Talk:Alkaline diet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV notice

I just realized that I can't find a notice on this page of the discussion over at the NPOV noticeboard regarding this article (it might be buried in the above discussion). Anyway; there is a discussion there about the use of 'false' in the lede over at the NPOV noticeboard. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Alkaline_diet_and_.22false_belief.22 For future reference, a notice should have been provided as a separate section when the discussion was started.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:FORUMSHOP is evidently open for business! I think there is soon going to be a need to sanction some WP:PROFRINGE editors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh. WP:AGF already. The purpose was to direct parties interested in NPOV to this page, not to start a discussion there. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Acid Reflux

This article suggests that alkaline diets are "based on the incorrect belief that certain foods can affect the acidity (pH) of the body and can therefore be used to treat or prevent disease, " however less acidic foods are often recommended to people with GERD or LPR (laryngopharyngeal reflux) to reduce stomach acidity, and there is no mention of this in the article:

https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/ohns/documents/voicecenter/resources/Stanford_ENT_Clinic-LPR_Protocol.pdf "Citrus fruits, kiwi, pineapples, tomatoes (and other acidic foods), spicy deli meats, and hot spices (hot mustard, curry, hot peppers) directly irritate the throat lining. "

http://www.voiceinstituteofnewyork.com/silent-laryngopharyngeal-reflux-lpr-an-overview/ "When a patient has severe LPR, it is well worth prescribing a two-week induction (“detox”) reflux diet in which nothing consumed that is pH <5; " XBiophagex (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is straightforward conventional medicine and has nothing to do with the alkaline diet as such. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article clearly articulate the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate uses of an "alkaline" diet?XBiophagex (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we can clearly avoid WP:OR, especially not to promote a pov not in any reliable sources.

The LPR bit, which appears completely unrelated to Alkeline diets, doesn't look like a MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for the lede.

The lede is woefully undersourced. Having tried to add sources, I was accused of POV pushing here. The sources I added were from Authoritynutrition.com (written by a dietitian), and another source that is a review article that is already sourced in the body of the article. I also changed one sentence from:
"Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals."

to

"There is a consensus among dietitians or other health professionals that the claims about the mechanism behind the diet are false, but that the diet may have other health benefits."
Which is an accurate reflection of the sources added:

The authority nutrition source states:"Unlike many other strange diets, the alkaline diet is actually quite healthy. It encourages a high consumption of fruits, vegetables and healthy plant foods, while restricting processed junk foods. However, the claims about the mechanism behind the diet are NOT supported by evolutionary evidence, human physiology or any reliable study in humans. Acids are actually some of the most important building blocks of life… including amino acids, fatty acids and your DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). The alkaline diet is healthy because it is based on real and unprocessed foods. It has absolutely nothing to do with being acidic or alkaline. Period."

and the review article states: "There is no substantial evidence that this improves bone health or protects from osteoporosis. However, alkaline diets may result in a number of health benefits as outlined below... [list of benefits here, too long to copy but you can go see the source]... From the evidence outlined above, it would be prudent to consider an alkaline diet to reduce morbidity and mortality of chronic disease that are plaguing our aging population.

Please discuss.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The Alkaline diet review at WebMD came to similar conclusions. As did the globalhealingcenter.com, [1]. a review over at foodandnonsense.com pointed out that the ideas behind it are bunk, but that it could have health benefits die to its high fruit/veg recommendations, but ultimatley advised against it as it is overly complicatedcompared to other diets with similar benefits [2]. A review at self.com is similar, noting that the theory is bunk, the diet is reasonably healthy, but notes that users of the diet should be careful to make sure they get all the micronutrients they need [3]. a review of the diet at shape.com also comes to similar conclusions, saying that "Like lots of other fad diets, alkaline programs get you to make healthy changes by feeding you spurious justifications. If you're eating tons of meat, processed foods, and refined grains, ditching those in favor of more fruits and vegetables is beneficial in all sorts of ways. It just has nothing to do with changing your body's pH levels," [4].

I think that these sources overwhelmingly support the statement "There is a consensus among dietitians and other health professionals that the claims about the mechanism behind the diet are false, but that the diet may have other health benefits.", or some variation of it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Note typo fix (bold above).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep using rubbish sources? If the diet is good by accident that's like the "homeopathy is effective for treating dehydration" argument. Alexbrn (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty amusing metaphor, and quite apt. I will point out that many of these sources aren't really any worse than the Intelihealth one that is currently being used alone (that writer was also a dietition/nutritionalist). How else to establish consensus then to look at what dietitians are actually saying? In any case, my recommendations are above, and are available for anyone to make an edit if they feel it is appropriate, I however will be moving back to my regular duties over at NPP.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• One issue I'm seeing is that both sentences are correct. Dieticians and nutritionists do not recommend it, but they agree that it may have health benefits. Of course, I'm sure they'd all agree that spending all your free time exercising and planning meals while your family goes ignored may have health benefits, but they wouldn't recommend that, either. I bet dollars to donuts they'd recommend homeopathy's standard treatment in cases of dehydration, as well. I do think the sources cited are good enough to add an addendum, and I propose the following:

"Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that its emphasis on eating unprocessed foods may have health benefits."

Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Strike "its emphasis on". Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Works for me like hooked on phonics.

"Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that eating unprocessed foods may have health benefits."

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest that some variant of "the diet's adherence to eating unprocessed foods" is probably advised for context, given that we haven't yet mentioned that this is one of the suggestions of the diet (before this sentence I mean). But either way it is a definite improvement.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense. The diet doesn't "adhere". Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hence the phrase 'some variant of', I think I've made my point clear.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand Clever's concern here. It's actually the same concern I have about the "false belief" statement, but applied to different content. Yes, the diet is elsewhere described as emphasizing unprocessed foods, and it's stated in the proposed wording that eating unprocessed foods is healthy. Meanwhile, the idea that the sources are (clearly) trying to communicate is that this diet may be healthy and why. Instead of saying that, my current proposed wording says that eating unprocessed foods may be healthy. I've skipped over what the sources said, and turned their explanation of a statement into their sole statement.

Reconsidering, I think the first wording I proposed is best.

"Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that its emphasis on eating unprocessed foods may have health benefits."

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Still got a grammar snit: it's not its emphasis which has health benefits. Cut "its emphasis on" and it makes sense (maybe add "as the diet recommends" somewhere if you feel the need). Alexbrn (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The diet has an emphasis (which is the same thing as it's recommendations), and that emphasis is on unprocessed food. Since it is a direct result of that emphasis, it's fine to attribute qualities or results (since the emphasis is the object in that part of the sentence). Grammatically, it's perfectly fine. That being said, I have no problem with your suggestion, either. Here's the latest round with some alts:

A: "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that its recommendation to eat unprocessed foods may have health benefits."

B: "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that it may have health benefits due to the recommendation to eat unprocessed foods."

C: "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that a diet consisting of unprocessed foods -as this one does- may have health benefits."

D: "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals, though several have noted that eating unprocessed foods as this diet recommends may have health benefits."

Personally, I think the last one reads the best. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

D is fine! Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants D seems fine except for the hanging 'due' at the end. Is that a typo?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"may have health benefits due" ? What is "due" doing there? Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. it's a typo. I've fixed it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that the edit is good and represents the consensus, especially among dietitians, but we need to add a source or two to the statement as the only source used currently doesn't actually go into the unprocessed foods discussion. Perhaps the Schwalfenberg 2012 review, or one or more of the sources that I listed at the top of this section (though Alexbrn has expressed concern with some of these sources).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I linked the WebMD and Schwalfenberg review from the body as sources, as they both have conclusions that support the second half of the sentence. MebMD also supports the intelihealth source for the first half of the sentence. Feel free to revert and discuss here if you don't agree.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually the correct statement re the health benefits of unprocessed food would be "any health benefits are likely to be due to the emphasis on unprocessed foods". Because, as others have pointed out, this is a case of being partially right and only by accident. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've said this before on this talk page, but any such evaluation, interpretation, analysis, or synthesis requires a citation to a reliable source. Providing such sources would be more helpful to the project than making general statements about the topic – this is not a discussion forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiding an admin about talk page guidelines when the admin was discussing the wording of a sentence in the lead? Really? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Should it be

"based on the false belief that certain foods can affect the acidity (pH) of the body"

or

"based on the belief that certain foods can affect the acidity (pH) of the body"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's as if nobody's read the previous discussion about using such value laden terms in Wikipedia's voice. We don't do this. The recent restoration of this word with the reasoning "Wikipedia is based on consensus" reveals an underlying misunderstanding of policy, namely WP:NPOV, which explicitly states that the NPOV policy is not negotiable and not subject to consensus.

As to the sentence itself, it's sufficient to say "belief" rather than "false belief". For the same reason the lead doesn't (and shouldn't) say "Alkaline diet ... describes a group of loosely related diets based on the fact that..." we also don't (and shouldn't) say "Biblical infallibility is the false belief..." (even though plenty of reliable sources say so).

Yes, it's a false belief. That isn't the point. We shouldn't misuse Wikipedia's narrative voice to say so. It's sufficient to state simply that it is a "belief" and then explain its invalidity in the next sentence, as done already in the lead. That is, show, don't tell. That's much more powerful than simply making a bare assertion about "false belief".

