Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 7 January 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paleolithic diet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Paleolithic diet is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 5, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted March 18, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Health and fitness Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:Food portal selected

Tooth enamel analysis etc.

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

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

References

1. ^ Lee-Thorp, J.; Likius, A.; Mackaye, H. T.; Vignaud, P.; Sponheimer, M.; Brunet, M. (2012). "Isotopic evidence for an early shift to C4 resources by Pliocene hominins in Chad". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (50): 20369–20372. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204209109. ISSN 0027-8424.
2. Dominy, N. J. (2012). "Hominins living on the sedge". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (50): 20171–20172. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218081110. ISSN 0027-8424.
3. Cite error: The named reference NatGeo092014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ "Ancient human ancestor 'Nutcracker Man' lived on tiger nuts". University of Oxford. School of Archaeology—University of Oxford. 2013-01-09. Retrieved 2014-08-31. An Oxford University study has concluded that our ancient ancestors who lived in East Africa between 2.4 million and 1.4 million years ago survived mainly on a diet of tiger nuts
5. ^ Hardy, Karen; Macho, Gabriele A. (2014). "Baboon Feeding Ecology Informs the Dietary Niche of Paranthropus boisei". PLoS ONE. 9 (1): e84942. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084942. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
6. Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf, Domestication of plants in the Old World, third edition (Oxford: University Press, 2000), p. 198
7. ^ Carbohydrates in human nutrition (Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Rome, Italy, 14-18 April 1997). FAO food and nutrition paper. Vol. 66. World Health Organization. 1998. ISBN 9251041148.

Discussion

Criticism section needed

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

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

References

1. Cunningham E (2012). "Are diets from paleolithic times relevant today?". J Acad Nutr Diet. 112 (8): 1296. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.06.019. PMID 22818735.
2. "Top diets review for 2014". NHS. Retrieved 2014-11-24. The paleo diet, also known as the caveman diet, was Google's most searched-for weight loss method in 2013.
3. Hall H (2014). "Food myths: what science knows (and does not know) about diet and nutrition". Skeptic. Vol. 19, no. 4. p. 10. Fad diets and "miracle" diet supplements promise to help us lose weight effortlessly. Different diet gurus offer a bewildering array of diets that promise to keep us healthy and make us live longer: vegan, Paleo, Mediterranean, low fat, low carb, raw food, gluten-free ... the list goes on. (subscription required)

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

Fad diet label?

I was curious to see the label "fad diet" in the lede and questioned its applicability and definition. I found the most recent discussion about the term in the talk page archives here. It seems a bit too much to define the idea of Paleo diet as a fad. The link to the article fad diet says "A fad diet is a diet for which promises of weight loss are made that are not backed by good science, and which is characterized by unusual food choices." Most reference i've ever seen to paleo diet are not mainly in regard to weight loss but rather sense of well being. Anyway, i wished to bring this up again so it's an active discussion on the talk page. As i read the archived discussion, i didn't read a consensus about the term "fad diet" being the definitional noun in the first sentence of this article. I found many people advocating otherwise, in fact. SageRad (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's well-sourced in the body (to a piece by H Hall). And it is a diet with "unusual food choices" which seems to fit the bill. Have you got sources that dispute the "fad diet" categorization? Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no specific source at hand. I've been curious about this diet, and quite undecided about my own opinion on it. I will be taking a lot more time to read sources, and to gather information for my own use. However, the word "fad" does color the opening sentence heavily with a pejorative tone, and it's also not actually in the source document you cite there, the piece in the New York Times by Hall, which you are saying is the source for the use of the term "fad diet". The term is not used in that article at all. It's quite a wonderful article and i'm glad to have read it. It makes wonderful points about the presence of starches in pre-agricultural human diets, and about the use of fire to cook starches making them more bioavailable, but it doesn't call the paleo diet a fad diet, and doing so might be synthesis if that's the only source. I am sure that there are sources that call the diet a "fad diet" as well as sources that state explicitly that it's not a "fad diet" but as editors we're tasked with writing an article that is as NPOV as possible and that might mean leaving out a pejorative term as the defining noun for the topic of the article and including criticism later in the text. SageRad (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The link you say is to Hall's piece is in fact to one by "Karl Zimmer"?? If there are reliable sources that 'state explicitly that it's not a "fad diet"' then produce them. Why are you "sure" about this before even looking? Sounds like editing with a strong POV! That is best avoided. (BTW, also be aware that in the literature there is an overlap between the question of GMOs and the paleo diet, which this article needs expanding with.) Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks here (by which i mean you saying i'm "editing with a strong POV" just because i'm reviving this question and asking it here). This is not a friendly tone for a good dialogue and it's not assuming good faith. Taking a break from this. Not interested in a contentious dialogue like this. I've had enough of that. And for goodness sake, this is not about GMOs. This is a completely different topic. Please sir, i've had enough of this. Can't i please edit peacefully and expect good dialogue anywhere? SageRad (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You said "I am sure". Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Figure of speech, how humans talk. SageRad (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

