Talk:Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine/Archive 1

False information?

The statement about the ALF appears to be false. I can't find any information that claims Dr. Barnard has been associated with the ALF, even on the CCF and ActivistCash websites. I have removed the sentence. —Nickdc 16:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Nickdc, That statement was not false. Please re-read... http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23

Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

....

In 2001, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of over 40 letters (on PCRM letterhead) with Kevin Kjonaas, a former “spokesperson” for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the then-U.S.-director of the violent animal rights group SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty).

....

Neal Barnard is more circumspect about violence. The Animal Rights Reporter has written of him: “Although he disavows the use of violence, he says that researchers ‘have set themselves up for it’ and ‘have to worry’ about animal rights violence.

Additionally, please read: http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/010920_PCRM.pdf

Letter co-signed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine president Neal Barnard and former ALF "spokesperson" (and current SHAC leader) Kevin Kjonaas. - ConsumerFreedom.com

The associations are there and there are more, go to google and type in "Neal Barnard" +ALF +PCRM

---

I found more incorrect information in the article and removed the sentence: "The 7 board members of the PCRM have authored more than 70 diet books, the most popular of them is the well known 'Eat More, Weigh Less!' by Dr. Ornish." Dean Ornish is not a PCRM board member and PCRM's advisory board actually consists of eleven members, not seven.[1] I also removed the sentence: "There is a significant amount of research on the PCRM website focusing on Seventh Day Adventist communities, as a testament to the vegan diet." Only a handful of pages on www.pcrm.org make any mention of Seventh Day Adventists.[2] —Nickdc 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit biased?

I would say this article is biased against PCRM if anything. In particular, if you read about their work in their books, such as The China Study, and Reversing Diabetes, you can see that these doctors are on to something. It's no surprise they would take some heat for stating that the average American diet is unhealthy and too heavily laden with animal-based foods.

But their research is solid, some of the best ever done, and their work is definitely worth reading. .....

Solid? You've got to be kidding. The research is poor at best.

Plenty of physicians also say that the average American diet is unhealthy and too heavily laden with processed/hydrogenated oils, sugars and syrups, and additives. Those physicians rarely receive the same kind of criticism, I think partially because the research indicating the negative effects of those elements is stronger than the evidence against animal-based foods in general, partially because animal-based products have been part of the human diet for centuries, and partially because with the PCRM there is the question of an underlying motive of animal rights, rather than nutritional concerns. The validity of any of these is always under debate, but it should come as no surprise that the positions of the PCRM are heavily challenged. Frankg 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be cheerleading for PCRM a bit too much. It doesn't reflect that PCRM has been criticized by the American Medical Association for misrepresenting facts about animal research, and that its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is a psychiatrist by training - not a nutritionist. The article also leaves out PCRM's documented connections to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Can someone jump in and make this a bit more NPOV? Otherwise I'll list this as a NPOV dispute. 24.229.25.11 19:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's POV, but there's no actual dispute yet. Just go fix it instead. —Ashley Y 08:29, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

....

I just added your text fixed up a bit. —Ashley Y 08:32, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

.... Is it true that this organization has only 5% Physician membership[3]? That would be relevant in this article to show that it might just be a front group for animal rights activists. DHN 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, please read: http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/010920_PCRM.pdf

Letter co-signed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine president Neal Barnard and former ALF "spokesperson" (and current SHAC leader) Kevin Kjonaas. - ConsumerFreedom.com

---

what we have to also realize is that the Center for Consumer Freedom is an fast food, tobacco and alcohol industry front-group with their own obvious agenda. it would be good to have some links to non-CCF funded "reports" and articles for a change. Thebt 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PETA/FSAP/PCRM

I've added the relevant information neccessary for somebody to confirm for themselves the relationship between PETA and PCRM. This includes the front organization FSAP which is housed out of the PETA offices and consists of the presidents of both organizations. Additionally I've made reference to the proper location to find the federally required tax forms showing that PETA/FSAP funded PCRM for up to half a million dollars, until 2001 when FSAP stopped providing that information in its itemizations.

NPOV flag

In referring to controversies about the organization, articles often fails to name or cite critisims but presents detailed rebuttals. The writing tone is not sufficiently neutral for an encyclopedia. Durova 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Membership

I can't find anywhere a source to verify that PCRM has 6,000 physician members. The PCRM web site indicates that you just pay to become a member, doesn't specify you have to be a physician, scientist, whatever. It doesn't even say how many members it has in total. So will edit accordingly unless someone can provide verification. Ermintrude 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

minor/major rewrite

Not sure, I didn't really add or remove much content, just rephrased and reorganize and stuff... I added citations when I could find them, it still needs some. Clarified a couple of thing. There's still a section about links between PETA and PCRM that I couldn't really make much sense off. I guess I just don't speak the "conspiracy theorists" language. So I didn't really touch that. Yay and I had problem with the references, I'm gonna do an help call now and see if I can fix that. Finally the last link, about the AMA rescinding their anti-PCRM policy, I couldn't link to that doc directly, it's only a temporary fix and I'll see if I can fix that too. Jean-Philippe 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed the reference section, but I couldn't find a way to link directly to www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc. I've done an helpme about that, I'll see if someone gave me an answer later. Jean-Philippe 03:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Who gutted the criticism section? A lot of people, myself included, consider the PCRM nothing more than an animal rights front group which is used to cynically flog a vegan agenda in the press. The criticism section should reflect that. I wrote a little bit, if someone wants to clean it up, they are welcome but my point should remain.--Rotten 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but our opinion is not notable. If you wish to include that sort of citicism, you need a reliable, attributable source and the criticism needs to be framed in neutral language. Rockpocket 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors don't get the priviledge of judging who's an extremist and who's not. It's a loaded term. So we make it clear it's a claim by who's being referenced. That's why the quotes are there and will stay. Jean-Philippe 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be critical of them at least read their books, before you start throwing accusations around. They have demonstrated using some of the best research methodology, that in fact meat and dairy are bad for your health. It's not an agenda at all. It is the result that they keep getting, and they have reversed heart disease, diabetes, and written extensively about the many disease that can be prevented, including Alzheimers, by going vegan and/or mostly vegan.