The Wikipedia guideline WP:LABEL covers this already. We shouldn't dictate to readers what to think. Doing so violates WP:NPOV. No WP:BURDEN grounded in policy has been met in any of the reverts that restored this word. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"false belief" is better, because of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't take a detached stance on BS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it violates NPOV and WP:LABEL. Just the word "belief" already implies BS. We're not calling it fact, or even an educated viewpoint. We already hashed this out with the "nonsense" discussion above. And for those who want to argue about consensus: The word "false" was inserted without consensus into the article just a few days ago in this edit. It should have been reverted immediately at that time. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:PSCI. Needs to be clear this is false. Alexbrn (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"False belief" is clearer. No one is disputing the sources, correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:SYNTH. The MEDRS sources don't say "false belief" so why should we? Furthermore, this is about NPOV, not the subject of the article.

Leading any article with "X is a belief" is a neutral, impartial sentence.

Leading any article with "X is a false belief" violates WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter what the value of X is. The point is that a judgmental-sounding qualifier is being used in Wikipedia's narrative voice, giving the appearance of bias.

WP:PSCI addresses calling things out as psuedoscience. It says nothing about using value-laden terms such as "false belief". Come on people, we had this same discussion about the word "nonsense" above. What part of NPOV is so hard to understand? Why do we need to go though this every time someone decides to insert a judgmental-sounding term into the article?

Sorry guys, I am not seeing the WP:BURDEN being met for this recent change in direction away from impartiality. Are we going to start putting qualifiers on other articles about beliefs? "Pro-innovation bias is the false belief that..." or "Sacerdotalism is the valid belief that..." or "Polytheism is the rational belief in multpled dieties". I doubt anyone would argue that those examples give the appearance of bias. As I said, it doesn't matter what the value of "X" is. I'm focusing on NPOV here, not this article in particular. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "They also claim that eating too much of certain foods–animal protein, sugar, caffeine, and processed foods–makes your body more acidic and that changing what you eat will change your pH."... "But claiming that restricting certain foods and eating others will make your pH “alkaline enough” to prevent cancer is more fiction than fact."

I am happy with paraphrasing "claim" together with "more fiction than fact" as "false belief". So IMO it is supported by the source provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. S'good. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember, NPOV isn't subject to consensus.

That source takes pains to attribute views to proponents. Our lead sentence doesn't. That source also doesn't make a blanket assertion about the whole topic being "fiction", rather it says "more fiction than fact", which is a distinction we don't make. "More fiction than fact" describes pseudoscience, not a flat-out "false belief". Therefore, we are misrepresenting that source in violation of WP:NPOV.

But that's beside the point I made above. We can call pseudoscience what it is. WP:NPOV, and its attendant guidline WP:LABEL, prohibits using value-laden qualifiers that give the appearance of bias. Using the sentence "X is a false belief" isn't an impartial statement, regardless of the value of X, as I wrote above. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The major and significant view on this diet is that those who consider that it alters the bodies pH are holding a "false belief". So we are following NPOV. We do not create a false balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is advocating a false balance. Misrepresenting a source, as I explained in my previous comment, violates NPOV. Synthesis violates NPOV. Call it pseudoscience. Or attribute the source properly in prose if the source actually calls it "false belief" rather than what it actually says, which is "more fiction than fact". The recent introduction of the word "false" into the lead sentence introduced an NPOV violation where none existed before. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is not being misrepresented. I agree with Doc James and Alexbrn. We don't do fair and balanced. This has been explained a number of times. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's advocating to "do fair and balanced". I am advocating NPOV compliance. To argue that slapping a label "false" on something is any way neutral, without attributing that label to a source, is ludicrous. This is the same argument that was hashed above about the word "nonsense". Sangdeboeuf said it succinctly: "Whatever the merits of the topic, using such value-laden prose in articles damages Wikipedia's reputation as a serious, impartial source of knowledge." ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We are allowed to paraphrase, in fact we are required to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, and what we have is reasonable paraphrasing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Combining different parts of a source or parts of different sources to reach a conclusion is not paraphrasing, but rather the definition of editorial synthesis, which is prohibited by policy. Nevertheless, "more fiction than fact" is definitely more nuanced than the simple label "false". "Claim" does not necessarily imply falsity either. More than that, starting any article with "X is based on the false belief" is just sloppy writing, and fairly smacks the reader over the head. Anyone who bothers to read the entire lead section beyond the first sentence should have no illusions about the merits of this idea as it is "the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC) (updated 18:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC))

So it comes down in your view to mainly being a problem that the wording "fairly smacks the reader over the head". If that's all it is why go to the mat on this? I think it's rather more important: we need to be very clear about what's a fringe view; that's my reason for caring - not just a style quibble. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

See my reply to User:Ronz, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really chime with your "more than that ..." comment. At this point things are beginning to smell disrupted: could you please state very clearly what the change is you want to make with rationale (while preferably acknowledging that other editors think "false belief" is a good paraphrase). Alexbrn (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The disruption started with the recent unilateral addition of the word "false" without discussion, which (a) is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, (b) is not equivalent in meaning to "more fiction than fact" and therefore not a valid paraphrase, and (c) amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS of a conclusion that is not evident in the sources. The disruption was compounded by reverts to restore this word with a rationale of "consensus", ignoring the fact that WP:NPOV is not subject to consensus. It doesn't matter that I also share the view that it's a "false belief" but I won't push my POV here, and I am surprised to see other experienced editors doing this. That is disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing the content completely [5], citing this discussion as rationale, seems a rather questionable approach at resolving this dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The rationale was actually the need to maintain an impartial tone and avoid editorial synthesis, as I commented above. Both these reasons are supported by policy. In my opinion, the point is already expressed well enough by the phrase "lack of credible evidence" in the second sentence of the lead paragraph. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear how the second sentence is related. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems obvious enough. "Alkaline diet ... describes a group of loosely related diets based on the belief that certain foods can affect the acidity (pH) of the body and can therefore be used to treat or prevent disease. Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet...." First sentence says it's a belief. Second sentence provides the value of that belief. The second sentence could be stronger. I recommend substituting: "The medical community views this diet as pseudoscience, with no credible evidence supporting its benefits. Therefore..."

In that way we show, don't tell, which is far better than slapping in a value-laden bare assertion "false". ~Anachronist (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we need something to substantiate the apparent mainstream view of the topic as pseudoscience, in the spirit of "show, don't tell". Frankly, I think even calling something pseudoscience without further detailed explanation is an example of unduly loaded, perjorative language, but I gather that the community has other views.

Regarding the label false, one reason it's such a poor choice for WP:NPOV is the fact that it doesn't just mean "erroneous" or "mistaken", but can also mean "fake" (false teeth), "insincere" (false sympathy), as well as "deceitful" and "disloyal" (false promise, false friend). Even when the context shows that those are not the intended meanings, there's enough vagueness there to give the word a disparaging ring, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

“… the community has other views …” ← I think this nicely sums the situation up. If it's a false belief we can say that and it's not so much "perjorative" as true. We need to be clear and up-front about such nonsenses. I have posted at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note that in the diff I provided the word "belief" was removed completely, which apparently @Anachronist: didn't notice. Again, I don't seen how Sangdeboeuf can justify that edit at all, and saying that the second sentence of the lede somehow addresses it needs explanation. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Yes, I missed that.

There are ways to formulate the lead to avoid running afoul of WP:LABEL. Here's my attempt at rewriting the whole first paragraph in a way that still makes a strong statement with proper attribution and without value-judgment adjectives:

Alkaline diet (...) are diets that their proponents claim affect the acidity (pH) of the body for treatment and prevention of disease. The medical community views these diets as pseudoscience, with no credible evidence supporting their advertised benefits. Therefore, this diet is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals.

Any objection? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course: this is precisely the kind of thing we don't want and for which there is evidently no consensus. We need "false belief" or equivalent, and must assert that this is pseudoscience without weasels. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So, what is the objection? The three sentences I wrote above are factual, dispassionate, and assertive, without weasels. "False belief" is not going to fly, as it is a clear WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL violation. What I proposed above unequivocally states what the subject is in a show, don't tell form, without resorting to labels. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"The medical community views ... " Seriously? Implication is it's just a view (against FRINGE and ASSERT); and per WP:RS/AC you need explicit sourcing to ascribe a view to an entire group like this. I think we're done; the current text is settled. Alexbrn (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"'False belief' is not going to fly [...] I think we're done; the current text is settled – This discussion is devolving into a pissing contest. Experienced editors should know that consensus is built through reasoned arguments, not dictated by fiat. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasoned arguments do not include the sorts of arguments I see used below by you and Anachronist. Please understand that nothing about this upsets me in any way. At the end of the day, it's no sweat off my brow if the article reflects your preferred version. But you have both used fallacies and falsehoods to argue your case, and absent those fallacies and falsehoods, there are no arguments left. I know I sound pompous and overbearing, but there's really no other way to say it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree the "arguments" we're hearing have no merit. We're done here; if the disgruntled parties want to pursue the dispute there's a live thread at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Constructive proposals would be helpful. In fact a version of your own edit in another article would work here too: "Medical research has shown that these diets constitute pseudoscience, with no credible evidence supporting their advertised benefits."