But yes, indeed, i meant the piece by Zimmer, not Hall. That's the one that sourced the lede sentence that called paleo diet a fad diet. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

So what i'm gathering is that the use of "fad diet" is source to Hall here. I think that's a POV source and not enough for an NPOV article to call the diet a "fad diet" in the opening sentence. SageRad (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to have a better source, but given the nature of diets I think it's fine.

What does "a POV source" mean? --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Skeptic source is POV in that it has a strong slant upon the topic which is different from general mainstream slant, in that it's within the Skeptic subculture which has a particular bent toward what they call "debunking" things, which often goes far beyond actual skepticism into a particular ideological realm. It's a subculture as documented here and here. It's a subculture that fetishizes debunking and uses a caricature of scientific knowing. It's a subculture that creates media on many things outside itself, and yet is not necessarily an authoritative source on those other things.

There is a source that explicitly says that the concept of paleo diet is not a fad here although it's also a POV source in that it is from a pro-paleo-diet stance. Then there is a source in a more mainstream mode here that asks the question "is it a fad?" and contains lines like Not all medical scientists agree with some of the diet's claims. but does not conclude that it's a fad diet, but rather that it can be helpful: This is, I'm sure, a good thing, eliminating foods that are low in nutrients and high in calories. It's also a diet that involves no weighing or calorie counting – another plus. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

different from general mainstream slant ← I don't believe so. Produce sources on this diet to back-up that Point of View, please. And best to avoid The Daily Telegraph. Much as I admire cookery writing this is not a good RS, and it doesn't even say this diet is not a fad diet. Better to rely on medical writers like Hall, or the NHS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Skeptic (TM) sources are from a very specific point of view. They are happy to so-called "debunk" a lot of things without the care and integrity needed to actually do a real unbiased secondary source type of assessment. They do not have a balanced or mainstream or anything approaching neutral point of view. That's pretty obvious. You may not believe do, but i do believe so. And yes, the Telegraph article does ask the question and then does conclude that it's not a fad diet. You don't need to see a sentence explicitly saying "It is not a fad diet" in the article to read this in the article. It clearly ends with the answer to the title's question being "not really, there's some benefit and some basis to it". And there was also the source that did explicitly say it's not a fad diet, which is equally as POV as the Skeptic source is POV in the other direction. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the NHS did refer to it as a "fad diet" back in 2008 here. The debate here seems to be grounded on a particular definition of fad diet, i.e. a Dr. Oz-type "miracle" diet. The term "fad diet" doesn't necessarily mean that the diet has no benefits whatsoever; rather, it means the diet's primary claims are unscientific, unrepresentative, or outright false, and that it has high profile marketing and widespread rapid uptake. So the paleo diet may not quite be a "fad diet" as such, but the diet is a fad. Perhaps a rephrasing in the lede would be appropriate. Amateria1121 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Some points on the term "fad diet" being the definitional noun in the first sentence of this article for the paleo diet concept:

• "Fad" means that it's a passing phenomenon, which would be a prediction, as the concept is still a cultural force going strong.
• "Fad diet" has the ring of a packaged diet, at least to me, a branded thing that is offered by a single source generally, not a cultural phenomenon like the paleo diet appears to be to me.
• The hyperlink fad diet leads to a technical definition A fad diet is a diet for which promises of weight loss are made that are not backed by good science, and which is characterized by unusual food choices. Whether or not this is an accurate and good working definition for the term, it's also very much debatable whether this fits the paleo diet at least in the main stream of what it means to most people who understand it and/or practice it and/or pay attention to it. I sussed this out by reading some forums recently .
• The term is also a loaded pejorative, with the apparent intent of discrediting the subject of the article which seems undue to me on the whole. It would be a good fit for a criticism section and the Hall piece would fit well there, but i don't find it reasonable or justifiable to make this the definitional noun for the article's subject. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"Fad diet" 1

