Talk:Feingold diet/Archive 2

Unsubstantiated Statement
The last sentence of the first paragraph,

The medical community rejects it, as it is an "outmoded approach" lacking evidence and efficacy

is based upon a one page, non-refereed editorial [read here], which per se has only took up "Feingold diet" as one of examples of the so-called outmoded approaches. There is no evidence in this editorial to support the statement "the medical community rejects it."

Thus I deleted that sentence. Any reversal of this deletion is improper unless strong evidence is provided. Minimeme (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the focus should be on WP:MEDRS. Seems like it is an attempt at WP:ASSERT. Perhaps a bad one? --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So what's your point to reverse it? As the cited reference has barely anything to support the statement and you didn't provide any better source, may I consider your reverse as vandalism?


 * The preceding sentence, there has been much debate about the efficacy of this program, is in direct contradiction to this statement. The main text of this entry supports this argument of "there has been much debate," instead of outright rejection of Feingold diet.


 * Thus I reverse it back. Minimeme (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand MEDRS? ASSERT? --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Using Quackwatch as a source
Quackwatch is used extensively as a source for this article. Quackwatch is a one man effort, run by an old man, a long-retired doctor, with an axe to grind (IMO), who is out of touch with modern medicine. For example, I had an argument by email with him years ago when he was still insisting that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was a scam (I was a sufferer). It has since gained wide acceptance amongst doctors as a valid condition. So since when has it become allowable, or in any way sensible, to use low quality personal sites (essentially blogs) like Quackwatch as sources for medically-oriented articles? MLPainless (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For medically dubious topics (like this diet), Quackwatch is a fine source as has repeatedly been found as WP:RS/N. It's independent and is not being used to source anything weighty here in any case. If there are stronger secondary sources carrying the same content, we could use them instead ... are there any? Alexbrn talk 13:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is "medically dubious"; after all, nobody gets hurt by following this diet, and any benefits it might produce purely through placebo effect are still benefits. I don't see the value in using a divisive and self-published source like QuackWatch to provide basic descriptions of the diet, when obviously reliable books like this one or this one (an actual history book, published by a university press, to talk about the history of the diet's cyclical popularity in the context of larger societal trends) are available to provide descriptions of the diet.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's funny that quack watch is acceptable as a reference when used to discredit (Not the best word to use) the subject matter in an article in the alternative medical or natural health industry. But pioneering respected doctors findings on regarding alternative health treatments are not permitted. Even if they're published in reputable news papers they're still disallowed. What gives ? Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch is widely praised in the media and medical literature as a valuable resource. As such, it can be use, especially on WP:FRINGE articles, per WP:PARITY. Yobol (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog that has no impact factor and is not indexed in any scientific databases. It is, by all measures, a pseudoscientific source. -A1candidate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is a website and not a journal, it is not going to have either an impact factor nor appear in any scientific database, by definition. This, of course, does not mean it is not a reliable source, especially per WP:PARITY. Your insistence that it itself is "pseudoscientific" is nonsensical, as the website itself does not make any reference to itself as being a scientific journal or scientific in nature (as opposed to an informational website about quackery). Yobol (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a self-published blog that pretends to be scientific but is non-peer reviewed and not indexed in any scientific databases. -A1candidate (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rote repetition of the same points without addressing points discussed is not helpful behavior. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDHT -A1candidate (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quackwatch is widely used to deal with FRINGE topics in WP, and has been addressed at RSN. That is place to bring it, A1.  These Talk page discussions in articles are not productive. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors at RSN clearly said that QW should not be used for this article. -A1candidate (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Link to said discussion? Yobol (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do a search for "Quackwatch" and "Feingold diet" because I'm not going to spoon-feed you. -A1candidate (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