The arguments we're hearing from those who insist "false belief" is neutral when used in Wikipedia's voice, have no merit and no basis in policy. Therefore, we should revise the lead. What I proposed makes a stronger statement without resorting to adjectives that sound like an opinion is being dictated to the reader. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I find the proposal unduly long, the use of "the medical community" rather inappropriate, and overall it doesn't address the concerns by removing all information about the problems with the "beliefs". --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Alkaline diet (...) are diets that their proponents claim affect the acidity (pH) of the body for treatment and prevention of disease. The medical community views these diets as pseudoscience, with no credible evidence supporting their advertised benefits. Leaving aside the phrase "the medical community" for the moment, what other information about "the problems with the 'beliefs'" would you prefer to see included? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone disputing that the belief is false? Not that I can see. Is anyone disputing that the RSes contend that the belief is false, even without using the exact phrase "false belief"? Not that I can see. So the only argument for not referring to this as a "false belief" is that policy prevents us from being as accurate as we could be which is, frankly, a pretty crappy argument.

I see someone compared this to polytheism/monotheism. If anyone can find RSes that show that it's impossible to prove that certain foods affect the acidity of the body, then that's a legitimate argument. Otherwise, it falls flat.

I also see someone suggesting that "false" is a poor choice because it's vague, and thus could imply something negative. Well, with any false belief, people push it either knowing it is false (which is fake) or not knowing it is false (which is mistaken). It would be a POV and OR violation to assert that all purveyors and adherents are faking it, just as it would be a POV and OR violation to assert that all purveyors and adherents are mistaken. The more vague term is the better one, in this case, because it's more neutral, accurate and verifiable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Invoking WP:IAR now? We especially don't carve out exceptions in WP:NPOV for IAR convenience.

Saying "X is a belief" is neutral. In the case of this article, it's also true. Saying "X is a bullshit belief" or "X is a valid belief" or "X is a [insert adjective] belief" is a value judgment in Wikipedia's voice, which violates NPOV, regardless of the truth of those statements. See WP:LABEL. It is neutral to say "Dieticians regard X as a false belief" because we are attributing the view.

In any case, I think (believe?) the whole problem can be avoided by rewriting the lead paragraph in a show, don't tell way, to make a stronger statement about the legitimacy of this diet. See my comment in italics above. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Invoking WP:IAR now? We especially don't carve out exceptions in WP:NPOV for IAR convenience. In actual fact, I was very subtly and civilly attempting to convey the point that the arguments for excluding the word "false" are an obvious attempt to wikilawyer in non-neutral language. I am sorry if I was too subtle about it. But for the record: IAR applies to ALL policies. Hence the "A" in the middle.

Saying "X is a bullshit belief" or "X is a valid belief" or "X is a [insert adjective] belief" is a value judgment in Wikipedia's voice "False" is not a value judgement, but a binary, objective descriptive word. Please read the article I linked to, it's quite good and explains exactly what a value judgement is. I see the term misused quite a bit on WP. Calling a false belief "false" is a statement of fact, not a value judgement. Calling it "wrong" would be a value judgement, as would calling it "bullshit" (as you're equating its value to bovine excrement). But false is a binary, objective and factual statement. It is not, in any way, a value judgement.

See my comment in italics above. I'm not married to the phrase "false belief" and I'm not opposed to a rewrite that conveys the same information but with different words. However, your insistence upon putting the consensus of relevant experts into source voice does not jive with WP:YESPOV, which states in part: Avoid stating facts as opinions. For the purposes of WP, the consensus of experts is invariably a fact. Attributing it to them is a POV shift of the sort best known as part of the Wedge strategy, as it implies that they may be wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"For the record: IAR applies to ALL policies" – except the ones User:MjolnirPants thinks are important, such as WP:YESPOV? I don't think so. Forgive my incivility, but I find being accused of wikilawyering to be rather insulting, especially when the accuser employs such a blatant double standard themselves.

"Is anyone disputing that the RSes contend that the belief is false, even without using the exact phrase 'false belief'?" – see above comments stating that "more fiction than fact" is not equivalent to "false belief".

"For the purposes of WP, the consensus of experts is invariably a fact" – not true. The consensus of experts is just that – the consensus of experts. Fears that presenting it as such is some sneaky way of introducing bias are unfounded.

For the record, I think that User:Anachronist's proposed wording is much clearer, in part because it presents the information in a sober, reasoned way rather than through shrill, quasi-hysterical language like "false belief". That is how an encyclopedia should function, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

– except the ones User:MjolnirPants thinks are important, such as WP:YESPOV? I'm searching your response for a rationale that ignoring YESPOV would improve the project, and not seeing one. Meanwhile, there's a very clear rationale that ignoring policies in general for the sake of improving the project laid out for you at WP:IAR. A rationale, I might add, that represents a long-standing community consensus. And while it may be easy enough to take two completely different arguments of mine about two completely different points and combine them together to imply that I'm a hypocrite, it's easier still to point out that you took two completely different arguments about two completely different points and combined them together to argue with a statement I never actually made. In case you missed it, I never actually argued that IAR should be applied here. I, instead, argued that it is nonsensical to insist that we use equivocating language in a situation in which we can be enormously certain of the truth simply because some editors interpret policy to suggest that equivocating language is better.

– see above comments stating that "more fiction than fact" is not equivalent to "false belief". So it is your assertion that the source is suggesting that there is truth to the belief that changing your diet will change the acidity of your body and "...can therefore be used to treat or prevent disease."? What about the next source? Are you suggesting that the source calling it "Nonsense" is not stating that it is a false belief? Is the author permitting some leeway when he writes "Dietary modification cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine"?

shrill, quasi-hysterical language like "false belief". This is a prime example of irony. The only thing "shrill" or "quasi-hysterical" I can see is the assertion that a valueless, bland statement of fact such as "false belief" is "shrill" or "quasi-hysterical". Using emotional language to denigrate what you claim is emotional language (for being emotional language, no less) is not a very effective debate tactic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"More fiction than fact" - we go with what reliable sources say, and the source says "more fiction than fact." That does not equate to "false belief". Like with any pseudoscience, an underlying basis of incomplete or selected facts is always there (that's what makes it 'pseudo' science), and the sources make some effort to describe that basis. In the same way that "nonsense" should not be used in Wikipedia's narrative voice, and is no longer used that way in this article, neither should "false belief".

My focus here is on policy, while others appear to be focused on the article topic, which is irrelevant to policy. There is no basis in policy for narrating value judgments to the reader whether true or false; in fact the policy expressly prohibits this.

"X is a false belief" is neither valueless nor bland, it clearly violates WP:LABEL and does come across as shrill when used in Wikipedia's voice.

Nobody has raised any specific objection to my proposal for improvement above, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let's work on better prose. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

the source says "more fiction than fact." That does not equate to "false belief". Yes, it does. You insisting that it doesn't is just a fallacy.

There is no basis in policy for narrating value judgments to the reader... I've already linked you to an explanation of what a value judgement is and shown how that is not the case, here. Do you need me to summarize it for you?

"X is a false belief" is neither valueless nor bland, it clearly violates WP:LABEL and does come across as shrill when used in Wikipedia's voice. No, to all of that. We're talking about basic axioms of philosophy here, I'm shocked that I need to explain this. "False" is a binary and objective term when used to indicate negation. It is not a "value" which is a moral position. It does not violate WP:LABEL and there is nothing in that section, nor in the link which is given in the first word to suggest that "false" might be considered any sort of value judgement.

Nobody has raised any specific objection to my proposal for improvement above, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Are you kidding me? I did exactly that just above. Are you even reading my comments? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you wish other users to take your points seriously, may I suggest that you pay more attention to making your arguments concise and coherent, and base your arguments on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than Wikipedia articles (such as Value judgement) that anyone can edit? You may wish to have a look at WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood My response was shorter than the comment it was in reply to, and shorter than a a large number of comments posted to talk pages regular. Suggesting that it's really too long for you to read is nothing but an act of self-deprecation.

may I suggest that you pay more attention to making your arguments concise and coherent, Now you're just casting aspersions.