On the cultural place of Skeptic magazine as a source and skepticism of this subcultural sort in general (questioned in comments above regarding the reliability or POV nature of the Hall piece in Skeptic), there are indeed many sources that speak of this phenomenon as a subcultural happening. I just found a lot of these writings by googling about it. Daniel Drasin writes on it, this paper speaks about CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer and "the Skeptics" as a group with a particular POV and agenda and other various sociological observations. And here is a list of various writings about what they call pseudoskepticism. I had come to these same conclusions and even began to use the term "pseudoskepticism" on my own in the last months while observing this social movement or social phenomenon in various media campaigns designed to discredit certain people or concepts, generally in line with an industrial modernity point of view, and to the detriment and insult of people and ideas to which they are hostile. SageRad (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused; the British Dietetic Association calls it a fad diet, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics lists it under "fad diets", opinion pieces in very high quality journals like JAMA explicitly calls it a fad diet, and all recent MEDRS compliant sources says there is no significant evidence that it actually works. What exactly is the problem with calling it a fad diet, again? Yobol (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a term that is often used in a pejorative sense, an implication that SageRad doesn't like. It tends to associate the paleo diet with other, more obviously unscientific diets like the South Beach Diet. Although both are highly unscientific, I would argue that the paleo diet does not seem as...tacky. Or maybe that's just because its proponents do a better job selling it. Personally I would leave the phrase "fad diet" in the lede though, but I understand why an alternative phrase might be considered.

However, drifting into circular debates about POV sources is entirely unproductive. Skepticism, pseudo or otherwise, works both ways - there's always money to be made exploiting people's skepticism, be it of the conventional wisdom or of the alternative interpretations. Amateria1121 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd actually say the Paleo™ diet was less scientific that South Beach - but yes, they're both fad diets as RS tells us. I think per WP:PSCI we need to be up-front with readers about its iffy nature. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The article's topic is "Paleolithic diet", not Paleo™ diet. Please note that this is not a single-source diet or a diet named after a person or based on a single person's work. It's more of an approach to eating, a concept that lives in the culture and has a community that practices it. There is scientific rationale for reasoning about why it would result in various effects. It's got many flavors and variations. Therefore it's inappropriate to refer to it with a trademark symbol unless you're specifying a particular branded incarnation that's been commercialized. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that discussing POV of sources can be fruitful and is not circular. It is often necessary to discuss the nature of sources including whether they have a strong POV. The question was asked about the Skeptic source and i answered it. My concerns are not about money to be made, but ideological POV pushing and bias in sources. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that as cherrypicking. The JAMA mention is a letter with passing reference to Paleo diet. When i go on PubMed and search for review articles referring to "Paleo diet", the first result returned (i.e. not cherrypicking) is a very recent review article that refers to the Paleolithic diet as a valid and scientifically reasonable approach to eating, and that it shows promise of working but needs further study. When i search on Google Scholar, i find several primary studies that report benefits to the diet. For these reasons, it doesn't seem that the term "fad diet" is an appropriate descriptor for the primary noun in the article's first sentence. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a fad diet alright, and multiple strong sources back that up (where none say otherwise that we know of). "a very recent review article that refers to the Paleolithic diet as a valid and scientifically reasonable approach to eating" ← link? Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The link is in my comment. Pure assertion is not very strong argumentation. You can't wish something into being true. There are multiple sources that call it a fad diet, but there are multiple sources that say it's not, and that treat it as a valid approach to eating. Therefore, there exists a range of points of view on this question, and calling it a "fad diet" in the first sentence is not NPOV content in the article according to the range of sources available and does not represent the general sense of sources accurately. SageRad (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be the article which concludes "The Paleolithic diet might be an acceptable antidote to the unhealthy Western diet, but only unequivocal results from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses will support this hypothesis" and which doesn't consider the "fad" categorization at all. Alexbrn (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the one... the non-consideration of "fad diet" is not a mark against the removal of the "fad diet" pejorative from the first sentence, you know. The review takes the paleolithic diet seriously and asserts that there is good reason to believe that it has the specific benefits for which they were evaluating, and it needs further study. That in itself is evidence that the reviewers do not see it as a "fad diet". You do not need every source to say explicitly that "the paleo diet is not a fad" to endorse that it's not a fad in the sense that you're pushing for the article to say. And the review in question is looking at the paleo diet in terms of a very specific benefit and that is why they say further study is needed to show benefit unequivocally. I feel this dialogue here being difficult and not unbiased. I feel a pushing. i would like to assume good faith but I don't feel an unbiased look at the range of literature being done by most participants here. I don't feel a genuine consideration of the question happening. I feel we'll end up going in circles with frayed ends unresolved based on what's happened already. SageRad (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

