Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:35, 17 December 2012

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Talk:Mobile operating system

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mobile operating system (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Davidkmartin (talk · contribs)
• Smartmo (talk · contribs)
• 217.30.64.34 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Smartmo (talk • contribs) (removed, either sock or other party. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)) keeps posting failed predictions of International Data Corporation on Mobile operating system. He also deletes other analysts predictions that he does not like. He did edit-warring for a while before he got blocked, but continues again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An incident was filled: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Smartmo_keeps_putting_WP:CRYSTALBALL_failed_predictions_on_Mobile_operating_system that blocked Smartmo (talk • contribs) for some days but he is back using an IP address.

I also tried to request page protection: Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive but I was suggested to continue to discuss.

How do you think we can help?

By trying again to make him understand that Misplaced Pages needs to have a neutral point of view. That he cannot use Misplaced Pages for his own interests. And it that fails block his account again and protect Mobile operating system.

Opening comments by Smartmo

It is not true, I'm kept the most up to date research from IDC (this research is not failed, no one can say if is failed, because it is in future, year 2012 still not ended), and I'm NOT removed other researches, I only removed RUMORS (e.g. untruth that "IDC had to dial back their predictions", but is not true, or personal opinion of Jim McGregor, or unclear and unsourced information of Bernstein research, ... all sources and reasons are discussed on talk page) repeatedly inserted by Davidkmartin (talk · contribs). Also I'm not back using an IP address, I using my login, and I'm never modified this page after this incident. Meanwhile, user Davidkmartin (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted back my contributions and contributions of another users, and repeatedly inserted non-credible rumors to this page (see above), inserted outdated information (old IDC information), and repeatedly DELETED up-to-date and credible information (most up-to-date IDC research form Dec 2012) from page (e.g. at 08:53, 7 Dec, 17:49, 7 Dec, 08:49, 8 Dec and 14:38, 8 Dec), without any discussion on talk page. I'm periodicaly contributed to wikipedia long ago on many pages (unlike Davidkmartin (talk · contribs)), but I'm stopped donating and contributing to Misplaced Pages, because there not a neutral point of view, I don't want continue with discussion about it.--Smartmo (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mobile operating system discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It does appear at this point that one of the primary disputants has chosen to leave Misplaced Pages. Unless there is some indication that they wish to continue this discussion within 24 hours after the time stamp on this post, then any volunteer may close this thread as stale or dispute abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what is the next steps? May I already revert Smartmo (talk • contribs) changes? - Davidkmartin (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting the 24 hours to see if Smartmo returns to this discussion, though there's nothing stopping you if you wish to go ahead, so long as doing so otherwise comports with Misplaced Pages policy (and I'm not suggesting that those reversions would or wouldn't comply with policy — I have no opinion about that having not looked). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what Davidkmartin wants to get back (I don't contribute on Misplaced Pages after incident), but I have evidence that Davidkmartin put on the wikipedia page lies and also erases truthful information without discussion on talk page.--Smartmo (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Smartmo (talk · contribs) please, stop lying! We already had extensive discussion on the talk page. Misplaced Pages needs to maintain a neutral point of view, not your point of view. Volunteers, please, read what I posted to see what Smartmo (talk · contribs) is doing (adding his own bias by removing content he does not like and putting failed predictions) -Davidkmartin (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Both: Please remember that this forum is only for content disputes. Please only discuss content, not conduct. If you wish to make a complaint about an editor's conduct, please use WP:AN or WP:RFC/U but do not raise it or discuss it here. @Smartmo: I'd encourage you to stick around, but if you are not going to continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages then this listing should be closed. Please clearly indicate your intentions. Saying that you're no longer going to contribute, but then continuing to post here is confusing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I already used WP:AN and Smartmo (talk · contribs) was blocked for a while for his conduct, but the block expired and he continues to force his point of view on Mobile operating system -Davidkmartin (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Organic food

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Organic food (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Montanabw (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)
• Yobol (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs)
• bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• Krem1234 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor wishes for the sourcing for (at least parts of) the article Organic food not to be subject to the WP:MEDRS guideline, and/or there is an unresolved question as to whether particular article content should fall under the WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussion on the article Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help us guide the discussion to a resolution. The article is full-protected until 14 December and we need to be well on the path to having a productive discussion so that the content dispute does not return to the article after unprotection.