On the topic, "PCRM has also been criticized for not being candid about its anti-meat and anti-dairy agenda [13] and misrepresenting medical studies to promote a vegetarian diet [14].", I took the liberty of removing the first part, as the ACHS reference seemed to focus almost entirely on the Reuter article, while not specificly claiming PCRM as responsible for that omission. It's blurry at best. Did I read the article wrong? Jean-Philippe 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't read it wrong, but it is valid criticism, so it should remain. --SpinyNorman 06:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If I did read this correctly, then the blame is leveraged at Reuter, not PCRM. Anyway, weither it is valid or not, the reference isn't a proper source as it doesn't backup said criticism. Also, I didn't removed the mention of research misrepresention, just moved it to policy and expanded on it. I don't see the purpose of duplicating it down in the criticism section. Jean-Philippe 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This diff explain my claim for duplication. [4] I'll give you some time to comment before doing any more reverting. Isn't my little piece of text more accurate and better situated in the flow of that article? Jean-Philippe 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... my bad. I got the article numbers confused. You're right, there's no reason to duplicate the same link in two sections. However, I would like to keep the reference to them not being candid about their POV. In one sense, you're right that Reuters had an independent responsibility to report the bias but that doesn't relieve the PCRM of their own responsibility to be clear about their agenda. --SpinyNorman 07:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting back in: " PCRM has also been criticized for misrepresenting medical studies to promote a vegetarian diet." Because that aspect should to be mentioned on the site. It's in the ActivistCash section as it's included in that criticism.--Rotten 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed, read above and look at the diffs. As for your mentioning CCF having a bone to pick with the PCRM it's also already covered. Please revert yourself unless you have something else to add. Jean-Philippe 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this specific charge should be in there, for example the PCRM attacks low carb diets in a way that many find less than truthful. I feel that the fact that there has been criticism that they misrepresent medical studies is an important one.--Rotten 16:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've repeated myself too much on this talk page, so, hum, look up and read. It's already there is what I'm saying, you know.

I hope you realize that by using the wikipedia article as a reference (as you've done [5]), you're being quite silly :) Jean-Philippe 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I meant in that citation. And I don't see where you've mentioned anything about misrepresenting medical studies.--Rotten 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I honestly don't see where you're getting at. "The American Council on Science and Health is critical of PCRM's nutritional policies, saying that the group emphasize and exaggerate the reliability of certain research, to further an animal rights agenda.". If it isn't obvious enough by the above discussion this is what I rewrote the sentence to. I used the original source. Jean-Philippe 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are different groups alleging simliar things, if you want to eliminate one, I suppose you can.--Rotten 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Criticism" heading, the final sentence read "They have been critized [sic] for being an animal rights group undercovered [sic] as physicians." I have removed this for being unsourced, not to mention it being grammatical nonsense. Bricology (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Jonas was jailed some years after he departed from PCRM. Therefore I don't see how this is a valid criticism. Wikispan (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Atkins Autopsy Report

PCRM also plaid a role in publishing the Atkins autopsy report (actually, that wasn't technically what it was), which was unauthorized. I'm going to do some research to find some information about that and add it to the article.

Removed External Link to a Center for Consumer Freedom front-group website

It was one of their pretending-to-give-legitimate-information sites. Considering that the Center for Consumer Freedom is nothing but an organization of fast-food mega-corporations and other corporate interests, I don't think their information is a reasonable link here.

That's fine. However, since PCRM is an animal rights organization, and nothing else, this logic would of course mean that no article could cite the PCRM as a source for medical information, since its motives are completely focused around animal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.56.71 (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AMA

I'm wondering whether a proposed resolution to the AMA that failed should even be mentioned? [6] Otherwise, anyone could propose anything condemning an organiziation, and have it added to articles even if it never goes anywhere — so unless there are secondary sources showing it was a notable issue, I'm thinking it should be removed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way, someone contacted me by email and pointed out that it never actually passed, so I amended it accordingly. I guess the point is that the AMA do hold the opposite position to the PCRM, which is notable and relevant. Mentioning that they chose to reaffirm that principle in place of a motion criticizing PCRM is less important perhaps. Rockpocket 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered either. I'm happy for you to decide. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The PCRM press officer emailed me with concerns about the accuracy of the article (the AMA resolution being the most pressing). I think he has a point, as its in pretty poor shape really. I told him he could make non-controversial changes himself as long as he self identified for COI concerns and anything else he should discuss here first. If I get some time I'll try and put some effort in over the holiday period and re-write that section in entirety. Rockpocket 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In RE new section "Controversy and ties to animals rights groups"