You may wish to have a look at WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source How about Merriam Webster? Are they reliable enough? What about dictionary.com? What about an article in a peer-reviewed journal of Philosophy? Is that reliable enough? If you can't comprehend the difference between an editor saving time by using a couple pairs of square braces and an editor who doesn't have a clue how RSes work, then I'm afraid you really have no business editing Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

First, I agree with MP that false is not a value judgment at all. Secondly, the lede is supposed to summarize the article. There is more than adequate sourcing in the article to support the use of false in the lead. We're literally talking about something impossible here. Even minimal changes to blood pH lead to adverse health effects, at minimum, and can lead to life threatening situations fairly quickly. A fact that is well sourced in the article. Thus the lede should reflect this fact and you can't really get more accurate than false. Capeo (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

'False' is in my opinion being overly POV for no reason. It isn't necessary either; using 'belief' alone is perfectly accurate, and the sentence following the one we are discussing makes it perfectly clear that the consensus is that the alkaline diet is bogus. Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals.[1] InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How about "erroneous premise" rather than "false belief"? "Erroneous" is less judgmental than "false" (since everyone makes mistakes). The reason that the premise is erroneous is nicely detailed in the second paragraph, so this would help to make the material flow from one paragraph to the next. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that would work too. Alexbrn (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not just "premise"? As Insertcleverphrasehere points out, the next sentence makes it perfectly clear that the diet is bogus. The adjective doesn't add any value. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Erroneous premise" literally means the exact same thing as "false belief" but I'd expect it sounds more palatable to most because "belief" can be a loaded word. I'm all for that change. Anachronist, I simply can't understand your argument that the adjective doesn't add value. The basis of this diet is wildly false and equivocating serves no purpose. Capeo (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

'Erroneous premise' isn't any better. Again, we make it clear that the belief is erroneous in the second sentence, and it isn't necessary to shove it down the throats of our readers two sentences in a row. There isn't any equivocation going on with the first sentence; it is perfectly true that the concept of the diet is based on the belief that acidic... whatever (the first sentence), and it is also perfectly true that the consensus is that it is bogus (the second sentence). No need to have both sentences say the same thing, moreover, the real problem is that the first sentence doesn't give the reasons why it is false and erroneous, so it feels like a slap in the face to proponents of the diet (the reason it is POV). Whereas the second sentence establishes exactly why the concept is bunk while dismissing it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

so it feels like a slap in the face to proponents of the diet I expect reality is a slap in the face to people who could be taken in by the erroneous premise. Removing it for that reason would violate POV, FRINGE, NOT, and the associated ArbCom decisions. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it isn't POV to leave out 'false', we clearly state what the consensus is, and the first sentence is perfectly true with just 'belief'. Your assertion that it violates those policies is incorrect. If you want to increase the negativity of the article, perhaps you should look beyond the lede; the actual article content seems remarkably light on criticism given the abject hostility toward the subject that I am seeing on this talk page. I'll think about rewriting the sentence in question so that we can sidestep this issue.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to increase the negativity of the article abject hostility toward the subject We're getting close to ArbCom-enforcable problems now. Please WP:FOC and note that your personal pov doesn't dictate what is NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am pointing out that the lede is inconsistent with the body of the article. In no way did I advocate for what you are saying. I have no personal stake in this diet, and came here to help after seeing the notice over at the NPOV board. Per my point, the lede is clearly muych more dismissive of the diet than the body, so we either need to shift POV in the lede toward the body, the body toward the lede, or both toward each other a bit. Its up to you guys, but I am just pointing out my observations about the POV issues of the article (as was requested over at the NPOV board).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to point out here that using 'belief' alone is the long term stable version of this article (including what the sentence used when it was assessed as a Good Article). Using 'false belief' was inserted by Guy on March 4th in this edit. As we clearly do not have consensus for a change, the default should be to revert to 'belief' alone as it was the stable edit before the change (consensus is needed for a change, not to leave the article at the state it was prior to the change, per WP:NOCONSENSUS).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You could try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made the point relatively clear actually. WP:NOCONSENSUS clearly indicates that we should change it back to 'belief' alone. Then if you want to start an RfC about it, that would be perfectly fine. Could you please explain what policy lead you to re add 'false' given that we don't have a consensus to do so and we have had 3 weeks of edit warring?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The majority support its presence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you are looking at the same discussion I am, but ^that^ is not what consensus for a change looks like. In any case, I've cleaned up the lede as best I can, and I'll be stepping away from this article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere I am looking at the discussion above, and in it you are the only editor to present a coherent and policy-based reason for exclusion. Several other editors (including myself) have presented coherent, policy-based reasons to include it (for the record, I'm okay with "Erroneous premise" as well). I think we can all agree that consensus is about the weight of arguments, and that Doc James was implicitly accounting for that in his comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Incorrect belief" is IMO fine as well. If people are unhappy they should try a RfC to gather further input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is "incorrect belief", it is slightly better than 'false' (due to the avoidance of other definition confusion of false), however, it still suffers from a bit of POV issues (calling someone's belief incorrect in wikipedia's voice still seems a bit POV to me). I would prefer "unfounded belief" if you guys are ok with that, as being the most NPOV word I can think of that still satisfies the desire to specify that the ideas behind the belief's of proponents are factually incorrect. The definition of unfounded:"having no foundation or basis in fact."  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's still a WP:LABEL violation. I object to any adjective preceding "belief". Just the word "belief" is factual and neutral. In fact, I object to including "belief". This is better: "Alkaline diet (...) are diets that their proponents claim affect the acidity (pH) of the body for treatment and prevention of disease."

Using "proponents claim" is factual, neutral, and doesn't provide credibility to the diet in any way. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that 'proponents claim' violates WP:CLAIM. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a WP:LABEL vio (which is an MOS page, anyways), and I've explained why to you multiple times now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Incorrect" is clearer IMO and thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though I added "incorrect belief", I'm thinking now that using any adjective like "false", "incorrect", or "unfounded" in the lead sentence is an inappropriate form of editorializing, and amounts to taking sides in a dispute. The medical consensus is already described in the lead section, and using such categorical labels is simply un-encyclopedic, even when writing about pseudoscience. Consider that the lead sections for Astrology, Ancient astronauts and the Hollow Earth describe their subjects perfectly well without flatly stating that they are false, unfounded, or untrue. Instead, they describe the weight of scholarly evidence refuting these ideas in a disinterested manner. I think this article should be rewritten along the same lines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Words like claim are not banned, and in this case claim should be easy to support with reliable sources. The statement that someone is claiming something is objectively verifiable, as opposed to an editorial description of the claim as "false", "incorrect", etc. Per WP:CLAIM, "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence" – well, I think that's what most reliable sources do imply in this case, so there should be no problem with using the word here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Another problem with belief is that it presupposes that any of the users or proponents of the alkaline diet do in fact believe in it – which is, of course, an unverifiable assumption. I've replaced "incorrect belief" with "claim". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Now it's time to drop the WP:STICK. This is getting disruptive. Remember DS applies here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

'Claim' violates WP:CLAIM as proposed here. I am not saying the word "claim" is banned (we use it elsewhere in the lede after all), but as proposed here it violates WP:CLAIM because you are not being clear about what you are trying to say, but rather trying to imply something with loaded language. The second sentence doesn't have this problem because of the first part about "a lack of credible evidence".

I still like "unfounded" instead of "incorrect" personally, as it seems more accurate and less POV to me. WP shouldn't be calling a belief "incorrect" per WP:IMPARTIAL, Sangdeboeuf is correct to use this policy here I think. WP:IMPARTIAL says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". A belief can be unfounded however, "having no basis in fact", and it is ok for WP to say so in clear terms. InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An assertion in the realm of science is not a "point of view" (except to people who are scientifically illiterate). We assert what is false, is false. To be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Alex is right: Whether a belief about a scientific hypothesis (in this case: Eating alkaline foods can increase the alkalinity of your body) is true or false, correct or incorrect is not a question of POV or ethics, nor a subjective judgement. It is a completely binary proposition. There are only two options: It is true, or it is false. It is correct, or it is incorrect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to start arguing the issue of whether science is capable of proving something absolutely true or false; what's important here is keeping the article in line with Wikipedia's core content policies, which state that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Wikipedia itself does not "assert" anything not directly supported by reliable sources, no matter how true it may be. In this case, "claim" is a better term than "[incorrect] belief", since it more closely summarizes the meaning of the sources cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No-one has said anything about absolute truth. The usual disclaimers apply (being the usual disclaimers means we would only specify when they didn't apply). As far as WP is concerned, if something is established beyond any reasonable doubt, we say that it is true. We don't explicate all the same caveats one normally sees in peer-reviewed articles because our articles aren't being submitted for peer-review and consideration by the scientific community, but being presented to laypersons trying to learn about a specific subject. The suggestion that we engage in equivocation is harmful to that goal.

Your implication that the falsity of this claim is not born out by reliable sources is laughably wrong, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Distinction between groups of proponents

I realize that the "incorrect" bit of the lede sentence is supposed to be talking about quacks that say that eating alkaline ash food makes your blood magically go high pH and that kills all the cancer or some such nonsense, and not legit doctors who used to perscribe alkaline ash diets for osteoporosis, but the lede sentence is not making this clear. The main problem is one that has been pointed out before, we have quack dietitians trying to promote a blood changing pH diet that magically kills cancer (clearly both false and incorrect) and legitimate scientific study and discourse on whether alkaline diets help for osteoporosis (not clearly false nor clearly incorrect; the consensus is something along the lines that alkaline diets don't work very well because the role of protein is complicated and not as simple as acid or alkaline)[6][7][8]. The situation is not as simple as the first sentence currently makes out, nor is the scientific consensus firmly against alkaline diets having a positive role in fighting diseases (TO BE CLEAR: just talking about bone health here, the magic anti-cancer proponents are quacks).