Opening comments by Montanabw

My position is on the talk page already, but I will restate it here: As I see it, the first problem is use of the WP:MEDRS standard to create an NPOV problem: the removal of material with a pro-organic food slant, leaving only material with an anti-organic food slant. The second issue is if MEDRS should be applied to this article at all, not at all, or somewhere in-between? I would refine this question further: if MEDRS applies to this article at all, should it apply a) to ALL aspects of the article (including, e.g. farming methods, chemistry questions, etc.) ; b) only to "medical" or "health" claims (whatever those are, but this issue arose over a question of whether pesticide residues on non-organic foods have a cancer link, so let's focus on that one); and if b) applies, then c) Is the question of pesticide residue entirely a medical claim subject to MEDRS in the first place or is it also a non-medical question involving politics and other issues? if so, are these relevant to balance the NPOV of the article?

My position is that WP:RS is suitable, perhaps WP:SCIRS though, clearly, MEDRS sources are great - when available. Further, the edit I suggested (at talk) clearly identifies the sources and their POV so that the reader can assess the information for themselves. To me, the concerns raised are akin to early claims linking smoking to lung cancer or carbon emissions to climate change; mainstream researchers first debunked these claims, but now, with time, have upheld them. Most such concerns are raised long before there are sufficient mainstream studies, thus narrow MEDRS adherence may in fact violate NPOV. Further, my own position is stated at MEDRS itself: "sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." Montanabw 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Banner

A short respons: Focus of the conflict is a blatant refusal to allow more reliable sources into the chapter "Health and safety". It is rather weird that in an article about producing food and part of the WikiProject Agriculture, no agricultural sources are allowed to references statements about health, safety, nutrients and taste. Those agricultural sources, although of the highest standard, are treated as completely unreliable. The blanket ban of these sources has led to an article that is POV and one sided. It gives undue weight to the medical side of growing food, due to the fact that only medicals sources (WP:MEDRS) are allowed. Every statement using agricultural sources to back up claims in the chapter "Health and safety", are consequently removed. Discussion about this point was as walking into a concrete pillbox and proved utterly useless. The Banner _talk 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Yobol

The focus of the dispute seems to be about proper sourcing for portions of the article dealing with nutritional content and safety of organic foods. My reading of WP:MEDRS finds that any health claim in any article, whether about food or not, falls under WP:MEDRS, including Organic food. Others in the dispute have claimed that since this is a food article, WP:MEDRS doesn't apply in the article at all. Clearly MEDRS does not apply to non health related matters (such as specifics of farming). However, discussion of nutritional values and safety are clearly health claims, and therefore fall under WP:MEDRS. I would like sourcing of material to be appropriate for the content; medical/nutritional sources (in this case WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing) should be used for medical/nutritional claims; agricultural sources used for agricultural material.

A related side dispute has focused on the neutrality of the article, specifically regarding whether there is a bias about the conclusions from sources. The position of WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing is fairly clear in that there is no significant nutritional or safety benefits from either organic or conventional foods. Some have claimed that since "pro" organic food claims are not sufficiently represented, there is a bias, and therefore inferior sourcing needs to be added to adjust for this bias. I think this is putting the cart before the horse; this argument has neutrality and weight determined before hand, and sources found to support that bias, rather than letting the sources dictate what the neutral point of view is. This is clearly an inappropriate way to write this article from a neutral point of view. We should summarize what the best (MEDRS) sources say, no matter what the outcome; we should not artificially adjust the weight to some predetermined outcome and use inferior sources to justify them. If none of the best MEDRS compliant sources support organic food as superior, then that is the neutral point of view, and trying to shift it with inferior sourcing is POV pushing and has to stop. (I note that at no point has there been a presentation of a MEDRS compliant source to support the superiority of organic food; just the arguing of the use of non MEDRS to be used to justify that conclusion).Yobol (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opening statement is about 200 characters over the limit but it's not enough over the limit to need to get trimmed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