Another editor added [7] the section "Controversy and ties to animals rights groups" with an uneven assortment of criticisms and observations. Some of it seems like the 'guilty by association' type of disparagement. At the least the section needs more context, like presenting the orgnizations listed in the first sentence as lobbyists for meat and dairy industries and animal research. And I believe it's still preferable to incorporate this criticism within body text and not as a separate section, especially with such a short article. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This new section is a hodgepodge of 'guilt by association' type criticisms, linking two individuals who are no longer members of PCRM, and employing non neutral language like "accused", which is undesirable and unnecessary. Other sentences lack clear attribution; plus one is carbon copy from the section immediately below. If there is some membership overlap between different organisations then we must describe that using neutral language, as dispassionate as possible, avoiding the most salacious soundbytes from hired lobby groups funded to oppose the activities of PCRM. Or, if we are to be consistent, these groups and their sources of funding should themselves be identified. I'm removing the section until editors can agree on notability, quality and individual wording of each sentence. Wikispan (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section was a mess, however there was some well sourced and cogent info in there about the funding of PCRM, and their links with PETA. I've added those back. Rockpocket 22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem with the text. The references do not all support the statement that "PCRM are a front organization for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". That assertion belongs to The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), an industry lobby group, which frequently criticizes PCRM. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) simply note that CCF have made this accusation without independently affirming the truth of the statement. Their critique is dedicated to nutrition advice. Given the obvious sourcing problems, I wish to see direct quotes in support of the third source (Foundation for Biomedical Research). It's important to get this right. Can anyone assist with that? Wikispan (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the book states that industry groups such as CCF and FBR call PCRM a front for PETA, PETA et al call CCF a front for industry. I don't think one is going to affirm the truth of those statements. Its clearly a matter of opinion what constitutes a "front group." The question is whether the opinion of their opponents merit space on their respective articles. I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but it probably makes sense to be consistent. Rockpocket 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found the quote, it is: "... The CCF rejects PCRM's claims to scientific legitimacy and denounces them as a 'terrorist front group' for PETA and SHAC." Given the book is clearly sympathetic of the AR perspective, I think that is pretty strong support for CCF's statement (but nothing about FBR). Doesn't tell its true, though. Rockpocket 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through a few more sources, I think it is the Nature Medicine profile of Barnard that cites the FBR's take on PCRM. I don't have access to the full text right now, but I'll try and get hold of it tomorrow. Rockpocket 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe CCF's antics are particularly relevant. It's a tiny borderline fringe attack organization that's in the business of slinging mud at individuals and organization that it perceives to stand in the way of its corporate sponsors. The comments are not terribly cogent. They aren't a legitimate criticism of PCRM or any other group, so they're only relevant and of due weight if the attacks themselves have a noteworthy effect on their target. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect, that is your opinion. What is important, I think, is using objective assessments of how notable their criticism is. Here we have reliable third-party sources describing the CCF criticism of PCRM, which rather argues they are relevant to those sources. In contrast, we have all sorts of criticism on the CCF page from groups like PCRM, cited to their websites and even blogs. As I said, let's show some consistency. I would argue if criticism is described by reliable sources it's in. If not, it's out. Rockpocket 08:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

From the Nature Medicine article: "...[PCRM's] connection to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is evidence of its radical animal rights agenda, says Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research in Washington...". So again, a reliable source considers the comments to be cogent. Rockpocket 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Wikispan (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note on the NYT source: Joe Sharkey, "Perennial Foes Meet Again in a Battle of the Snack Bar," New York Times, November 23, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/business/23road.html .. I had to copy/paste the link in my (older) browser -- clicking on it only brings up (for me, at least) the NYT subscription page. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

'Industry lobbyists'

The word 'organisation' was changed into 'industry lobbyists' by User PrBeacon. I think this is POV, I have changed back to 'organisations' stating what type of organisations they are - i.e non-profit. Cheers Kelly2357 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe WP:Due and WP:Criticism policies allow us to qualify criticism to give it more context, as I've seen in plenty of other articles. While I can understand how it may seem POV by some, your use of 'non-profit' is not sufficiently descriptive. I await to see what other editors think. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think readers can click through and decide what sort of organizations they are for themselves. There are lots of claim and counter-claim about whether groups these groups (including PCRM) are lobby groups, fronts, grass-roots led etc. We should not be taking sides by choosing a descriptor. Rockpocket 20:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the description of the two groups from their respective Wikipedia pages because I felt that it put the issue in more context (I'd been curious about it and, after clicking through, felt like I got a very different picture of the debate than I did from just the PCRM article). Rocket, Kelly, how would you feel if I updated the article to frame this slightly differently, such as: "PCRM is embroiled in a public relations battle with two organizations that represent the interests of restaurant and food producers and animal experimentation, respectively: The (so and so) says (such and such), and the (so and so) says (such and such). In response the PCRM claims that these groups are... (rest of second paragraph here).", citing the new york times article to support this phrasing. After reading the set of wiki pages and some of the supporting documentation, I think that one of the most salient facts about these quotes and the NYT article is that these groups have been engaged in a battle of words for years and that all of them have ties to what many readers would consider potentially biased interest groups. I found it fascinating and wished I'd gotten that sense from the main PCRM article. (Sorry for not being logged in; I'm having password-finding problems.- DavidAndersen) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.60.187 (talk)