Yes the sentence as it stands right now is technically accurate (that the blood pH does not change with regards to diet), but only because it leaves out the fact that most proponents of alkaline diets for osteoporosis never actually suggested that it changes the pH of your blood, but rather that it helps your body regulate pH without dissolving your bones (because that's how the body makes sure your pH doesn't change). The old wording worked because there was nothing wrong with saying that some people believe one thing (sentence 1), then saying that it isn't backed up by scientific evidence (sentence 2). That was an accurate portrait of the situation, but even then it didn't tell the whole story with regard to the osteoporosis theory. Saying "incorrect" in the way we have seems to almost purposefully obfuscate a real scientific debate on the osteoporosis issue, which certainly violates WP:IMPARTIAL.

Even "unfounded" is not sufficient to solve this issue, I was wrong to suggest it. A possible solution is to separate the pH changing claims from the bone health claims, and describe them differently in terms of their plausibility. Something like:

• "Alkaline diet (also known as the alkaline ash diet, alkaline acid diet, acid ash diet, and the acid alkaline diet) describes a group of loosely related diets based on various ideas about how certain foods affect the acidity (pH) of the body. Some proponents of these diets incorrectly propose that the pH of the body can be made more alkaline by such diets and that this can be used to treat a range of diseases, while others do not claim that the diet causes pH changes in the body, but rather propose that an alkaline diet can help the body regulate pH without resorting to acid-base homeostasis reactions that might result in adverse affects on bone health."

I know it is long winded, but perhaps ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants can help condense it down a bit. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: For the most part, in terms of overall meaning and in the majority of details, you have hit the nail on the nose (anyone care for a metaphor salad?). I would, however, like to point out two things which, I believe bear consideration after reading your comment:

1. When it comes to the truth or falsity of any claim of fact, it is a binary proposition, as I have pointed out before. To say something is "mostly true", for example, is to say "Something very similar to this is true, but this is false." The same goes when saying something is "mostly false". It means "Something very similar to a direct negation of this is true, and this is false." This is the crux of what you were getting at when you said the sentence is "technically accurate", I believe.
2. The claim of falsehood (or "incorrect-hood" as the case may be) is simplistic, yes. But the claim it is stated in response to is also simplistic. It does not do article subject justice (and would even damage the article by making it more difficult to parse), to respond to a simplistic claim with technical language, caveats and equivocating. When the claim is made that "X is good fer ya!" we shouldn't respond "In sufficiently low doses, under the proper circumstances, X is actually capable of producing certain metabolic changes which can be beneficial to a very small percentage of the population to a very small degree, but comes with significant harmful side effects that cause the medical community to not recommend X as a treatment or supplement." That's just confusing for a lede. Instead, we should say "No, it isn't," and save the precise and detailed explanation for the body. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants But "No, it isn't" isn't the whole story, and only talks about some of the proponents, moreover it refers to the rather vague "belief that certain foods can affect the acidity (pH) of the body" which could really refer to either of the above groups (cancer quacks or the bone debate). What you are suggesting sounds a lot like editorializing to me. Our job isn't to oversimplify things just so that we can get our point across. Our job is to display the facts impartially. Conciseness is a virtue, but only so long as it does not impact precision. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: ut "No, it isn't" isn't the whole story, I agree, which is why I suggested we tell the whole story in the body. The lede is for summarizing, and in this case "No, it isn't" is not only technically true, but the best way to summarize. This article is, after all, about the fad diets, not about the overall utility of monitoring the acidity of one's nutritional intake, a subject which would be more appropriate for WebMD than Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, you don't need to use the styling of my username unless you want to. I know it takes an extra few clicks to do that. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I don't think so. The statement is only "technically true" if we intentionally leave out the bone density proponents. We end up describing the diet as being based solely based on the belief that foods can raise pH, and then describing this belief as false. Meanwhile we neglect to mention that a large subset of the proponents (and the best qualified I might say) say that it isn't about lowering the pH of the blood at all, but about lowing the acid load on the acid-base homeostasis systems. What we have just done is create an incomplete definition, and then disproven it. If we do include the bone health proponents in the definition (as we damn well should), we can't describe their beliefs as "incorrect" or "false" or even "unfounded" because the sources are not nearly as dismissive of these ideas (in fact there is ongoing debate in MEDRS sources). What we have here is a problem of False equivalence. Telling the whole story in the body does not make our definition of alkaline diet in the first sentence any less incomplete and is not a solution at all.

As for the styling, it is actually easier to just copy paste your name from your signature with an @ symbol in front, so it is easier to use the styling than without. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 15:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article, as it stands doesn't address the usage of "...lowering the pH of the blood at all, but about lowing the acid load on the acid-base homeostasis systems." I might be convinced to agree with adding that in if we shift the focus of this article from, as I mentioned above, the fad diets to the general utility of monitoring the acidity of one's nutritional intake (a prospect I don't think is appropriate and would require significant convincing on). As far as I have seen, none of the fad diets address any of the legitimate uses for monitoring the acidity of foods, and instead all promise to cure or prevent cancer/heart disease/low energy levels/whatever. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It is addressed in the "current hypotheses" section. Again, the consensus IS that the diet doesn't work reliably for osteoporosis prevention, but not to the degree that we can straight up say that their ideas are "incorrect" or "false". I don't have a problem with legitimately calling out the fad diets and alternative medicine pH raising claims as bullshit, but it needs to be separated from the scientific debate about the "acid-ash hypothesis" that was proposed to play a role in osteoporosis. The body of the article has about as much about fad diets and alt medicine ("alternative medicine" and "evidence base" sections) as it does about the osteoporosis debate (in the "current hypothesis" section), so I do not see an argument that it is not WP:DUE holding any water.

I am heading off to bed, and I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. I'll have a think about the best way to keep the wordiness down but also address the bone health theories in the diet definition. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 16:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in that section or it's sources to justify equivocating. Systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of pertinent published data have been done, and no evidence of the "current hypothesis" has been found. There may be some debate still, but certainly not enough to warrant reflection in the article lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It is already reflected in the lede (see the last sentence), the issue here is that our defining sentence is inaccurate because we've chosen to only consider fad diet proponents when writing it.

Consider this sentence: "Alkaline diet describes a group of loosely related diets based on the incorrect belief that certain foods can help the body regulate pH without resorting to acid-base homeostasis reactions that might result in adverse affects on bone health."

Here I have decided to explicitly leave out the fad diets, and only consider the osteoporosis theories. Is our language still appropriate saying that it is based on an "incorrect belief"? No it isn't. While reviews do indicate that the diet isn't effective at this purpose, there is nowhere near the justification needed to say "incorrect belief" in this case without violating WP:IMPARTIAL. My point is that our current wording does not distinguish between fad diet proponents and bone health theories, and the "incorrect belief" wording is only appropriate for one of those groups. We need a more detailed definition that distinguishes between the two. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

But the claims of the proponents of these diets isn't that "certain foods can help the body regulate pH without resorting to acid-base homeostasis reactions" it's that certain foods will change the overall pH balance of your body and thus cure cancer and heart disease, give you more energy and make your penis larger^{[citation needed][9] [10]}. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No. That is the claim of many of the proponents (the alternative medicine quacks), not all proponents of alkaline diets. The bone health theory proponents do not all claim as such (for example even some of the the alternative medicine people). In the lede sentence we are lumping them all together, I feel like I have been super clear on this point. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Even the Quackwatch source was careful to differentiate between the two: "When you take in more protein than your body needs, your body cannot store it, so the excess amino acids are converted to organic acids that would acidify your blood. But your blood never becomes acidic because as soon as the proteins are converted to organic acids, calcium leaves your bones to neutralize the acid and prevent any change in pH. Because of this, many scientists think that taking in too much protein may weaken bones to cause osteoporosis." — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Honestly, it sounds like you're drawing a distinction the article doesn't draw for the most part, though the sources often do. If the article were to reflect that distinction, I'd likely agree with something like "Alkaline diet describes a group of loosely relate diets, based either on the incorrect belief that certain foods can affect the acidity (pH) of the body and can therefore be used to treat or prevent disease, or else on the controversial belief that certain foods can help the body regulate pH without resorting to acid-base homeostasis reactions that might result in adverse affects on bone health." It's a mouthful, but we could work it down. But right now, the article reads as if... "There's a bunch of woo out there that's totally bunk. Oh and also there's a tiny little bit of actual science similar to the woo that's probably bunk as well, but it has nothing really to do with the fad diets so we're not going to get into that here". If the article read more like "There's a bunch of woo out there that's totally bunk, not to be confused with the similar actual science which is only probably bunk." I would be down to make the lede reflect that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth: One proponent puts it this way: "If we are not eating enough alkaline-forming foods, then our body has to pull these important [alkaline-rich] minerals from our bones, teeth and organs. This can compromise our immune system, cause fatigue and make us vulnerable to viruses and disease." Basically it isn't promoting the "incorrect belief" that an alkaline diet changes the body's pH balance, but rather helps make it easier for the body to regulate that balance.

And then we have the notorious Dr. Oz, who comes right out and makes a claim nearly identical to the "incorrect belief" referred to in this article.