This may be a diversion. Since no one has presented any sources that meet the policy of neutrality, MEDRS does not arise. If we find that there is consensus in the literature of agricultural sciences that organic food is superior in nutrients, then this would be reflected in the literature in nutritional sciences, making the point moot. Only in the event that there was disagreement between different sciences on the same facts would MEDRS become an issue. But then we would expect reliable sources covering the dispute and could address the problem then. TFD (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by IRWolfie-

Noone has focused on the actual content under dispute. Here is the content under dispute: . As you can see it is full of claims about regular food being a cancer risk etc, thus WP:MEDRS sources are required. As you can also see, it's a WP:SYNTH being used explicitly to counter the MEDRS sources above it. Montanabw has been pushing that their is a large conspiracy to thwart small organic producers by "big grain" sourcing it to "Motherearthnews" and Cornucopia.org, commondreams.org amongst others, and that we shouldn't use MEDRS. The Banner has refused to clarify whether he think MEDRS sources are required for cancer risks. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by bobrayner

Keeping it short - DRN can involve a lot of reading and I don't want to make life harder for people.
I feel that WP:MEDRS is clear, from the first paragraph, that we expect stronger sourcing for medical & health claims even in articles that are mainly about other topics; in the same way that we apply WP:BLP to claims about living people in other articles. Talkpage discussion seems to suggest that the strongest sources do not support the kind of claims which some editors would like to see, and they would like to change the rules in order to allow less-reliable sources to be used which say different things; I would say that tweaking sourcing rules until we find something that says what we want is back-to-front. bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by uninvolved MrADHD

WP:MEDRS is a guideline to cover medical content, such as medical facts and medical claims. Any use of MEDRS outside of medical content is a WP:GOODFAITHed misuse of MEDRS. From a very brief brief look at this dispute it may be the case that people on both sides of the dispute are not interpreting policies and guidelines appropriately.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Organic food discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. MedRS only applies to parts of articles relating to medicine, and WP:RS is for other things. High-quality reliable references are good, but avreage RSs are also good as they are reliable nontheless. I would like a list of the references of which this dispute is centered upon. We will still wait though for the two other parties before discussion.

• Clarification: I think (hope?) that all the parties involved can agree that this diff is the core of the dispute, notably the inclusion of the paragraph beginning "However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council ..." and then the previous paragraphs that begin that section, which outline the opposing view. Montanabw 22:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can outline why you restored material about cancer risks which was inadequately sourced and a synthesis to counter the previous section. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), your last edit, where you have a diff showing IRWolfie- threatening an AN/I thread is not about the content dispute, but rather the behavioural side. I suggest you remove it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The remark was removed about 20 minutes before you wrote this. The Banner _talk 23:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:MEDRS says

Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge... This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine... Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles .

--Noleander (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(Emphasis added to foregoing quote.) So, if it is health-related content then MEDRS applies. Based upon the responses given by the disputants, above, however, I'm not quite sure whether the dispute here is really:

1. A dispute over whether MEDRS applies to particular content or, on the other hand,
2. Not a dispute over whether MEDRS applies, there being agreement that it does, but a dispute over whether it should be applied in this particular case because to do so causes (it is argued) the article to be unbalanced.

Would someone care to clarify that distinction? I suppose that it might be possible that both disputes exist. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the Talk page (and the opening statements above), there are a couple additional issues involved in addition to the two that TrasnporterMan mentions above:

3) Given that MEDRS applies to health-related material, can "agricutural" RSs be used for such material (in addition to medical/scientific sources)?

4) Under what circumstances, if any, can health claims be included in the article without scientific/research RSs?

To illustrate issue (4), compare these two sentences:

a) "Organic food is healthier than non-organic food in the following way ..."

b) "Organization ABC states that organic food is healthier than non-organic food as follows ...."

Statement (a), in the encyclopedia's voice, does need strong sourcing per MEDRS, particularly scientific/research sources. However, statement (b) need not have scientific sourcing (in my opinion) because it is simply reporting who the proponents are, and what their claims are (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). --Noleander (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, my understanding of the range of the dispute is that there are basically three questions:

1. Does WP:MEDRS apply to sourcing for every biomedical claim in the article?

• There is an argument being brought forward that WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing need not be required for every biomedical claim in the article because it's a food and not a medical article.
• My view: I do not believe this view is correct. WP:MEDRS has wording indicating it applies to "biomedical information in all types of articles," and the fact that this is a food article does not release it from the need to have WP:MEDRS-quality sourcing for any biomedical claims it makes.