BLP violations

I'm concerned that recent editing of the article is veering close to a BLP violation. PCRM consists of a small group of named professionals, but we're allowing side-of-mouth criticism to be added without making clear that the sources are industry lobby groups, and when that information is added, it's being removed again. [8] [9] [10] BLP says:

This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must comply with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

Any contentious criticism should be sourced to high-quality secondary sources; it should be made clear who the original sources are; and it should be written in a disinterested tone. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We are told PCRM "has a paid staff of 35, with a membership of approximately 9,000 physicians, and 120,000 supporting members". Calling this a "a small group or organization" to invoke BLP is a push. Irrespective, I've said elsewhere, I'm all for this but it should be consistent. When PCRM criticism is mentioned in other articles we rightly don't, for example, say, "PCRM, a quasi-scientific organisation part-funded by PETA, ..." despite that being how they are described by a high-quality secondary source. We either don't describe them at all, or we describe them how they see themselves ("non-profit organization that promotes a vegan diet" etc). We should give other groups, including the CCF, the same courtesy. Thus: either no descriptor and let the reader decide for themselves or, "CCF, a lobby group dedicated to protecting consumer choices". Rockpocket 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A group of 35 people is a small one, especially when most are administrative staff, and the number of key figures significantly smaller. As for CCF, they are not a reliable source. We include their view only because it's mentioned by a reliable source—and it's mentioned tongue in cheek—so there's no reason not to make clear that it's a lobby group.

We don't mention PCRM's criticism of CCF in the latter article. Ought we to add that, in your view, and without mentioning the nature of PCRM? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Many large organizations are run by small numbers of paid staff. I think most reasonable people would say an organization of 129,000 members does not fall under BLP restrictions. As I said below, if I had may way I would strip all the criticism from these lobby groups about each other. But, if not, we should at least consistent with what the reliable sources say. If sources quote PCRM's criticism if CCF, then include it - but we should make sure we use the same principles when deciding how to describe them (or not). Rockpocket 10:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you would include a description of PCRM if you used it as a source of criticism on another page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Break 1

Rocket: The CCF's web page indicates that "The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers." The WashPost article about them makes it very clear that they are an industry advocacy group funded by "tobacco-company and restaurant money", originally to "fight smoking curbs in restaurants." In other words, it's clear that they're not a reliable source, after you dig more into them. While readers are likely to be immediately well-equipped to judge the bias of a well-known organization such as the New York Times, the CCF is less well known, and omitting the context gives them an inappropriate air of impartiality. It would be just as inappropriate to cite comments from PETA about CCF without making the context more clear, unless you judge PETA well-known enough that their bias would be apparent merely from mention of their name. In either case, wouldn't it be incorrect to use a potentially biased group's self-reported description when that description is at odds with the way they're described in several reliable, verifiable sources (such as the NYT and WashPost articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAndersen (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly: I noticed that your most recent edit removed the names of several of the groups that were previously listed, substantially changing the tone of the paragraph describing the CCF. But your commit message notes merely "tweaked writing" - not quite a tweak. What's the rationale behind this? I can't help but notice that your edit history on other pages, such as that for The China Study contains a number of other cases in which you've added content that is negative towards topics that related to vegetarianism (or veganism). In the article on Brumby, you changed phrasing such as "animal welfare" to "Horse lovers and animal rights organizations", a substantially more negative description of these groups. Your edit to the article on Casein changed the introduction to imply that the exact same protein was found in cow's, human's, and goat's milk, when this is not correct - the form of Casein in human milk is homologous to cow's milk, but not strictly identical. You made similar changes to the article on Fur, and a few others. What's the deal? DavidAndersen (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

please read the talk pages of these articles before making assumptions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brumby

If a wiki is about a controversial subject/thing, then referenced criticism should be included.Kelly2357 (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also been concerned elsewhere about Kelly's editing. He has said he's a scientist, but I can't see a scientist being exclusively focused on promoting the benefits of cows' milk, fur, meat, seal-hunting, and the Center for Consumer Freedom. He has also made edits I don't think any scientist would have made, e.g. this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a 'he' - bad accusation once again. Also, i am a lab tech, i get paid around $18 a hour (near minimum wage) so sorry if my edits do not sound 'scientific' enough for you, scientists are usually not the best at grammar anyhow.

Why do you care what I have edited? I am simply following similar subjects that ARA/Vegans seem to be editing frequently. Many dominate these wikis with their strong personal opinions on animal rights, making the articles sound very POV. I am simply a lab tech (metalworking industry) who likes to play 'mediator and mythbuster'. Kelly2357 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Break 2

I don't support the inclusion of CCF criticism on this page or any other article, or PCRM criticism of anything or anyone else on any other article. I think these advocacy / lobby groups are simply different sides of the same coin, and documenting their sniping at each other is pretty unencyclopaedic. Butif they are to be included then we should be consistent. Either call them all what they are, according to reliable sources, or not. I keep hearing, either implied or explicitly, that because CCF are industry funded bad guys we have to "warn" readers about their bias. Well, look at it the other way. We know PCRM gets as much of its budget from PETA, omitting that context gives them an inappropriate air of impartiality (which is implied by their name: "physicians" supporting "responsible medicine"). So likewise, wouldn't it be incorrect to use a potentially biased group's self-reported description, or no description at all, when that description is at odds with the way they're described in reliable, verifiable sources?