I agree with Insertcleverphrasehere, a distinction should be made. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I agree that the body of the article should also make the distinction more clear as well. This isn't an argument that we shouldn't touch the lede though, or else we end up in a chicken and egg situation. I propose that we agree on a modification to the lede sentence as proposed above and also separate out the osteoporosis stuff in the body its own section, with some summary sentence like: "Some proponents of alkaline diets do so on the idea that alkaline forming foods allow the body to maintain a normal pH without resorting to acid-base homeostasis reactions that might leach calcium from the bones, thus resulting in less risk for osteoporosis. However, systematic reviews indicate that the situation is considerably more complex than this, and that a high protein diet is not a significant risk factor for osteoporosis and may actually help prevent osteoporosis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty much okay with that, provided the body reflects it. I very much believe that the lede should follow the body, not the other way around. Also, I fixed your indenting (and signed your comment, For shame! For SHAME!) so as to make it clear you weren't agreeing with the comment that offered up some random, anonymous web site and Dr Oz as MEDRS sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

In general where there is some alt med pseudoscience thing that plays off real science we treat them separately. A big reason for this is that the lunatic charlatans play off the real science to sell their bullshit. See for example Leaky gut syndrome (bullshit) and Intestinal permeability (a real physiological thing). Likewise Vitamin C megadosage and Vitamin C. If folks want to have content on actual science it should go somewhere else. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why I'm a little wary of drawing the distinction more clearly in the article. There are ways it could be done, but there are so many ways it could go wrong... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jytdog I don't see how we can separate these two in the way you describe, as the diet advocated between the two groups is pretty much identical, it is only the claims about how it works and what it can be used to treat that are different (this is very different to the vitamin C controversy, where the claims as well as the dosage of VC is very different between the two topics). Our most reliable sources (medical review articles) also tend to discuss both at once.

How about something like: "Alkaline diet describes a group of loosely related diet theories that discuss the effects of different types of food on the pH balance of the body. These originated from controversial theories about how that certain foods can help the body regulate acidity (pH) without resorting to acid-base homeostasis reactions that might result in adverse affects on bone health, however, various fad diet proponents have made incorrect claims that alkaline foods actually change the pH of the body and have advocated without evidence that the diet is cure for a range of diseases unrelated to bone health." — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The way the article is set up now, with clear sections on actual med hypothesis and alt med, doing a split would be extremely easy, and this would solve the problem with the lead. The fad diet should be split and be at Alkaline diet (alternative medicine) or Alkaline diet (fad diet). Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, since the claims about the benefits differ as much as the claims about mechanism do, I'm with Jytdog. But the question of what to call the article about the more scientific version remains open (IMHO) because using the current title for that may be confusing. Perhaps High alkaline diet? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, a good common name for the med hypothesis that differentiates it from the fad diet might be "acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis"[11]. Some discussion of osteoporosis would still need to occur in the fad diet article though, as there are fad diet variants that specifically follow the "acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis" (i.e. this one) and that can't be simply described as "incorrect" like the other fad diet quacks. So we might end up simply pawning the problem off to the new fad diet article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit of a mouthful, but I'm game! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if you guys are keen to split the article into something along the lines of "Acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis" and "Alkaline fad diet", I won't object. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

AIs this split actually going to happen, or are we going to leave the article the way it is without even addressing the issues I brought up above? I dropped the issue with the understanding that a split was going to happen, but it doesn't seem like anyone is keen to actually do it (nor am I). Given this, we are going to have to address the issues in the lede conflating scientific hypotheses with alternative medicine hacks, I am not happy leaving the lede in its current state and waiting around indefinitely for a split that may or may not be happening. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on board with it. But I'm also lazy, and I have a a cartel to take down tonight. Lemme see what I can start tomorrow; I'm expecting a fairly slow day at work with a long lunch hour. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I am extremely busy with work at the moment myself, or else I would offer to do it. I'll wait a while longer before pushing for any changes. Cheers mate. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand completely. I've copied over some of the pertinent information to User:MjolnirPants/Acid Ash Hypothesis Draft. Don't let the namespace fool you; this is for all of us to work on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Split of page

I was the last one to make major rewrite of this page, and it appears the result is not satisfactory for most here. It seems a lot of the trouble comes from the conflating of the legitimate medical aspects of the diet and the alt med speculation. Would it be better to have split to have an Alkaline diet page (for legitimate scientific/medical discussions) and Alkaline diet (alternative medicine) split so that we can deal with these topics in an adequate fashion? Yobol (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be what folks have generally agreed to above. No disagreements yet -- just some open discussion of what to call the medical-y article. (nice to see you, btw!) Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Those names don't work for me, but I agree with the split. I think that 'alkaline diet' is the commonname of the fad diet (vast majority of sources and coverage and reviews), whereas 'acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis', or something similar, should be used for the legitimate scientific discussion with regard to the osteoporosis hypothesis. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the legitimate stuff needs its own standalone article, but could be a section at Acid–base homeostasis (which needs work anyway). Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It could work, but I don't think it is a good idea. The issue is that 'acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis' is very fringe in and of itself, and doesn't have much WP:WEIGHT in the Acid–base homeostasis article. Acid-base homeostasis is quite short and would be overwhelmed by the amount of material cut from this article. A short summary section that leads to a main Acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis article should be included in both the fad diet article, as well as in the Acid-base homeostasis article (though a hatnote might suffice for the fad diet article). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We'd just be swapping out a problem in this article (alt-med fringe conflated with legitimate scientific fringe) for a problem in that article (legitimate, well-understood science conflated with legitimate scientific fringe) if we merged it into that article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Off topic comments by IP 198.2.76.205 - please keep discussion focused on improvement of the article and arguments related to that, not discussion of editors motives. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This would be really great if we could get the biased camping on the article people to follow wiki rules of posting and not constantly control the article with an obvious bias. Using references without related substance, to substantiate negative wording comes off, to readers as a group of fear mongers and not neutral at all. After years of watching the pack of hyenas here, I doubt this will ever happen on Wikipedia. Control on dudes! 198.2.76.205 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I think I demonstrated my point quite well here. Now, the good housekeeping seal of approval can be reinstated due to the controversy just being a troll. Reason enough? Sure run with it, and the displayed fear of knowledge out there, so common in Wikipedia, will be protected. 198.2.76.205 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing support for this change[12] IMO the change is overly complicated so restored the prior version. We have had extensive discussion about the use of the term "incorrect belief" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James There is an issue conflating the legitimately false fad diet theories with the scientifically published theories about the "Acid-ash hypothesis" thought to potentially play a role in exacerbating osteoporosis (controversial but not 'incorrect' by wikipedia standards). This was discussed above in the 'Distinction between groups of proponents' section above, and it was consensus that there was an issue with the lede conflating these topics but that the best solution was to split the page between the two topics. However, it has been a couple months now with no movement toward a split. The issue with the lede conflating these topics persists and I am not keen on having a lede sentence that describes the total topic being true for only one of the two subtopics discussed in the body of the article. I will reinstate my edit once more (with minor changes to help address the issue you raised in your edit comment), and if you feel that it is still too "over long and complicated" perhaps you can find a way of editing it to make it more concise without reverting to a meaning that fails to address the double topic issue. Edit: Note that I still support splitting the article and consider this change to be a temporary fix until the split is realized. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Which source are you basing the change on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James The content of the article, particularly the "current hypotheses" section, supports the change (that these diets originated from the acid-ash hypothesis). Specific sources in the article such as Hanley & Whiting (2013) and Fenton (2009) also support the change (they treat the osteoporosis "Acid-ash hypothesis" as a legitimate, even accepted, theory which requires further review and testing with better controls). Fenton (2009) largely discounts the hypothesis' effects through a meta-analysis of other studies, but still says at the end: "A definitive study is needed that follows all of the recommendations for methodological quality for both calcium balance studies [24] as well as recommendations for intervention studies [25, 26], with measurement of outcomes that are direct measures of bone strength, to determine whether or not there is an association between phosphate intake and osteoporosis". This points to ongoing research, not scientific consensus on the osteoporosis theory.

Osteoporosis research is very different from the fad diet claims. The osteoporosis acid-ash theory recommends a low acid-ash diet to reduce load on the skeleton which is thought to demineralise to raise pH when cosuming high acid-ash foods. This is different from the fad diet claims of actually changing the pH of the body and then claiming all kinds of magical effects that this might help with (this is incorrect).

The new start to the lede makes clear the separation of the fad diet claims from the osteoporosis theory that it began with, calls the claims of fad diet proponents false (per consensus), and is as concise as I can think to make it. Again, the best solution is to split the article, however, in the meantime it is good to have a lede which does not lump legitimate osteoporosis research into the incorrect claims of fad diet proponents. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed edits

The view I advanced on the alkaline diet page (i.e. that it has a scientific basis and possible benefits) is supported by a Dr. and faculty member at the University of Alberta, Dr. Garry Schwalfenberg, MD, whose scientific review of studies on the so called alkaline diet is published on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195546/ a US government-funded website that promotes and disseminates scientific information and studies that are peer-reviewed. I simply added the dissenting view to the wiki page on the alkaline diet (which falsely presents this diet as pseudoscientific, when there is actual real scientific evidence for it--the pseudo-scientific charge is based on a misconception of the diet and is a reaction to actual pseudo-scientific explanations of the diet; it does not respond to or sufficiently address actual scientific explanations and studies of the diet, such as Schwalfenberg's) that it does have some scientific basis. The fact that editors are continually deleting my added, vital references to Schwalfenberg's study and scientific review of current scholarship is deeply disturbing and anti-scientific.