2. Can the article have biomedical claims not sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources alongside quite possibly contradictory claims supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing?

• There is an argument being brought forward that non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing needs to allowed to counter a perceived POV problem that the insistence on only WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for all biomedical claims introduces.
• My view: The "POV" introduced by insisting on WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for all biomedical claims is beneficial and the intended result of the application of Misplaced Pages guideline.

3. Are certain claims that the article makes or might make truly "biomedical" claims that require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing?

• Such claims are things like: Whether consumers express a difference in the taste or perceived quality of organic vs. non-organic food, or whether there are nutritional content or food safety differences (levels of amino acids, vitamins, pesticides) between the two types of foods.
• My view: These need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I feel that nutrition and food safety claims would fall under WP:MEDRS requirements.

Zad68 03:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not been involved in editing this article, but have made some comments in the talk. I think that Zad summarises the questions reasonably well, but I have a different view on the answer to those questions. In my view, the scope of 'biomedical' is being applied too widely by some editors on this page in respect of whether MEDRS applies. The nub of the problem in this respect is that research on organic food is frequently not conducted by medical experts, but by experts in agriculture or related disciplines, and this results in the articles being in journals that those editors are reluctant to accept. In addition, some of the areas under contention have a fairly limited number of peer reviewed articles, and editors are strongly pointing to the requirement in MEDRS to use review articles - there just aren't that many for this topic, and to me that is an indication to use some of the individual articles, with appropriate wording and attribution. At the moment, because of this insistence on MEDRS rather than just RS i believe that a systemic bias has been introduced, and whilst some editors think that this is a good thing, i think it runs against the principles and objectives which underly the WP sourcing policies. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 07:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think MEDRS is required for content about cancer risks? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If cancer is related to medicine (yes). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This complete focus on cancer is one of the techniques mr. Wolfie uses to kill off effective discussion. Above he is again hammering on the fact that I added a text about cancer. In fact, I just reverted a removal, but mr. Wolfie chooses to ignore that. Earlier in the discussion I removed a piece of POV, that mr. Wolfie immediately reverted. The case was that the IOFGA (organic certification organization) encourages "effective homeopathy". This can be looked up in their organic standards. But instead of accepting WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, he repeatedly added that homeopathy does work. Most likely that is true, but adding this in this article is out of place and totally POV. That case was solved by somebody else, who just removed the whole section. I agreed with that, because better no section than a POV one. But this attitude of mr. Wolfie makes working and discussing organic food very difficult. People are free to have their own opinions about organic food, but the article must be neutral at all times. The sourcing disagreement is one of the factors preventing the creation of a balanced, neutral article. The Banner 86.40.144.154 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC) at public computer

Here is the text which banner added: "The Soil Association's organic standards encourage the use of effective homeopathy and prevention on livestock, using veterinary medicines only in emergencies." (Highlight is my addition) . Clearly it indicates that some homeopathy is effective, a MEDRS claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a statement of the Soil Association. It is found in their Organic Standards, to be precise: page 138, section 10.10.21. So, this is a fact. However, you added the POV addition that it was not effective (). True or not, in this article it is out of place, POV and, in my opinion, no health claim. Just an advice to use a certain method. The Banner _talk 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Statements from other organizations have quotations, you said it in the wikipedia tone. That homeopathy is not effective isn't POV, it's an accurate summary of the secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another third party editor here. I think that Zad68's proposal of judging the sources on a case by case basis is promising. Perhaps the parties should list all of the contested sources? Then we'll discuss each source individually.--xanchester (t) 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie and Xanchester that we may, and probably will, ultimately have to look at individual assertions and sources, but we have to establish the ground rules first.