woo, no need to be so harsh. You are the one claiming it, A1. I ~think~ what A1 is referring to is a comment by WAID at projectMed, here. I think, anyway. I searched RSN and didn't find anything so, some looseness there. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If they can't bother to provide a single link, I think we know how much stock to place in it. Yobol (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Go to the RSN archives and enter a search for "Quackwatch" and "Feingold diet". If you still can't find it, I suggest you read WP:COMPETENCE carefully. -A1candidate (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * god this is getting way too emotional. ok i found it Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32.... Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see Feingold diet mentioned once, and no one actually coming to any conclusion whatsoever about its reliability with respect to the Feingold diet article. I am at a loss to understand how someone can read that thread and conclude "Editors at RSN clearly said that QW should not be used for this article." Yobol (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be a decision against QW at all. One editor is just (unconvincingly) dissing it. WP:DNFT. BTW, there is no need to use QW in this article: I just reached for it lazily while cleaning up as it was already used here, and I didn't have library access that day. Still, everybody seems to enjoy getting their knickers in a twist. If somebody actually added some useful content from a better source I'd be more positively impressed. Alexbrn talk 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and i read it, and I don't see at all that the consensus that "QW should not be used for this article" either. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor pointed out blatant factual inaccuracies that contradict the references cited by QW in its Feingold diet article. But I'm glad Alexbrn has acknowledged that there is no need to use QW in this article. That is a positive start I think. -A1candidate (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * that "pointing out" is OR, and it doesn't mean that there was support to not use quackwatch here or anywhere else in WP for that matter. i see you are not taking Alexbrn's hint to actually try to improve the article by finding better MEDRS compliant sources... again, do you care about this article? Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is substantial discussion about the Feingold diet in -A1candidate (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED -- BUT NOT IMPROVED
Somebody has made major and inappropriate changes to this page .... for starters, quoting the Kavale meta analysis from 1983 as evidence of ANYTHING ...... for heavens sake, 1983 is more than 30 years out of date!!!

I have not worked on this page for a long time, and my wikipedia skills may be rusty. Please give me any suggested guidelines for how to begin and whether I need to work with somebody within Wikipedia editing staff.

I should be ready to begin updating the page piece by piece in a week or so, but I don't want to start a war -- I want to do it right. Shulae (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The age of a source only matters if there are newer, equally reliable sources that contradict that source due to newer evidence. Yobol (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed this is true. And yes indeed, there are MANY newer reviews and newer meta analyses.  Besides, there really  has been some research done on this subject in the past 30 years.  I don't care if the Kavale review is gold-plated ... it is OLD and leaves out dozens and dozens of good studies.  And even back then, not everybody agreed that Kavale had the last word.  See Dr. Bernard Rimland's comment about it:  GIGO or "Garbage In, Garbage Out" ... http://www.feingold.org/Research/rimland.html  Personally, I prefer looking at the original studies and not reviews which can include the reviewer's bias.  But if you want some reviews, there is a whole list of them (Kavale included) at http://www.feingold.org/Research/reviews.php -- this page was last updated 2012, so there are even more now.Shulae (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In your introductory paragraph, your writer supports the contention that the Feingold Diet is "outmosed" with the 1983 Kavale & Forness review (30 years outdated) and the one-page Turka & Caplan 2011 "evidence for standards of care" which contains no more than an opinion, including the diet in a list of items they consider "outmoded" without any supporting evidence at all.

I have been reading the research on the connection of diet to various behavioral and physical symptoms for the past 30 years, and will shortly receive a masters in psychology. I am a volunteer with the Feingold Association, paid a small amount as their webmaster, for which I have been accused of bias "as an employee." I would not waste my time doing this if I did not find the research credible. I would like to know what I need to do in order to be considered an "expert" before I put in some hundreds of hours again editing the Feingold Diet page for Wikipedia.