Learn to sign your posts. Read wp:RS too. Your reference is primary, and unacceptable to wikipedia. Your lack of understanding of this is probably what got you in trouble. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• @SMendel: I suggest that a less provocative heading/approach is more likely to be fruitful in getting neutral people to examine your claims. Something like "Here's some stuff I'd like to add and here's the source, what do you think?" would be a lot better than launching an attack on other editors. As it stands, you are very close to being blocked for making personal attacks here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'll just add that I won't block you as I'm more interested in trying to get all sides to work this out civilly and constructively, but someone else might. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

e/c ALSO - The reference above is not the one you used to support your edit to the article. that is not the sort of deception we expect here. It still does not support your article changes. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I cited multiple sources in my edit, and the aforementioned one was in fact one of them. user:Roxy the dog has (on my talk page) already admitted to mistakenly accusing me of citing a source that i did not actually cite. My source is actually a literature review of primary sources and is a "reliable" source according to the definition given on Wikipedia (on the page you referenced): "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. I think it is in fact your misunderstanding and over-zealousness that got you into trouble, falsely claiming I vandalized the page when I was in earnest attempting to add what I perceive as valuable scientific information to the article. I have read about this diet for over 10 hours and have enough knowledge to understand that based on the evidence a scientist, Dr. Garry Schwalfenberg (who is employed as a faculty member at the department of medicine at the University of Alberta) argues that "it would be prudent to consider an alkaline diet to reduce morbidity and mortality of chronic disease that are plaguing our aging population."

References

-SMendel

• i fixed the header. The review cited in the OP is a particularly dubious journal published by Hindawi, which is a borderline predatory publisher. The edit under discussion did cite a primary source and changed the lead in a way that did not summarize the body, and was not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The review cited in my edit is published by the reputable "Journal of Environmental and Public Health" and is hosted on the NCBI website at this address: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195546/ . This review is peer-reviewed and scientific. The removal of my edit (an edit supported by this reference) is a removal of a valid scientific viewpoint that is neglected in the article. -SMendel

Ah I was looking at your 2nd edit. In that edit you cited PMID 7797810 not the review from the Hindawi journal, PMID 22013455. PMID 7797810 is a primary source.

In your first edit you did cite PMID 22013455 and you also cited some website called "intellihealth". Neither of those are OK sources. Do see WP:MEDRS.

Both edits were only to the lead, and do not summarize the body. Please do see WP:LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the header again. Do not restore the long header; it is bad practice for several reasons. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the threading here. Please do see WP:THREAD (just type one or more colons at the front of your comment - -always one more than the person to whom you are responding. The Wikipedia software converts each colon into one tab) Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

About "Journal of Environmental and Public Health" please do read the Hindawi page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Lazy reverts

I noticed the silly edit war to maintain a bunch of "however"s here. "However" is a word to watch and I encourage those removing edits to actually read what they remove and think before doing it. --John (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think they weren't read? There are maybe too may "howevers" here, however they were doing a job and without them it's a bit costive. And these weren't the only changes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"However" as a laxative. That's a new one. 80.2.41.198 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It would definitely be preferable if editors could try to make edits that improve the article rather than further lazy reverts. --John (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It would definitely be preferable if editors could try to make edits that improve the article rather than edits that beg for lazy reverts.

John, when you bitch about "lazy" reverts, you're assuming that the editors reverting aren't putting any (or enough) thought into their revert. It would be much better to actually listen to what those editors have to say than to assume you already know what they think. Discuss, don't accuse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. By definition, any edit that adds five "however"s to an article is a poor edit. You should not do that. Any edit that restores all of a poor edit, rather than try to make a modified compromise version, is a lazy edit. You should not do that. You should not complain about "bitching" if someone points that this is a poor or a lazy edit. It is a poor and lazy edit. Don't make poor and lazy edits, is my suggestion. --John (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

By definition, any edit that adds five "however"s to an article is a poor edit. Please link me to that definition. I have gone several years and several thousand edits completely unaware of it.

Any edit that restores all of a poor edit, rather than try to make a modified compromise version, is a lazy edit. You are presuming that you are the adjudicator of what is a "poor" edit without allowing for the possibility that others may find it to be a good edit.

You should not complain about "bitching" if someone points that this is a poor or a lazy edit. Oh, quit your bitching.

Don't make poor and lazy edits, is my suggestion. And "knock off the battleground attitude" is mine. Your a fucking admin for Christ's sake. Act like one. Ask editors why they prefer the current version instead of presuming to dictate to them that it's the inferior one and that they're screwing up by supporting it. You and one other have been reverted by 4 editors, (and though I haven't stated my own views just yet, you would be forgiven for assuming that I support the "howevers" as well, based on my commentary in this thread. That would bring the total support for this "bad" edit to 5 editors), and instead of trying to reach a compromise or win over one or more of the editors opposing you, you're just making bad-faith accusations here at talk. Hell, I've seen where those reverting you have actually given cogent explanations why in their edit summaries as well as here. Yet you're still calling the reverts by 4 different editors "lazy" as if no-one has bothered to say anything at all to justify reverting. You should damn well know by now that this is a collaborative project, and that when there is a disagreement, we are expected to work together to find a solution, not to battle it out to see who wins. If you can't wrap your head around that, then go find another hobby. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

MP, give it up. Trust me, you're never going to get anywhere with this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's what they all said when I told them I was going to be the world's first bodybuilding porn star astronaut rockstar! (I'm still working on that...) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having gone over the edit war, I agree that the first "However" should go. It's not explicitly contrasting anything, but adding a clause. The bit about the acid-base homeostasis looks like an unremarkable rewording that might be a slight improvement, though the removal of "incorrect" in the next sentence is a POV problem, and the removal of "about how alkaline diets function" is a more serious problem.

With all that being said, I'm going to try for a compromise edit in just a minute. I'm not going to complain if someone reverts me, however if you do, please comment here with an explanation of why you think my edit wasn't good enough. (Basically, refute what I said above in this edit.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that the first 'however' was the most appropriate one. It accurately implies a clear difference between the osteoporosis research and the crackpottery of the alt-med proponents that claim it cures cancer/hemorrhoids/whatever-else (both of which are referred to as "Alkaline Diets"). Just because something is a 'word to watch' does not mean that it should never be used, just that it's its usage should be deliberate and appropriate. The current edit is disjointed and unclear about that difference in the lead. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gosh. "It's usage should be deliberate and appropriate", eh? Read WP:SYNTH, WP:WTW and WP:NPOV and get back to me. And learn how to use apostrophes while you're at it. --John (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be clear, the osteoporosis research revolves around the idea that the body's natural mechanism for balancing blood PH is to pull calcium ions out of the bones, which can be a problem for those with osteoporosis (Maintaining a neutral blood PH, but further weakening the bones). The idea was that an alkaline diet would put less pressure on this mechanism, thereby helping maintain bone strength (as far as I remember from reading the sources when editing this article a while back, more recent research to confirm/disprove this hypothesis has been inconclusive). That osteoporosis hypothesis never maintained the idea that an alkaline diet would actually change the PH of the blood (because the body's homeostasis mechanisms will prevent that from happening), in clear contrast to the claims by alt-med practitioners that a change in blood PH is the primary mechanism by which the diet is a miracle cure. This is the distinction that is removed by removing the 'however'. I'm sure there is a better and more clear way to state this, but the current edit just separating the sentences makes it worse, not better. We originally decided to split the article along the 'osteoporosis research' and 'PH altering diet' lines, but it never happened. That 'however' sentence was a compromise edit intended to be a stopgap until that happened. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like MPants at work did actually finish creating another article on that topic, See Acid ash hypothesis. I'm going to try to work in a link to this in the lead to help fix the current issues. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019

describes a group of loosely related diets based on the misconception that different types of food can have an effect on the pH balance of the body

There is no reference for the line given above Arvnd1107 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for a ref, Per WP:LEAD there is no requirement to reference the lead for info that is properly referenced in the body text. It is. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Two scientific journals revealing favorable results of muscle mass benefiting kidney function due to alkaline diet.

https://www.jrnjournal.org/article/S1051-2276(16)30188-1/fulltext#secsectitle0105

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2012/727630/#background — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsh2012 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PMID 28117137 discusses a tailored low-protein diet (that is less acid than conventional ones) and its effect on kidneys for people with chronic kidney disease. This "more alkaline" diet is not the same as the fad diets described here claiming to adjust the pH of the body, so it's not appropriate here. I have added something at chronic kidney disease. The second source is a junk journal. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And please don't edit-war over adding a source that isn't even being used. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Note I have raised a query about PMID 28117137 at Talk:Chronic kidney disease. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kelsh2012.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Chronic kidney disease?