By the way, I also protest the way that the Observer report is qualified in this article - the implication being because they "cite" CCF then it may not be reliable. This is highly unusual, I don't think I have ever seen such an attempt to undermine a reliable source in this way on Wikipedia. Again, reflects on the how editor POV is influencing the writing of these articles. Rockpocket 10:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't include it, and as I recall we don't include lobby group criticism on the CCF page, so by all means remove it here, RP. The Observer was using CCF as its source, or more specifically David Markuso (sp?), who seems to be what CCF consists of. The way it was written made it look as though there were two sources: him and a newspaper. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This (removing the CCF criticism entirely) seems like a good solution. Is it worth trying to find a way to refer to the independently interesting conflict between these groups? Or just leave it be now that there seems to be consensus? (I may be the only one who finds it that interesting...) Is a "see also" to the NYT "perennial foes" article appropriate, or does it come too far out of left field if the basic fight hasn't been explained? DavidAndersen (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"This is highly unusual, I don't think I have ever seen such an attempt to undermine a reliable source in this way on Wikipedia. Again, reflects on the how editor POV is influencing the writing of these articles" - could not have said it better myself Rockpocket! Kelly2357 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Kelly. It was Rockpocket who suggested we stop using lobby groups as a source of opinion about other lobby groups. I agree, because it's pointless, and I've raised the same concern elsewhere in the past. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

maybe i am reading it wrong but Rockpocket looks to be talking about the editors here such as SlimVirgin that keep censoring reliable articles such as the Observer, stating "I don't think I have ever seen such an attempt to undermine a reliable source in this way on Wikipedia" .... I could be misunderstanding it though. Kelly2357 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually check who qualified The Observer report in that way, so it wasn't a criticism of any individual in particular. Just as general concern about treating this lobby group with the same fairness we treat others. I've removed the offending text now, though, so no harm done. Rockpocket 12:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rockpocket, as you know, we need secondary sources for anything contentious, especially anything that impacts negatively on living people. I've removed as a source the website of the lobby group American Council on Science and Health. I'm happy to restore it in a footnote if we also find a secondary sources that reports their view. You requested consistency, and I agree that we should approach all these lobby groups' opinions in the same manner. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. I didn't check that source or else I would have moved the entire section myself. Rockpocket 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This new addition of the ACSH criticism (sourced from a rebuttal on the PCRM's website) seems like more of the same thing -- trying way too hard to find a way to insert special-interest fights into the page. I'm not disputing the factual correctness that "a group said such and such", but I don't believe that this sniping between the groups adds substance to the article. As Slim and Rocket both suggested, it seems silly to give lots of page space to the opinions of conflicting lobby groups about other lobby groups. At this point, I would oppose having PCRM criticism on ASCH's page and oppose having ASCH criticism on PCRM's page. It's noise in a sea of posturing. Can we keep this article to factual information that originates with reliable sources? DavidAndersen (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly has restored it by adding another primary source. We need at least one secondary (uninvolved) reliable source, such as a news report, showing that the criticism is worth mentioning. Once we have that we can discuss whether it's worth adding these views at all, but without the sources there's nothing we can look at. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

but the source is from PCRM itself http://www.pcrm.org/news/release050628.html - does that mean all 20 references from PCRM should be removed as they are all primary sources? I thought if the reference is from the wiki subject own page, it is allowed?Kelly2357 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can use self-published sources in articles about themselves, but with certain caveats: including "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". This does question the use of PCRM press releases for some content in the article. For example,

PCRM has responded to groups it says are funded by the meat, dairy or chemical industries by stating it has no corporate affiliation with any animal protection group, and that PETA's contribution to PCRM was small.[24] They say critics such as the Center for Consumer Freedom resort to "distortion and name-calling" by labeling health advocates as "food police" and "Nazis," and animal protection groups as radicals or terrorists.[25]

This is a claim about a third party supported only by a SPS. I would suggest we make sure anything cited to a PCRM press release only discusses PCRM, not its adversaries. Rockpocket 12:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer to this, of course, is to find some neutral third party source that describes with dispute between these groups. Between this, this and this we should be able to document the dispute without needing to rely on SPS's about each other. Rockpocket 12:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A request

I'd like to request some common sense on this page. This is a bunch of doctors and people with other forms of biomedical training who have gotten together to advise people on the health benefits of a plant diet. Those health benefits are very real, as just about anyone who has adopted it can testify. People going to their physicians nowadays are often gently steered in that direction if they have cardiovascular issues, diabetes, etc. It's not contentious.

Some or all of PCRM's directors have developed animal rights sympathies over the years, but so what? That is also becoming an increasingly less contentious position, and with every year that passes that becomes even more true.

Two editors on this page have strong anti-AR feelings. It isn't fair to impose those feelings on this article. The only people who have strongly criticized PCRM that I'm aware of are the Center for Consumer Freedom—a pro-meat and dairy lobby group—and one or two pro-animal-testing lobby groups with links to the pharmaceutical industry. They do that because the more we follow PCRM's advice, the more their bottom line is threatened.

Unlike its critics, PCRM has no financial interests in the advice it gives. So please let's make sure this article doesn't end up as an attack page on behalf of those who do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't very helpful, SV. You're not in a position to make an informed comment on other editors "feelings". So don't.

PCRM shouldn't get any special treatment based on your perception of right and wrong. Lobbyist and special interest groups all have their own agendas, whether it is based on financial or ideological goals. Painting it in simplistic terms of physicians looking out for us vs industry lobbyists out to make money is naive, and not reflected in the reliable sources. All we have to do is follow our policies (and that includes commenting on content, not on the contributor) and leave the moralizing out of it. Rockpocket 14:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RP, please consider editing in a way that doesn't involve attacking people who don't like what you do for a living. Kelly, it's clear from your editing that there's an agricultural connection. There's no point in asking you to do otherwise, because it's the only reason you're here. All I can do is advise you that lobbyists often get caught.

agriculture? Sure, if you count my 4 tomato plants I have growing on my apartment balcony at the moment! Why are you so paranoid and defensive? Seems to be a reoccurring theme with some vegans/ARA when they see truthful edits that do not 'like'. The response they usually come up with is "they MUST work for the blah blah industry". Kelly2357 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I spent the last couple of days dealing with tobacco industry accounts attacking their opponents' products, and I'm sick of it. Wikipedia is being dragged down by this kind of editing, and RP it's naive to suggest financial interests aren't at the root of most of it. You really can't tell the difference between people promoting interests other than their own, and people trying to earn money for their clients?

The only thing we should be doing here is writing an article that explains what PCRM is and does, and why, adding valid criticism from high-quality sources if it exists. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

SV, perhaps you should consider editing in a way that doesn't involve attacking people because you don't like what they do for a living. I notice that it didn't take long before the hints about "consequences" arose. Well, now my identity is public knowledge and so you can't "out" me, I invite you to take this to any venue to you choose and we can see if the community thinks.

On the matter of this article. I couldn't agree more that we should be adding valid criticism where it exists:

• Dr. Jeanne Goldberg, director of the Center on Nutrition Communication at Tufts University, a dietician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, says "many of the arguments that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine makes" [are] "not grounded in good science." [11]
• "They are committed advocates against use of animals in any way, shape, form or manner, so they're not objective," says Robert Baratz, an internist in private practice in Boston, who is president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a nonprofit that fights medical quackery. [12]

The fact is PCRM's agenda (ideological), just like CCF's agenda (financial), is not widely supported by mainstream scientists and dietitians. We don't need to use criticism by smear groups like the CCF, but neither do we ignore the fact that criticism of PCRM's agenda is well documented by reliable neutral source. Rockpocket 14:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rockpocket, you don't find me going around Wikipedia adding criticism to articles about animal researchers, and I have zero financial interest in any of this. If you were to discover that people being paid by animal rights groups were adding criticism of animal testing or animal testers, you would rightly be up in arms, especially when there were BLP concerns.

I don't know what you mean by: " I notice that it didn't take long before the hints about "consequences" arose. Well, now my identity is public knowledge and so you can't "out" me ..." Please explain. What do you mean about "outing," what are the "consequences," and where are the "hints"?

In the meantime, the article is a dog's breakfast, which of course the editors here with activist interests couldn't care two hoots about, so long as you can get in your digs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I am not being paid by anyone to add criticism of anyone or anything. Ironically, that allegation itself sits uncomfortably with regards to BLP. I have no financial interest in the success or failure of PCRM either (in fact, I wholeheartedly support the promotion of vegetarian diets and finding alternatives to animal research). But that doesn't mean I'm blind to their critics or agenda. I'm not quite sure what sparked the personal vitriol in this section, perhaps your ire at the tobacco lobbyists you mention has carried over here, but I'm not interested in getting involved. If you believe my (or anyone else's) editing of these articles is biased and non-conductive to the interests of the project, then I suggest you try WP:RfC. If not, lets leave the personal comments out of it and focus on policy please. Rockpocket 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what you meant about outing, hints, and consequences. That sounds as though you're making a serious allegation.

I'm just tired of certain people always adding certain views. Must editors who privately support Israel always edit from an Israeli perspective? Must people who oppose animal rights always add criticism to articles that imply support for it, and never add anything good? It's intellectually deadening. Learning involves opening yourself to the possibility that other world views may be just as valid as our own. Read about neuroplasticity: use it or lose it. We should all give our brains a treat and edit from a perspective we disagree with occasionally, and do it as though we mean it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the reason I stopped editing pages associated with animal rights or experimentation early last year or the year before. There was an exchange of emails which, if you re-read, should make my concerns clear. In short, it was your threat to bring a case of some sort, alleging scientists who choose to work with animals should not be permitted to edit articles related to animal experimentation because of a supposed COI. I inferred, from you comments, that would involve publicly revealing my personal details, of which you were aware. I was not happy with this, given ongoing harassment issues related to WP, and chose to disengage completely. The tone of your "request" reminded me very much of that.

I understand your concern about editing from one perspective, but strongly object to the implication that I am one of those editors. A review of my editing history will reveal I have rewritten similar articles and added "good" stuff, as well as "bad" stuff (see the history of Neal D. Barnard, for example). I also challenge you to show me where I have "added criticism" to this article recently. Quite the opposite, in fact, I have advocated removing it. Therefore I don't really appreciate being lectured on how to write fairly. I would have thought five years of sanction-free editing and single-handedly writing couple of featured articles would earn one some good faith. Rockpocket 17:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you go back and read that exchange yourself, where I made it explicitly clear that I would not "out" you, and you're skating on thin ice trying to suggest otherwise. Bear in mind that you outed yourself to a large number of anonymous Wikipedians on Facebook and elsewhere, so lots of people have known your name for a long time, and you've been making it clear onwiki that you were an animal researcher for as long as I've known you. That gives you a financial and professional interest in the continuation of animal experimentation, and in my view it means you should tread extra carefully when adding criticism to articles about people who oppose what you do. You may disagree with their criticism, but whether it's right or wrong, it's legitimate, and they're entitled to expect that animal researchers, especially anonymous ones, won't use Wikipedia to undermine them.

As for editing from both perspectives, my request is that we make an extra effort to edit neutrally in this area. You and I have both tried to do that in the past, and we've supported each other for doing it, even when we've disagreed on the substantive issues. My perception is that you do it less than you used to. I could be wrong, but I hope you'll respect that perception. I would listen to the same critique if I heard it from you about my editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of exactly what you said latterly, but I was describing what I inferred from your comment at the time. Likewise, if you go back and read that exchange yourself you'd be aware that I made it explicitly clear why I have no financial and professional interest in the continuation of animal experimentation. Yet you repeat that allegation. Funny how people interpret things differently, isn't it? Rockpocket 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think for someone who makes a living from animal experiments to argue that he has no financial or professional interest in it continuing strains common sense. That's particularly true when you're editing material about opposition to animal research in the small part of the community in the UK that you work in, as you have done. The issue is especially contentious and politicized in the UK for various reasons, something you must be aware of.

The point is this: if a Wikipedian were to go around adding or restoring poorly researched criticism to articles about animal researchers, or removing material that might serve to illuminate their position, you would strongly object if you discovered that person worked for an anti-vivisection group (no matter what they were paid to do; they worked for one). That's all I want to say about it. If you won't take that point, and can't accept the analogy, I can't force you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Common sense, in this case, means ignorance of how academic science works. As I've told you before, I do not "make a living from animal experiments." No one pays me to do them, no one forces me to do them, no-one is in a position to advance or harm my career as a result of me choosing to do, or not do, experiments involving animals. There is something called academic freedom that is enshrined in my contract. If, for whatever reasons, animal experimentation was banned tomorrow, it wouldn't negatively impact me financially or professionally. I would still have a job, and continue my research (much of which is computer based anyway). It would simply mean another consideration when choosing the most effective experiments to do. Some of my faculty colleagues do choose to use animals and others don't, some choose to use cells and others don't, yet we are all employed under the same conditions. Does that mean every academic scientist has a COI with regards to every experimental technique? That is ridiculous and directly at odds with what Jimbo has said regarding professionals contributing to Wikipedia. For example, if making a free choice to do something constitutes a conflict of interest, then your choice to not eat makes it a COI for you to edit about vegetarianism.

With regards to your second point. If you are accusing me of "adding or restoring poorly researched criticism to articles" then please provide diffs. If not, then why is it analogous? But on the wider point. Would I care if someone was editing who worked for an anti-viv group? Not really (I expect a few editors I have worked with probably do), so long as they obey our policies. Since "adding or restoring poorly researched criticism to articles" is not obeying our policies then I would have an issue. But, importantly, it is the edits that are the problem, not the editor's job. Rockpocket 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to continue debating this here. Suffice to say I don't believe you'd last five minutes in your field in the UK if you started voicing opposition to using animals in experiments, or if you were to become a vegan, say. Scientists in the UK wanting access to labs take risks if they go off-message, because people are highly security conscious these days. So if you were to edit in a way that was genuinely neutral in the field of animal rights—where you were willing to expand material, willing to add good sources from an AR, as well as an anti-AR, perspective—you'd be taking a risk.

You asked for an example of you restoring poor sources. I don't want to hunt for diffs, but here are two recent ones from this article. You removed the descriptions of the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Foundation for Biomedical Research that made clear they were lobbyists. [13] You removed that the American Council for Science and Health is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, [14] when you should have removed the reference entirely as a primary source. I don't want to spend time now looking through your edits, but if I ever have the time, I'll add to this section diffs of you editing in exactly the opposite direction when it comes to citing sources that oppose animal testing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Since you don't work in my field in the UK, you'll forgive me if I treat your analysis with the utter contempt it deserves. Its staggering how utterly naive you are on this subject. Even more staggering is the fact you think you are in a position to lecture others on something you clearly have no clue about. Not only is it illegal in the UK, but only an imbecile would discriminate against a talented scientist on the basis of what they choose to eat or what their moral beliefs or ethical beliefs are. There are a number of vegans in my institute (and both members of my team are vegetarian). I also have a excellent PhD student who is not comfortable working with animals. That is her choice, and so she has a project that doesn't involve working with animals. You "don't believe she'd last five minutes in my field"? She was selected out of over 200 applicants.

You've done a spectacular job in alienating me from wanting to work with you again, in less than a week back in this area. Please feel free to log any edit of mine you please. I assure you, next time you try threaten a scientist with this COI crap, I will be using your comments above to illustrate how loony your understanding of science is, which - in my view - really brings into question whether you should be allowed anywhere near these articles. Rockpocket 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RP, if our exchange has evolved into insults alone, it's time to end it or take it to a subpage. If you have anyone working with you who actively speaks out in public against animal research and has survived unscathed in your field, please let me know elsewhere and I'll be happy to apologize for my staggering naiveté. It's something I would like to be wrong about.

As far as this article is concerned, and others like it, we seem to agree that using primary sources and lobby groups is inappropriate, and that we need to treat them all alike. I therefore suggest that we stick to using secondary sources—except per SPS—and that we use primary sources only to augment secondary ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lobbyists

As there seems to be consensus on this page that the lobby group section was problematic, I've reduced it to one criticism each, based on the NYT article, which I think we agree is an unproblematic secondary source. That section now says:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the foundation that manages it—the Foundation to Support Animal Protection, also known as the PETA Foundation—donated over $850,000 to PCRM between 1988 and 2000. PCRM has responded to criticism about this from groups it says are funded by the meat, dairy, or chemical industries by stating it has no corporate affiliation with any animal protection group, and that PETA's contribution to PCRM was small.

PCRM—along with PETA and groups such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving—has been the subject of public criticism for several years by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a non-profit lobby group representing the fast-food industry. The New York Times reported CCF's and PCRM's criticism of each other in 2004. CCF called PCRM a front for PETA, arguing that when PCRM offers health advice, they "do a very slick job of obscuring their real intentions," which is simply to oppose the use of meat, dairy products and alcohol. PCRM responded that, "If you are in the business of putting veal or beef on the tables of America, and slaughtering more than a million animals per hour, and making an awful lot of money at it, you are going to try to neutralize PETA or other animal-rights groups."

If any editor here has access to the Nature article we use—Wadman, Meredith. "Profile: Neal Barnard", Nature, 12, 602 (2006)—I'd appreciate if you could email me a copy (slimvirgin at gmail dot com), so I can check that we're using it properly, and in case there's other material from it we can add. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I can access the Nature article, but am not legally permitted to send it to you. I can quote the section that deals with this, though. I think this is fine for a a section about criticism between the rival groups. However, I also think reliably sourced concerns over PCRM's advocacy of a vegan diet (such as those I've reproduced above) are warranted to illustrate that their claims are considered to be ideology driven and not always supported by mainstream scientific thinking. These should be woven into the appropriate section rather dumped in a criticism section. Rockpocket 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding anything from high-quality sources, woven in as you say, so long as it's not a SYN violation. That is, it should be someone criticizing PCRM's or Barnard's views, and not along the lines of: "PCRM advocates a vegetarian diet. However, a 1972 study in Iceland showed that carrots make you grow two heads." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding 2c here: I think that the current version ("The New York Times reported CCF's and PCRM's criticism of each other") strikes a good balance - it provides information that's relevant to understanding the political landscape in which PCRM is operating without (imho) taking a position on the criticism itself. The financial relationship between PETA and PCRM is reported factually, as is the founder's relationship with PETA's newsletter. Thanks to all involved for substantially improving the quality of this article as I've been watching it evolve... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAndersen (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Research

Could someone add a Research section to this page? "The Physicians Committee has studied the effects of a plant-based diet on diabetes. Their work has been published in journals such as Nutrition & Diabetes." PaperHydrate (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Would need secondary sourcing to establish weight. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Am I not understanding what a secondary source is? The research is mentioned in the article above. It's not a primary source (the study itself, as published in the journal). Thank you in advance for helping me understand. PaperHydrate (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The study is a primary source as regards itself, of course. A secondary source would provide analysis and commentary from a detached perspective. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Right, the study would be the primary source, but an article about the study would be secondary. Why isn't the LiveScience article considered a secondary source?

2011 Lawsuit with the USDA

Could someone add a new section to hold this information about the group? "In 2010, the Physicians Committee petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to abandon its MyPyramid diagram (ref: "Which is the best nutrition guide?" Raquel C. Bagnol, Marianas Variety, March 30, 2010). In 2011, the Physicians Committee filed suit in federal court to compel USDA to respond (ref: "PCRM sues federal agencies over dietary guidelines" Tim Carman, The Washington Post, February 15, 2011). USDA then released “My Plate,” which favored fruits, grains, and vegetables, and replaced the “meat group” with a “protein” group that includes beans, tofu, and other plant sources of protein, as well as meat products (ref: "USDA’s MyPlate vs PCRM’s PowerPlate" Food Wired, June 8, 2011)." PaperHydrate (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Any decent sources? Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Is The Washington Post not considered decent? Would you consider something more along these lines? "In 2011, the Physicians Committee filed suit in federal court to compel USDA to respond a petition it filed in 2010 regarding the USDA's MyPyramid food diagram. (ref: "PCRM sues federal agencies over dietary guidelines" Tim Carman, The Washington Post, February 15, 2011)." PaperHydrate (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is for the law suit itself, but you seem to want to imply some cause-and-effect as a result? Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I hear you. Would you consider something more along these lines? "In 2011, the Physicians Committee filed suit in federal court to compel USDA to respond a petition it filed in 2010 regarding the USDA's MyPyramid food diagram. (ref: "PCRM sues federal agencies over dietary guidelines" Tim Carman, The Washington Post, February 15, 2011)." PaperHydrate (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there are striking resemblance between the USDA pyramid and the PCRM pyramid, which reportedly emerged earlier? "USDA’s MyPlate vs PCRM’s PowerPlate" Could that have been from 'a leak' OR from two research efforts confronting and engaging the same nutritional data? Surely we would not SAY that the USDA COPIED the work of PCRM. MaynardClark (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126031051/http://pcrm.org/about/index.html to http://www.pcrm.org/about/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)