We get this kind of POV-push all the time, of the form "since {$fringe-topic} is taken seriously, it has some validity". See, e.g. the archives of the Homeopathy page: homeopathy is seriously studied a lot: it does not stop it being fringe nonsense. It is pure original research to say that because the reviewers do not mention "fad diets" you can intuit their view on this. One might as well say that it's so obvious it doesn't need mentioning. In any case if we follow good sources and WP:STICKTOSOURCE it's all quite clear. I suggest we are done here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not homeopathy, so that's irrelevant. You calling something "fringe" does not "fringe" make it. The word of someone just because they call themselves a "skeptic" does not become gospel. It's no substitute for the words of actual experts. I cited the most recent review article that i could find mentioning the article's topic, from PubMed, here, above, in case you missed it. I do support sticking to sources, and the result of doing so calls into question the first sentence of this article. There are some sources that call it a "fad diet" but there are a great many other sources that do not, and therefore it seems the label as the primary label for this concept is not accurate in an NPOV sense. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we're not done here as long as there is a serious issue that violates NPOV in the article. I suggest you don't dismiss my concerns in the way you're doing or attempt to characterize them as POV pushing. I'm working against the POV i see pushed already into the article and doing so with good and reasonable dialogue. You can choose to participate in good dialogue or not, but if you do not them you don't get to determine what's in the article. SageRad (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you make sense. The consensus here is clear. To widen it, I suggest adding to the already-open noticeboard thread at WP:FT/N#Paleolithic diet. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and FRINGE in all this, especially starting with , and any edits made based upon these misunderstandings would rather blatantly violate WP:ARBPS. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think i have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of these things in the least. I think i see things differently from you which does not inherently mean i'm wrong. Your declaring that you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic policies when i actually do understand them is sort of insulting and condescending and makes dialogue on this kind of difficult. Why not talk about the actual issue, the question of whether "fad diet" is warranted as the primary noun in the first sentence of this article when there is a diverse range of opinions on this question in the reliable sources on the subject of this article? I think that's sort of what NPOV asks us to do as editors. I don't see real engagement on the issue at hand here, very much. I see a few sources that call it a fad diet, but they look cherrypicked, and i see some blowback on my calling Skeptic magazine a point of view source and not neutral enough to justify basing the entire orientation of this article on it and a couple of cherrypicked sources. Some people think it's a fad diet but a great many other people do not, and you can't declare that out of reality. SageRad (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You cannot declare consensus when there are valid and well-explained issues on the table and i have explained myself well enough. You'd need to actually hear and address my concerns in order to work on establishing consensus. SageRad (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted and given the consideration they deserve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. SageRad (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I submit that an impartial observer who reads this dialog would find it sorely lacking integrity. This article is badly biased and it's doing a disservice to the reader. The other editors here seem to be bent on an agenda to retain the phrase "fad diet" as the key noun in the first sentence despite it not reflecting a fair survey of reliable sources, in other words to violate the policies of Misplaced Pages to maintain an ideological position in regard to the subject of the article. I google "Paleolithic diet" and i find the first result after this article itself is the Mayo Clinic page here.... it does not call the diet a "fad diet" and it says there is moderate evidence that it has benefits. And many other sources are similar, respectable sources. And yet this article is in a lockdown by a group of editors who have made an ideological call to arms and pushed a specific point of view into it, against the general lay of the reliable sources. It's not right, and it does not serve the encyclopedia. And when i do edit here, people post chilling, gaslighting and bullying messagesh on my talk page designed to intimidate me away from editing this article and anything else they deem "fringe" (a label used in a McCarthyism way in this context). It's an agenda pushing that is not healthy for editors or the encyclopedia. It is not good for the world because readers learn about the world through Misplaced Pages and they are getting a slanted reflection of reality imposed by a small group of editors with a particular POV to push. SageRad (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

…a slanted reflection of reality imposed by a small group of editors with a particular POV to push. SageRad, did it ever occur to you that others might consider that a pretty accurate description of yourself? How about, for this article, we just focus on the content? Maybe there's a sinister agenda, maybe not, but if there are any problems, then there are well-worn paths to resolution. Taking yourself to article after article and complaining that a different crew of editors at each one are pushing some dubious line just looks like paranoia at work. Discuss any problems first, insist on reliable sources, seek more eyes via an RfC, and take conduct issues to ANI. Work with the system; it's designed to help us all. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