I notice that Dr. Paul Offit has his very own page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit in which he is billed as an "expert on vaccines" and nobody seems to be complaining of bias in spite of the fact that he makes a huge income from promoting them. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulae (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only "expertise" required here is in finding the best sources and reflecting them accurately in our articles according to the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clarification. I did not realize I must not modify or correct my own comment on a talk page.Shulae (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Kanarek
Although the Kanarek review is quite good overall as a review, the actual two sentences that are using it as a citation are Kanarek's own opinion and not really part of his review. For example, he is quoted as saying "More recent versions of the diet eliminate only artificial food additives and/or dyes." Indeed, he does say that. But he cites no source, and no study exists that mentions such a thing. It is his own opinion -- and it is wrong. There are no "versions" of the Feingold Diet. There are (and always were) two stages of the diet; in the second stage tolerance to salicylates is explored. There are other diets, of course ... Failsafe, Paleo, gfcf, etc., but they are not the Feingold Diet. I am not saying that there are no people out there who eliminated Red 40 and claimed they had tried the Feingold Diet .... but that is like eliminating only potato chips and saying you are on Weight Watchers. The Feingold Diet has changed very little over the years, and such changes involved adding more items to eliminate, not dropping them. So although Kanarek is certainly a fine resource in general, what do I do about the sentence? Doesn't the author inserting his own opinion make it OR? Can I just remove it or correct it using another resource? Shulae (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather stick to the sources to avoid OR and POV problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought about it some more and removed the sentence about "modern versions" by Kanarek. Not only is it his own POV, but in any case such "versions" of the diet are not the Feingold Diet.  Sure, people make up their own diets using bits and pieces of this and that ... and some may think they are doing Feingold ...  but I don't want to sanction the practice by naming it a "modern version."  There is simply no such thing. The only "Feingold Diet" is the one taught by the Feingold Association. Other groups may eliminate dyes or other additives, but they are not Feingold -- it is a registered name.Shulae (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We should report what the source says: it's a good one. Quite a lot of our article is about how the diet has changed so it seems there are different "versions" of it as a result. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of our article is about how the diet has changed Which brings up a number of red flags: WP:SOAP/POV and No true Scotsman arguments in sources and from editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not see this. The article describes
 * (1) The Technique. This section was done sloppily, and so I have been making corrections. There have essentially been no changes in the diet and there is only one "version" which is why that sentence should be removed.
 * (2) Effectiveness. This section may need corrections but they are not involving any changes in the diet itself.
 * (3) Reception. This section complained that the diet was hard - the only "change" discussed here is the change in the general food supply, making the diet easier to do, not any change in the diet itself.
 * (4)History. History obviously has progressed over a half century.  This discusses what happened, not involving any dietary changes.


 * Well, you said "Quite a lot of our article is about how the diet has changed" .... where is it? The DIET simply hasn't changed except to address changes in the food supply to determine whether specific things should be excluded or included. Shulae (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If the food list keeps getting revised surely there are new versions all the time. This seems to be how independent commentators see it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What independent commentators? Shulae (talk)


 * Let me explain.
 * --> When a company fills out a form for the Feingold Association, and their candy (or whatever product) meets the requirements of the Product Information Center (PIC) of the Feingold Association, that product is included -- first in the monthly newsletter and then in the next printing of the Foodlist.