• Owain.davies comments, just above, perhaps puts the question into the best focus. My feeling about that is this: MEDRS says that it applies to health-related material. If the material that is under discussion is health-related, then MEDRS applies. Owain says that this inserts a systemic bias which "runs against the principles and objectives which underly the WP sourcing policies". I think that he's dead right, but is dead wrong about it being opposed to policy because the bias was clearly and intentionally considered and adopted by the community when MEDRS was adopted. The second paragraph of the lede of MEDRS says that pretty explicitly:

  "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

  This is an intentional and community-agreed-upon bias against health-related information not supported by MEDRS-quality sourcing due to the importance of the type of material involved. The existence of that bias is not, therefore, a legitimate objection to the application of MEDRS. That being the case, then if material is health-related, then MEDRS must apply. Is it possible that there are health-related areas which should be an exception to MEDRS? Certainly it is possible, but there are only two proper ways to deal with them: First, to seek to have MEDRS modified to allow those exceptions. Second, to create an IAR local exception to MEDRS in a particular article. Taking these one at a time, an exception to MEDRS must be discussed and created at the MEDRS talk page so that the entire community can have notice of it and take part, following the procedures outlined in the Policy policy (not a typo). This discussion is, therefore, inappropriate for that purpose. The second possibility, an IAR local exception, can and should occur at an article talk page, but must be adopted by a clear consensus since MEDRS is, per the Consensus policy the "established consensus" of the community. I've not counted heads or, per IRWolfie and Xanchester, evaluated arguments, but on first blush there certainly does not appear to be a consensus to create an exception to MEDRS. Thus, in my opinion, unless MEDRS is amended to provide for an exception for health-related material involving organic food, then MEDRS must be applied to all health-related material involving organic food unless an IAR local exception is created by consensus, which does not appear to have happened here.
• What, then, does health-related mean? In this case, it most obviously means any assertion that relates to the questions of whether organic food can either improve one's health over non-organic food or that organic food can prevent harm to one's health arising from non-organic food. There are issues relating to organic food which are not health-related, for example, that it is more appealing to the senses or that there are consumer issues regarding what should and should not be regarded as or labeled or regulated at organic food simply as a truth-in-advertising matter. But even those issues can become health-related (for example, an assertion that because organic food is more appealing to the senses that children are more likely to be willing to eat organic fruits and vegetables which, entirely apart from any claims that organic food is more healthy than non-organic food, will improve their health because children need more fruits and vegetables than they are ordinarily willing to eat or an assertion that the decision about which foods should be permitted to be labeled as being organic should turn on whether or not those foods are more health than non-organic foods) and when they do, then MEDRS must apply unless one of the exception-making procedures described above is adopted.
• Agricultural assertions: It depends, if they're health-related then they must be MEDRS-sourced; if they're not, then no.
• Non-MEDRS sources when discussing claims made for the benefit of organic foods: For example, and this is entirely made up for the purpose of this example, "Organizations X, Y, and Z claim that the consumption of organic citrus fruit reduces the risk of the common cold 25% more than non-organic citrus fruits." Those claims have been questioned and a controversy (outside of Misplaced Pages) has arisen. Can non-MEDRS sources be used to talk about that controversy? No, the controversy is over a health-related matter and only MEDRS sources can be used to discuss it. Does that mean that some claims and controversies, perhaps huge ones, cannot be reported in this article because there have been no MEDRS-quality evaluations of them. It means just that. Does it mean that only the MEDRS-biased evaluations get to appear in the article if there have been evaluations. It means that too, because the community has decided that's the way that it's going to be in adopting MEDRS.
• "Does WP:MEDRS apply to sourcing for every biomedical claim in the article?" Yes, for the reasons stated above. The Misplaced Pages community has decided that where health-related matters are concerned, only MEDRS-sourced material will be reported.
• "Can the article have biomedical claims not sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources alongside quite possibly contradictory claims supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing?" Yes, but only to the extent that those contradictory claims have been evaluated and reported on in MEDRS sources.
• "Are certain claims that the article makes or might make truly "biomedical" claims that require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing? Such claims are things like: Whether consumers express a difference in the taste or perceived quality of organic vs. non-organic food, or whether there are nutritional content or food safety differences (levels of amino acids, vitamins, pesticides) between the two types of foods." Answered above at more length, but: Taste is not alone a health-related claim but a health-related claim could be attached to it. Nutritional content may not be, if discussed in the absolute abstract, a health-related claim, but will be a health-related claim if it is claimed or implied that organic foods will improve your health in ways that consumption of non-organic foods will not. That's nearly always going to be the case, so claims about nutritional information are probably almost always going to require MEDRS sources and that's particularly likely if there is any controversy or dispute over the nutritional content.