People have made it impossible to focus on the content because there is an absence of genuine good faith dialogue here. There is obstructionism. I've discussed problems and insisted on reliable sources. That's been obstructed in many subtle ways in the dialogue above. SageRad (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Posting about non-content issues here solves nothing. To repeat: if anybody has other issues, they should take them elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then, i should perhaps declare that i've presented a good case that "fad diet" is not justified as the primary noun of the first sentence and therefore ought to be changed to something like "an approach to eating". People have not engaged the dialogue with me in good faith to show me why i am wrong with reasonably good dialogue, so i think this edit is justified. Consensus is determined by good dialogue where people hear each other and address each others' concerns. To the extent that this has been done here, it seems that the article content is currently skewed toward one point of view very strongly, from the opening sentence. SageRad (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Your case is weak and has failed. To recap: you said you were "sure" there was RS saying this diet was not a fad diet. No such source has been produced. Your fallback argument is that some sources don't explicitly say it's a fad diet. This is unconvincing, as not all sources consider this categorization. But we do have multiple, strong sources which do consider it, and they say it's a fad diet. So we do too, for neutrality. It is now probably time for this particular WP:STICK to be dropped. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No such source has been produced. Yes it was. You must have missed it. This is unconvincing ... it's quite convincing to me though not as you phrase it in a strawman way to make it appear to be a ridiculous argument. This is not a dead horse. This is a situation where a horse is alive and yet several people are saying it's dead but those people have a strong interest in saying it's dead because their interest depends on people believing it's dead. That's not a drop the stick situation. It's a situation where there's a group with a mode of twisting dialogue and not being here in good faith for the article without bias. SageRad (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What you have just described Sage is a consensus, with one outlier. Can you guess who it is? -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think what i've stated is that the dialogue is not a healthy and collegiate one, but rather an obstructionist one. That cannot result in a consensus. It can result in an apparent consensus on a cursory shallow reading which is actually a forcing in a semi-covert way. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And to re-repeat, to widen the consensus there is an already-open thread at WP:FT/N - a page with over 200 active watchers. The repeated implication that other editors are somehow at fault is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

So there's a discussion with three or four hostile comments on the Fringe Theory noticeboard? I don't see how that is relevant. If anything it shows a hostile canvassing that has resulted in the present state of this article. I have valid concerns that i have explained very clearly in this talk page section, which i do not think have been heard and responded to adequately and in good faith by other editors. SageRad (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case, with such alleged wrongdoing, your recourse would be WP:AIN. Please don't continue off-topic discussion here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Fad diet" 2

So, to return to the actual discussion on content, as i have written above, the words "fad diet" are seen by readers and have an effect in how some people learn about this subject. As i've outlined above, the term contains many implications, in the word "fad" and the phrase "fad diet" and in the definition linked at fad diet if a reader follows the link. While there are some sources that call this approach to eating a "fad diet" there are also many sources that call Obama a "horrible president" and yet the article on Obama would surely not begin with "Obama is a horrible president of the United States of America." While "fad diet" may be a "term of the art" (i would like to investigate this further myself) and different from the word "horrible" in some ways, it also carries this negative judgement in the first sentence of this article which i do not think is justified by an honest and wide survey of the reliable sources on this topic. The lede should define the subject in an NPOV way and leave various points of view, including criticism, to be developed further and clearly demarcated as criticism by some, which is what it is. We want to reflect reality here, as best we can by reflecting reliable sources on this topic. I see this not being done properly here. That's my issue. These points have not been really addressed here. Maybe there's something i'm missing and i'm open to hearing valid points presented in a collegiate way. There's a lot to discuss here if we can actually focus on the content with good faith and good dialogue. So far not so good. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "fad diet" might be seen as a little negative. The paleo diet is a diet, no question, so it must be "fad" you see as a problem. However, "fad" is an excellent way of describing the thing. It, as even its proponents would acknowledge, is a little out of the ordinary, and it is a popular phenomenon with no (as yet) enduring effect. If it remains popular after a few years - as other fads such as crowdsourcing, smartphones, Twitter and Misplaced Pages itself have outgrown the tag - then we might reasonably consider removing the word, as it would be untrue, and we could point to many current sources using other words to describe the paleo diet.

