors here I thought that the entry could bare to clarify this point. I wont revert the removal of the above text but could we discuss doing something else to make this clear if the above text is not acceptable? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed that information as that source does not speak about "these publications" as implied by the sentence so it would again be synth. I appreciate your concern that we don't confuse the reader, and I would not be opposed to adding information regarding any endodontic mainstream comeback for focal infection theory as that is the context Price is located in. The more I think about it, the more I share your concern about misleading the reader, but it's a fine line between educating the reader and violating WP:SYNTH in this case. I look forward to hearing other opinions. Yobol (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So it is OR because I'm suggesting that the since the source does not mention the endodontic end that is meaningful. A meaningful omission asserted by us. I agree but I think there must be a way to educate the reader on this.Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I noted before I am not thrilled with the wording of the section but given the state of the sources we have at this time I think it is the best we can do. Right now the reliable source material is somewhat fragmentary but we can pull some useful info:

1. Price's 1923 work was still considered a "Masterpiece" in 1951 (American Academy of Nutrition)
2. Focal infection while relegated to the fringes of dentistry never really died (Wiley)
3. "The central hypothesis of "periodontal medicine" is that infections from periodontitis present as a chronic inflammatory burden at a systemic level. At various times throughout history, the concept that infections of the mouth could influence systemic health has been debated." ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))
4. Manila's 1989 studies were the first modern studies into focal infection theory ((2001) Fowler)
5. Studies from 1989 to the present day has reawaken a cautious interest in focal infection theory (Wiley, Jaypee Brothers Medical)
6. The fringe element has portrayed Price's work as being suppressed (which in fact was NOT the case as shown by the above.)

This is the unpleasant little chestnut we have to explain to the reader without turning it into a wall of text.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that supports what Gris is talking about. [13] --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Except take a look at this quote from the 1920 The American journal of surgery, Volume 34 pg 347 in regards to Focal infection: "In all cases of neuritis, arthritis, and certain type of cardiac and renal disease occurring in individuals beyond the age of forty-five years, the teeth should be suspected and carefully investigated."--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Endodontics in legacy

@Ludwigs2: Section is taken from the chapter from Baumgartner is actually in reference to two books published [14] [15] recently, that the textbook is saying is using Price's old research to justify their anti-root canal views. Google "George Meinig" or just "root canal and Weston Price") to see what's being promoted. The textbook is describing how patients who read these books or see their work on the internet would be getting inaccurate information about root canals based on old research from Price. Yobol (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, we're not going to have two identical sections, okay? I'm planning to delete one because the article looks stupid. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 03:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They are not identical sections, just identical headings. I think what Yobol described above can be summarized in one sentence to replace the one Ludwigs2 wrote. I also think that it can be combined with the rest of the legacy section without any subheadings. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I at least think they should have different titles OR cleaned up somehow. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edits I suggested. Please revert them if they don't work. I do think we ought to aim not to have 1-3 sentence subsections like we did in the Legacy section.Griswaldo (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned over on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_possible_coatracking.2Fsynth Ingle's book is printed through the People's Medical Publishing House out of China whose realizable is unknown to us and also conflicts with both past and present works published by the American Academy of Nutrition, Southern California State Dental Association, US Army, Wiley, and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers as well as his apparent total ignorance of all focal infection research from 1986 to 2007 make me seriously doubt Ingle's meets WP:RS requirements. Note I not happy with the wording but it is not WP:COATRACK but rather an honest attempt at explaining why Price's root canal research is being made important now using the best resources available. I agree it is somewhat a mess but the solution is NOT to delete it.

As for the Legacy section from what I am finding in the 1950s it appears Price's nutritional research was better regarded than his root canal research.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ingle's clearly meets WP:RS standards. This is getting ridiculous. Yobol (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's on Yobol to provide a source for the the info, but I think the Burden's on you BruceGrubb to offer evidence that the source is unreliable before its contributions can be removed. Prima facie, the source looks good and the publisher looks good. We don't typically exclude sources like that without a compelling reason. As a compromise, you could provide in-text attribution explaining where the source came from so the reader can actively evaluate its merit. If you want a second opinion on that, WP:RSN would be better than WP:ORN.

As to the synth issues, it's useful in an encyclopedia to discuss the full history and historical context as well as how that compares to our modern understanding. There's no SYNTH issue as long as recentism is avoided and care is taken to explain the difference in how terms are used today versus historically. All this, IMO, obviously. Ocaasi (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ocaasi, it is NOT up to me to "offer evidence that the source is unreliable". WP:NOR one of the three pillars states quite clearly "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." WP:BURDEN is even more blunt: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.(sic) This makes it clear that Yobol is the one that must prove People's Medical Publishing House is a reliable publisher. By contrast Wiley, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, and the Journal of the California Dental Association are known reliable publishers and all say the Ingels book is wrong. It is that simple.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I think you misread my point. Burden indeed requires Yobol to find a source for his information. He did. My argument was that since the source is prima facie reliable--you have no substantive basis to regard it as otherwise, that it should stand as an acceptable RS until you can show why it's not. It's a shifting burden, in my opinion, which requires you to challenge the source once he has presented it. He presented it, but I didn't find your challenge persuasive. Effectively you just said, we don't know if this book from a Chinese press (with offices in the U.S) which publishes lots of medical titles and appears to be reputable is, so it doesn't count until Yobol can show it does. I think that's taking Burden too far in one direction. Now it's on you, IMO. Does that make more sense? Ocaasi (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, WP:SOURCES makes it quite clear that the burden is still Yobol's: "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

That reputation requirement means Prima facie does NOT cut it. Wiley, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, and Journal of the California Dental have known reputations while People's Medical Publishing House is an unknown ergo by WP:SOURCES is has to be proven that People's Medical Publishing House is reliable. Furthermore, I found a 2002 book by People's Medical Publishing House that says the exact OPPOSITE thing in regards to Focal infection theory: "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159).

You can't have a theory being resurrected in 2002 and then turn around and claim it has been dead since the 1940s in 2008--those two statements are incomparable with each other. Never mind PMPH publishes books on forms of medicine (TCM and acupuncture) that are regarded as borderline quackery here in the USA ("Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine").--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

LOOK, right now I'd like to view the reversions as minor disagreements on content, but if this continues it will definitely look like edit warring. We don't want to go there after the recent BLP/FRINGE dispute. Let's tone it down and use the Talk page if necessary. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put this on my watch list for obvious reasons. I think bringing Ronz's name up in this like you just did, as if it's a dirty word or something, is totally unnecessary. Please refactor, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You could actually try helping with the article content, instead of running around looking for bad faith. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for your refactor. Second, I know nothing of this person and I don't have time now to get to know him either, sorry. I am just trying to keep things polite and help with the dispute. That's all, nothing more than this, thanks again going offline now so if you need me, leave me a ping at my talk page, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)