This at least sets what I believe to be the baseline for this discussion and the analysis of the individual sources. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• 100% endorse TransporterMan's evaluation of what the dispute is and analysis of how Misplaced Pages policy and guideline should be applied. Zad68 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TransporterMan, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with TransporterMan's evaluation. Yobol (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reject. Not everything in the chapter "Health and safety" needs MEDRS. The Banner _talk 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Specific example

Here is an example identified above as a primary example of the dispute:

However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk. A 2012 risk assessment estimated that cancer benchmark levels in preschool children were exceeded for several toxic substances and recommended consumption of organic foods as one strategy for reducing risk. Proponents of organic food express concern that children are being exposed to hazardous levels of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In 1989, NRDC estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life. In a study conducted on children and adults in California, consumption of conventionally grown foods was associated with excessive cancer benchmark levels for all children for DDE, which was primarily sourced from dairy, potatoes, meat, freshwater fish, and pizza.

1. ^ Sewell B, Whyatt R (1989). "Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. ^ Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I (2012). "Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment". Environmental Health. 11 (1). PMID 23140444. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cite error: The named reference "Vogt" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Perhaps we could shift from speaking in generalities, and start focuing on this particular paragraph? --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference #1 Intolerable Risk, was written by Bradford H. Sewell and Robin M. Whyatt, M.P.H. It was published by Natural Resources Defense Council. It contains a list of about a dozen peer reviewers, including Henry Falk, MD, Joan Gussow, EdD, Steven Markowitz, MD, Jack Mayer MD, etc. --Noleander (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions: Isn't the NRDC a lobbying group? This was published 23 years ago; what do our science guidelines say about sources this old? Have the conclusions of this publication been reaffirmed by other, independent organizations in subsequent years? Zad68 16:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the first word, "However", so it's being used to rebut the previous paragraph (i.e it's a SYNTH). The first reference is a piece by an advocacy group; it's not peer reviewed, and it's old. "Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment." is uncited and is published in an open access journal you pay 1125 pounds to publish in. Where as the current source journal, Annals of internal medicine is listed at MEDRS and as one of the core medical journals, and another piece which has 133 citations (on google scholar). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem IS generalities; the article itself cannot get down to specifics until the general principles are clarified; if MEDRS applies to the whole article or to ANY discussion of a health issue, then it will do no good to cite to peer-reviewed agricultural journals, or to respected sources in the mainstream press per WP:RS. Otherwise, we'll just be off to the races with another round of edit warring. Personally, I share Owain's views. As I was not involved in this article until recently, when help was requested at WikiProject agriculture, I merely reviewed the existing sources and reinserted them as seemed appropriate. Undoubtably there are more and better ones out there, but we must first clarify the principles we are using. Here WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is also applicable; I specifically added the language noting who did which study and so on. While a "medical" claim certainly needs MEDRS compliant sources, they are not exclusive, the opposition view, as is noted here, may not have the time, money or resources to have reams of peer-reviewed literature, hence the need to say "organization X says this" -- which is EXACTLY what I did on that paragraph. I also think it is important to avoid POV adjectives, and I removed some of them, as the diffs show. I also removed some dead links that no one had fixed. I also think it relevant that some of the peer reviewed studies, particularly the one done by Stanford University, were conducted with considerable funding from major pesticide manufacturers, which introduces a source of bias that also is appropriately addressed in an article that requires POV balance. This truly is akin to climate change or cigarettes and cancer; early hints of trouble were dismissed by the status quo, but time showed that these problems were documentable. Here, we are in the preliminary stages, and items that are newsworthy and part of the "gospel" of the organic food movement must, somehow, be included, lest this article suffer from a severe POV bias against organic food. Montanabw 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: As you see from the reply immediately above this, we have a lot of problems with tendentiousness. There is probably no possible consensus here between the combatants, I tried at talk, only to have my motives questioned and sources I use to explain matters mocked (as above) and dismissed. There will probably need to be a decision reached by people outside the fray. None of the people arguing for inclusion oppose the use of MEDRS sources, we simply are trying to say that they should