But if we attempt to look into the future or to guide the mind of the reader along a certain path before it is well-trodden, then we are not doing our job of providing honest and accurate information. At the moment, I am persuaded by the words we use to describe a fad:

The specific nature of the behavior associated with a fad can be of any type including language usage, apparel, financial investment and even food. Apart from general novelty, fads may be driven by mass media programming, emotional excitement, peer pressure, or the desire to "be hip". Fads may also be set by popular celebrities.

Spot on there. To change from a fad to a trend, there must be some "relatively permanent change". I would not characterise the paleo diet as having reached that stage, and there are any number of excellent sources for that view.

Of course, we can find other sources insisting that paleo is an enduring part of the human condition, but I am reluctant to take that view, due to the amount of scientific scorn being poured on that notion. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much the point I was trying to make, only done much more eloquently. "The paleo diet may not quite be a "fad diet" as such (given the negative connotations of the term) but the diet is a fad." So, for lack of a better option, I think the lede should retain "fad diet". I think the article does a good enough job of stating that the diet's premise and rationale is entirely unscientific, but that it is not necessarily detrimental to its adherents.

SageRad seems to be hung up on the lede without delving into the content. Perhaps, instead of focusing on endlessly debating the inclusion of one term in the lede, it would be better to a) see if the article does a good job of representing the diet's features and criticisms, and then b) reassess whether the term "fad diet" should be retained in the lede as a reflection of the article's content, or whether it should be replaced with a more appropriate term.Amateria1121 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue. As for "fad" -- how do you know something is a fad when it's not over yet? You're saying "we'll call it a fad but if it doesn't end in a few years then we'll consider removing the label" but that doesn't make sense to me. You can see a fad in the rear view mirror but not in present. What if i called CRISPR a fad because as a technology it might not be used much in 10 years? Well, it might, but it might not... so let's call it a fad just to be safe. We'd end up calling everything a fad. The Pet rock was a real fad and that article doesn't even call it a fad in the first sentence.

As for the word "diet", it's a "diet" in that it's an approach to eating, a specification of some guidelines for what to eat, but it is not a diet in the sense of "lose weight fast, regain your beach body! only $19.95 plus shipping and handling!" -- in other words, it is not the South Beach Diet or anything like that. It's not the product or domain of a single book or single person. It's a concept that has been developed by many people in community. There are many books and many other sources in its development. The word "diet" has the connotation of the purpose being to lose weight by restricting calories, in popular usage, though technically it means "what an organism eats". That's why "an approach to eating" might be a better phrase. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a useful history of the idea of the Paleolithic diet. The early impetus was a 1985 paper by Boyd Eaton in NEJM and it seems to involve thousands of people. This link is by Loren Cordain, one of the main authors of books on the subject, so it may be considered a POV source, but it's a good source of the history nonetheless. SageRad (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It goes back further than that, as our article already covers. Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i was about to add that Cordain mentions Weston Price’s Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects, first published in 1939. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A lede section should convey a neutral point of view. It should not color the reader's first introduction to the article's subject in a way that rules out any legitimate point of view, and in this case there are indeed legitimate points of view that do not categorize the Paleolithic diet as a "fad diet" but rather portray it as a legitimate approach to nutrition that has some apparent benefits. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We could actually call it a "dietary pattern" as do Katz and Mellor in their 2014 review article. This is a gem of phrasing, because it includes the technical term "diet" but it avoids the lay interpretation of "diet" as being a "lose weight fast!" thing. It also helps to include both the historic meaning of the term "Paleolithic diet" as the actual ancient dietary patterns of our ancestors, as well as being a very accurate description of what this noun actually is. That some people call it a "fad diet" can be included in the lede, as well as that some consider it effective and valid. SageRad (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources describe it as a fad diet. Its a fad diet. So far your arguments have basically come down to 'Its not a fad' 'its not a diet'. Which is not how sources describe it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thread at WP:FT/N#Paleolithic diet

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katz review representation is slanted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article content currently says:

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

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

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

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

My slight rephrasing, just to clarify things a bit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In-Article comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From WP:FRINGE:

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

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

Allow me to analyze this. Comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede strawman argumentation

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

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

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

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

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

Paleo Life Expectancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naturalistic fallacy - appeal to nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns about POV of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From your WP:FURTHER:

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

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

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• Mid-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• B-Class Health and fitness articles
• Mid-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Unassessed Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles