Talk:Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Can PCRM develop a Wikipedia article in their field of expertise?
thanks for coming to Wikipedia. You have stated that you work for Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Neal D. Barnard.

In Wikipedia we have a lot of challenges with paid editors coming to Wikipedia with an agenda and consuming volunteer time in a tedious way that Wikipedia's intended contributor base - community educators - would never do. Instead of organizations coming to Wikipedia to promote themselves and then leave, what the Wikipedia community would prefer is that organizations come to Wikipedia to share information in their field of expertise in the spirit of good will and community education. We also invite organizations to train their own community base to contribute information to Wikipedia, because everyone is invited to edit Wikipedia.

Could you please ask your sponsor at PCRM if they would be willing to develop some Wikipedia articles in the outreach field of the organization? Perhaps they would agree to look at articles on diet, health, or advocacy issues. Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source of information on nutrition, and if PCRM cares about the topic, then perhaps they would like to advance their institutional mission by distributing information through Wikipedia, even if that does not directly promote their own brand. Could you please ask them if someone at the organization could edit veganism or any other such article of their choice that is not related to the brand of the organization?

Wikipedia's articles on nutrition have been extremely popular since at least 2007 and sharing good information in those articles will have an impact. Starting in general interest articles is also less likely to lead to conflict while PCRM comes to understand the basics of what can and cannot go into Wikipedia. There is about a 40-hour learning curve for learning the Wikipedia basics and from a Wikipedia community perspective, volunteer time is better spent in training people to edit popular articles of general interest than low-traffic articles which are mostly visited by researchers and journalists, like the articles for organizations. I and lots of other Wikipedians would offer to help share health information. While there are some volunteers who like spending their time helping organizations develop their brands, there are many more volunteers who come to Wikipedia for reasons other than public relations, and more people are available to help outside the space of brands. After PCRM learns about Wikipedia by editing popular articles, then I think it would be better informed to make proposals about the articles relating to its brand.

Thanks for whatever you can do. If PCRM has any reply then please share.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a great suggestion and explanation. Thank you! PaperHydrate (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest a few edits?
May I please suggest some edits? I am Neal Barnard, the president of PCRM.

1. May I suggest that the following paragraph be deleted?

The National Council Against Health Fraud has criticized PCRM as being "a propaganda machine" and the American Medical Association has called PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting possibly dangerous nutritional advice.[3][4]

Let me describe why I suggest this deletion. First, the essay by the National Council Against Health Fraud was of poor credibility when it was written in 1996, more than 20 years ago, and appears quite aberrant today, and listing this article falsely suggests to readers that PCRM has been somehow linked with “health fraud.” The article criticizes PCRM for promoting vegan diets and makes peculiar statements such as: “NCAHF considers vegetarianism, particularly veganism, a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers. Adherents cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm.” It also says, “NCAHF wonders if the vegetarian ideologist is merely today's ascetic who revels in self-denial and wars against pleasure.” The article cites the 1956 “Basic Four” food groups as an optimal food plan, despite the fact that the Federal Government abandoned it many years ago. For these reasons, I would suggest that the essay lacks the necessary objectivity to merit inclusion.

Similarly, the AMA’s criticisms of PCRM were also from more than 20 years ago, and were formally retracted by the AMA. http://www.pcrm.org/media/saluting-the-amas-work-on-prevention-and-nutrition; http://www.pcrm.org/media/saluting-the-amas-work-on-prevention-and-nutrition I am an AMA Lifetime member and attend AMA meetings; the AMA has published several of my articles in its journals. It is inappropriate to suggest that there is acrimony between the AMA and PCRM.

2. In the section entitled “Reception,” the National Council Against Health Fraud statement is repeated, and I would suggest that it be deleted, because it very old, aberrant, and poorly supported, as mentioned above.

3. I would suggest that the section entitled “American Medical Association” be shortened, because the AMA’s criticisms have been withdrawn and occurred more than 20 years ago. I would suggest saying the following:

In the early 1990s, the American Medical Association was critical of PCRM’s promotion of plant-based diets and alternatives to animal research. However, the AMA has since withdrawn these criticisms http://www.pcrm.org/media/saluting-the-amas-work-on-prevention-and-nutrition; http://www.pcrm.org/media/saluting-the-amas-work-on-prevention-and-nutrition and has published articles by PCRM president Neal Barnard (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28975260; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24566947; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23566788; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7842153) who is an AMA Lifetime Member https://lifestylemedicine.org/Award-Recipients. The AMA has also passed resolutions favoring plant-based foods. (https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/search/plant-based%20/relevant/1/; https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/search/vegetarian/relevant/1/)NealBarnard (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Do you have sources independent of the PCRM indicating the AMA has withdrawn its criticisms? Both URLs you cite for that proposition are PCRM's own web site. I realize sources on your own web site are most readily on hand for you, but Wikipedia reliable source requirements call for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * (Actually, looking closer, both of those sources are the same source.) TJRC (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is not protected, and therefore any editor can respond to this request; no administrative action is required. I have therefore closed the request for administrator assistance; you may wish to use the template instead. Yunshui 雲 水  08:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is Neal Barnard, the President of the Physicians Committee, replying to the helpful comments above. Thank you for asking about a third-party source for the fact that the AMA has retracted its old criticisms. Here are two: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Medical_Association and https://www.northernvirginiamag.com/health/medical-features/2017/10/20/dr-neal-barnard-boundary-breaker/. Given that the AMA's comments were poorly considered at the time and were then retracted by the AMA, are many years old, and conflict with the current AMA stance on nutrition and its positive relationships in this area, I would respectfully suggest that these old comments do not merit inclusion here as a substantial part of the article. May I please ask that the provocative comments attributed to the AMA in the 2nd paragraph be deleted, and that the later section on the AMA be shortened as suggested above or simply removed? Thank you for your consideration. NealBarnard (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed that material from the lead, and I've brought the AMA section up to date. I've made the National Council Against Health Fraud source invisible for now because it's 21 years old and effectively self-published; before removing it entirely, I want to look around a bit more at their work. See the current version of the article. SarahSV (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Old allegations
What is the purpose of this paragraph in the header which names PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting "possibly dangerous nutritional advice"? These allegations are not based on modern science and are over 20 years old (when even vegetarianism was considered to be insane among the mainstream). They are also clarified in the main article, making them almost superfluous in the header. Clearly for most readers the header is all what they have to know to stop reading the article and get a negative, biased view on PCRM. Wikipedia authors, please be objective. If you really include such judgements in the header, mention the dates and mention other judgements as well. And in this case, why not mentioning the health benefits (or health drawbacks, if there are any) from patients treated by PCRM programs? ---oo- (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Ah, now I see that Neal Barnard (or someone with this user name) has addressed this issue a few days ago himself. I should have read the talk page to the end. ---oo- (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * These allegations are now 20 years old. To be honest, a bit of my intention was to point out how unreasonable the cited source is by letting it speak for itself. This has been deleted. Let me cite it here again:


 * „NCAHF considers vegetarianism, particularly veganism, a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers. Adherents cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm. PCRM pretends to speak for physicians who are functioning as medical experts. In reality, it is speaking for a handful of ideologists who happen to be physicians, but who are functioning as vege-evangelists.„


 * I would suggest to either cite the source in length to convey the attitude behind it or— if we can agree that this kind of repudiation of PCRM is below WP‘s standards— delete the source all together, which I have done. Tischbeinahe (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)