 * --> When a product's ingredients are changed by its manufacturer and now includes a prohibited additive, a PIC Alert is sent to members, and that product is removed from the next printing of the Foodlist.
 * In neither case does this create a new VERSION of the diet. It simply gives the members updated information about which products meet the (same) requirements to be listed.Shulae (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * One more thing. About insisting that there are other versions, and Kanarek's statement about "recent versions."   This is getting into territory that is likely illegal. It borders on trademark infringement. The "Feingold" name is registered. NO OTHER DIET can call itself the Feingold Diet. There is NO OTHER VERSION of this diet except the one that the Feingold Association provides. Just because Kanarek said it and somebody quoted it doesn't make it right for this encyclopedic article.  The Feingold Association does NOT provide any "version" of the diet ignoring salicylates ... although they recognize there will always be people who try it that way.  If there is any official diet avoiding additives and allowing all salicylates, it better be called something else -- not "FEINGOLD" -- and it is not appropriate for this article. Please remove Kanarek's sentence again. Shulae (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Beware WP:NLT. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked up WP:NLT. I am not threatening you with any legal action.  I am trying to explain that the idea that there are different versions of the Feingold Diet is the same as saying that there are different versions of the Jenny Craig diet.  Jenny Craig would not be pleased to see such a claim in Wikipedia, and you wouldn't say it.  There are certainly other weight-loss diets, but they are not Jenny Craig.  In the same way, there are other "adhd" diets - but they are not Feingold. Shulae (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ** Uh Oh. Kanarek's review which includes the quote you like (and I don't) was published in the journal Nutrition Reviews.  This journal is published by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) which is the descendant of the Nutrition Foundation -- a food additive industry lobby.  This is not an unbiased scientific organization but they sure have good PR. This explains much that is questionable about this review - in particular, the claim that "the original Feingold diet has been modified in recognition of the fact that the majority of the fruits and vegetables excluded on the original diet contained only minimal amounts of salicylate."  He has no footnote for this statement. That is not surprising since it simply never happened. Shulae (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. You also said accepted knowledge says that each Foodlist, as it is published, is a new version of the diet. A most interesting concept.  The most recent book was published Summer 2016.  So this is the most recent version -- is that right? Shulae (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. If the list of things in the diet keep changing, and RS also refers to "versions" of the diet then there obviously are "versions". It is not "illegal" to say so. Your contributions are becoming bizarre. Please stick to the relevant sources and stop raising irrelevant points. Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Who is RS? Where does this RS talk about "versions"? Shulae (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RS means WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And why did you also remove the corrected version of what Kanarek said about the family using the diet? What is on there now is again not correct -- I do have Kanarek's actual document.  But that's okay; I will quote directly from Dr. Feingold, who said it better anyhow, on Page 76 of his book for parents. Shulae (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the review too of course. Our present text seems a decent paraphrase. We should avoid Feingold sources and favour secondary ones. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * When presenting what Feingold himself said in explaining how the diet should be implemented, there is nothing better than using his own words. Kanarek's version gives it quite a different slant, even if he is technically WP:RS. I hope you will consider letting Feingold's quote stay. Shulae (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Although I am seriously opposed to bringing up "versions" of the diet - especially since this should be a discussion of basic technique and not spin-offs - how about a compromise: since Kanarek wrote in 2011, any "modern version" would be old by now, anyhow.  I am willing to say "Some recent versions ..." Are you willing to let that stand? Shulae (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not our job to "explain how the diet should be implemented". We are meant to be summarizing what independent reliable sources have said about the diet. What we have on versions is fine now. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering the section is called "Technique" I thought it was supposed to actually describe the technique of the diet = how it is to be done. But okay - saying "some versions" softens the claim and I'll accept it.

Your new resource is not terrible, but not the best. The article is really surprisingly sloppy. They misspelled aspartame, included preservatives under "artificial sweeteners" and left out the artificial flavors altogether. Then they say the diet eliminates foods with salicylid acid. I suspect it is a typo since later they spell it "salicylic." I will correct it to that in the page, and I hope you don't mind. Except in a German report, I find no word "salicylid" in a Google search, and a MedLine search changes the word to "salicylic."

To be picky, they list mushrooms in their examples of salicylate-containing foods. Mushrooms have never been excluded on Stage One of the Feingold diet. Maybe they are avoided in the more rigid Failsafe diet, but this is an error, so I am glad you have not transferred it to the Wikipedia page. They left fish and chicken and all the vegetables out of their "allowed" list, and those are pretty big omissions. But like I said, it'll do, for now. Shulae (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing Technique section
The corrections I have made so far are to bring the text in line with Barrett's actual document, so I haven't changed the citation. As he said, the original diet only eliminated the 3 items; the others were added later as it developed. TBHQ was eliminated later on, as it didn't exist in the 1970s (will get to all that tomorrow so please don't revert this)Shulae (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wondering why it doesn't bother you to quote Kanarek saying Feingold insisted that successful treatment requires participation of the entire family, when as I showed you, Feingold himself never said that. He said it would be best for the whole family to follow the diet at least when around the child in order to support the child and not have him see others eating forbidden food. It was for a kindness, not a requirement.  Moreover, the person originally writing the sentence in Wikipedia used hostile quotes around "treated" in that sentence, to indicate that the treatment itself is false.  Kanarek himself did not use hostile quotes.  Would you mind removing them, at least? Shulae (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)