I am not good enough to correct this wiki but do want to mention: alkaline diets are indeed beneficial not only for people with chronic kidney disease but also for many of us including High-Performance Athletes: check out this paper

Dietary Acid-Base Balance in High-Performance Athletes

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32722186/

Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2020 Jul 24;17(15):5332. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155332.

and these

Medical Nutritional Therapy for Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease not on Dialysis: The Low Protein Diet as a Medication. Cupisti A, Gallieni M, Avesani CM, D'Alessandro C, Carrero JJ, Piccoli GB. J Clin Med. 2020 Nov 12;9(11):3644. doi: 10.3390/jcm9113644. PMID: 33198365 Free PMC article. Review.

Dietary Acid-Base Balance in High-Performance Athletes. Baranauskas M, Jablonskienė V, Abaravičius JA, Samsonienė L, Stukas R. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 24;17(15):5332. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155332. PMID: 32722186 Free PMC article.

Plant-based diets to manage the risks and complications of chronic kidney disease. Carrero JJ, González-Ortiz A, Avesani CM, Bakker SJL, Bellizzi V, Chauveau P, Clase CM, Cupisti A, Espinosa-Cuevas A, Molina P, Moreau K, Piccoli GB, Post A, Sezer S, Fouque D. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020 Sep;16(9):525-542. doi: 10.1038/s41581-020-0297-2. Epub 2020 Jun 11. PMID: 32528189 Review.

Dietary Acid Load: A Novel Nutritional Target in Overweight/Obese Children with Asthma? Cunha P, Paciência I, Cavaleiro Rufo J, Castro Mendes F, Farraia M, Barros R, Silva D, Delgado L, Padrão P, Moreira A, Moreira P. Nutrients. 2019 Sep 19;11(9):2255. doi: 10.3390/nu11092255. PMID: 31546888 Free PMC article.

Dietary Care for ADPKD Patients: Current Status and Future Directions. Carriazo S, Perez-Gomez MV, Cordido A, García-González MA, Sanz AB, Ortiz A, Sanchez-Niño MD. Nutrients. 2019 Jul 12;11(7):1576. doi: 10.3390/nu11071576. PMID: 31336917 Free PMC article. Review.

Thank you to the good person, better than me, who takes up this challenge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.203.242 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources seem to be WP:MEDRS, except for ones which are not relevant to this article? Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

These were single studies. But, There is legitimate scientific research going on on this topic.

• Dietary Acid-Base Balance in High-Performance Athletes (2020) PMID 32722186.
• Dietary Acid Load: A Novel Nutritional Target in Overweight/Obese Children with Asthma? (2019) PMID 31546888. --Maffty (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's stuff in MDPI journals. In any case, Wikipedia needs good sources before anything can happen. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Systematic reviews

The systematic review is also WP:MEDRS. The topic has been found to be associated with health problems.

• Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer (2016): "lack of evidence" from 1 study. But...
• Dietary acid load and the risk of cancer (2022) : "associated with an increased risk of cancer" 9 Studies
• Association of High Dietary Acid Load With the Risk of Cancer (2022) : "may be associated with a higher risk of cancer"

• Dietary Acid Load and Relationship with Albuminuria and Glomerular Filtration Rate in Individuals with Chronic Kidney Disease (2021): "contributing to a decreased renal function."
• Dietary acid load, kidney function (2021) : "association with risk of CKD" "increased DAL can decrease urine pH significantly"

• Dietary acid load and risk of hypertension: A systematic review(2019) : "association between dietary acid load and hypertension"
• Elevated hypertension risk associated with higher dietary acid load(2019) : "potential risk factor of hypertension"

• Dietary acid load, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and biomarkers of insulin resistance (2020) : "cardiometabolic risk factors"
• The Associations of Dietary Acid Load with Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes (2019) : "some evidence of an association between dietary acid load and type 2 diabetes"
• Dietary acid load and risk of type 2 diabetes (2018) : "might increase the risk of type 2 diabetes"

--Maffty (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Are any of these actually about "The Alkaline Diet" as defined by this article? Alexbrn (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As noted below, these studies often use the term like "acidic diet". It may also refer to "acid/alkaline foods" or "alkaline diet" or "acidic foods".

• Dietary acid load and the risk of cancer (2022) : "acidogenic diet is associated with an increased risk of cancer"
• Association of High Dietary Acid Load With the Risk of Cancer (2022) : This article used the word of "acidosis diet".

--Maffty (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That's called WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. It is well-known many high-acid foods are generally unhealthy. That has nothing to do with the quack claims of the Alkaline Diet, except by your editorial leap. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This is original research. If you read over most of these papers they are using the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score. I am surprised we don't have a Wikipedia article on this, but there is some mention of it on the bone health article, an article which is actually in poor shape and cites many out-dated sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Because Alexbrn is reverting a scientific paper. Textbooks and research papers often use the term "acid/alkaline diet/food. Because it is the same topic. PRAL is a continuation of the history section. PRAL allows estimation of urine pH. Then there was an increase in research leading to systematic reviews.

And, You focus on sources that are outdated, have no citations in the medical paper, and look like blog posts. These articles refer to the availability of study. Because it is the same topic. However, the following is not a systematic review. It will be poorly researched, out-dated.

I'm talking about original research. Neutral sources such as WebMD are misused as negative sources.

• Stephanie Vangsness of Brigham and Women's Hospital, dietitian. intelihealth (2013)

wrote: She does not recommend this diet. (Because? The text continues) Animal studies only. In humans, ongoing on bone health. No studies on cancer at this time(2013) Dieticians and health professionals do not recommend it.

• Sonya Collins, Health Care Journalist. WebMD, (2014, This date written in Wikipedia)

wrote: She is not opposed to this diet. There are early studies of kidney, bone, muscle, heart, etc. Researchers aren't sure about all of them.

• Gabe Mirkin, MD, Mainly allergy and immunology. quackwatch (2009)

wrote: No clear pros or cons. Scientists believe that excess protein weakens bone health.

• Canadian Cancer Society (2012, This date written in Wikipedia)

wrote: No evidence for weight loss, heart, cancer.(2012?).

• American Institute for Cancer Research, (2010, This date written in Wikipedia. But Updated on 2020)

wrote: Similar to a diet that lowers cancer risk. But It needs to be modified. Lack of clinical trials. (2010? 2020?).

--Maffty (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes by ip

[13]

Original lede:

Credible laboratories have done extensive research on this subject and have proven the theory to be false, not supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet. Due to conclusive evidence, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals.

Changed to:

It has not been found to have any effect on cancer.

Addition to "Proposed mechanism":

Acidic urine under the influence of acidity is considered to be the cause of urinary tract stone formation.

Addition to "Historical uses"

Several clinical studies have been conducted on this hypothesis, and a textbook on clinical nutrition from the 2010s mentions an alkaline diet. It is a theory of urinary tract stone formation.

References

Looks like the typical problems we get with this article. I'm assuming that the lede had previously met all content policies in this heavily reviewed article. The other additions seem inappropriate for the sections they were added to and could use more context. Adding similar content into two different locations in the article seems undue without better context. --Hipal (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue of NPOV has been raised: #Community Reassessment. Krause's book is a textbook for dietitians. The textbook cites many articles. The textbook is WP:MEDRS. In contrast. The two sources (intelihealth, WebMD) are opinions. --Maffty (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"In contrast" to what? WebMD and Intelihealth are fine for providing sane context in WP:FRINGE topics such as this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In contrast WebMD is fringe. WebMD is one opinion, not the textbook. This is a violation of WP:PARITY.

It was also an original research. WebMD is positive or neutral, not negative source. As of 2013, there is not enough research. These references say so. "Credible laboratories have done extensive research" is wrong. Details here #OR. --Maffty (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

A credible scientific facility proved it wrong: Special:Diff/891418730 (2020). This claim is not found in the source (Intelihealth). The original text is this: Special:Diff/594064382 (2014). Lack of research, experts do not recommend it. This is an opinion of Intelihealth.

This is how it looks when reflecting NPOV.

Krause of the nutritionist's textbook states: There are studies. Alkaline foods reduce the acidic load (PRAL). Urine is affected by acid and causes urinary stones. Dietician Stephanie states in Intelihealth: Lack of research, experts do not recommend it.--Maffty (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Rename?

I wonder if some of the problems that have long plagued this article if it were renamed "Bodily pH (alternative medicine)" or somesuch, since the fake "diet" is just one aspect of the wider belief "that anything that makes the body “acidic” is bad and anything basic or “alkali” is good".[14] Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Are they separate?

Systematic reviews will be available. Even in 2022, poor quality investigation say no evidence. There are both pros and cons. We write both from NPOV, If it has reliability. (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) Maffty (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Are they separate? ← yes. This is the whole point. The topic of this article is the altmed lie that by making your entire body significantly more alkaline (through diet - also a lie) you can enjoy huge health benefits like being cancer-proof or even curing existing cancers. This is quackery and we have quite a few sources on it. By mixing in irrelevant scientific research that is not about this topic you are becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)