not be the EXCLUSIVE sources, and the MEDRS policy itself clearly explains and allows for this. Montanabw 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear in what is and what isn't appropriate for medical claims. I should note that the above editors point, namely that "part of the "gospel" of the organic food movement must, somehow, be included, lest this article suffer from a severe POV bias against organic food" is precisely the problem in this dispute. We are not here to spread the "gospel", promote the WP:TRUTH, right great wrongs, or any of that. We are here to summarize the reliable sources on the matter, no matter what the final outcome is. Yobol (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is critical here. Statements about health benefits in the encyclopedia's voice must certainly be supported by scientific sources; but statements about the history of the debate of purported benefits of organic foods need not be. For instance "In 1989 the NRDC published a study claiming that consumers of organic food experienced lower cancer rates" need not be supported by scientific sources if it is part of a larger paragraph which discusses the various opinions about whether or not organic foods are healthier. Such a paragraph can conclude (if the scientific sources so say) that "Mainstream scientific research has not demonstrated any improved health benefits", but that scientific fact should not preclude discussion of significant historical claims of proponents and opponents of organic foods. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, a careful examination of the NRDC source would note that organic food/farming is mentioned exactly twice in the entire report, and almost as an afterthought. It certainly was not a direct comparison between organic and conventionally grown foods, which is the type of source we should use in this article to make such a health claim. In principle, I have no problem with prominent historical opinions, correctly attributed and documented in appropriate secondary sources from being included, as long as it is clear that they are not to be used as sources for current validity. Yobol (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that is a good step forward: perhaps we have consensus to create a paragraph in the article on "prominent historical opinions, correctly attributed and documented in appropriate secondary sources". Maybe it could be a subsection within the "Health and Safety" section? --Noleander (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with 'historical opinions' section with clear attributions, making sure it's clear that historical views about the health and safety aren't necessarily the current findings about those subjects. I think such a paragraph would be essential to the article in its coverage of the development of the popularity of organic food over the years. Zad68 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) A paragraph on the historical context would be appropriate, if appropriate sources are found. The NRDC source, however, is probably not a great source because, as I stated, it only mentions organic food/farming twice and largely in passing (though it would be a better source as a historical source in another article, like Health effects of pesticides, since the NRDC report is about pesticides, not primarily about organic foods). I am still greatly concerned by the statements that we need to push the "gospel" of organic foods in our article. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, my 'Agree' is not an agreement that we should be using non-WP:MEDRS sources to state historic opinion as current findings, or even alongside current findings in violation of WP:GEVAL. If the NRDC document was used widely by the organic food movement in the 1990s to promote organic food, then it should indeed be featured--of course we need a reliable secondary source that discusses the rise of the organic food movement in the 1990s and the use of the NRDC document for this, otherwise it's an inappropriate use of a WP:PRIMARY source. Zad68 18:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like there may be consensus to create a subsection on historical opinions about purported health benefits. I guess the next step would be to identify specific sources and discuss them here. Publications by proponents/opponents should - ideally - be supported by WP:Secondary sources that discuss/analyze those publications. However, secondary sources are not needed to support publications by major proponents/opponents when the publication is cited merely to demonstrate the existence of the publication (contrasted with material which interprets the publication's contents, which would require 2ndary sources ). --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Before this can be done, I'd really like to hear from The Banner as to whether this is acceptable. Zad68 19:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am cautious about this proposal. It will be very difficult to create something balanced. Before I say yes or no, I would like to see a draft, preferrably written by one of the outsiders active here. And what is historical? The Banner _talk 02:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict:

As an uninvolved editor in looking at both this discussion and the article a few issues come to mind. "Heath related" is a general term that does not necessarily include medicine. For example, aspects of fitness are considered health related but not pertaining to medicine. MEDRS (medicine) specifically relates to medicine and as such health related in this specific context is a subset of medicine and does not refer to the more general use of the words. In this article while food is health related it may not be health related(medicne) and so would not require sources that are MEDRS compliant. I realize that what is required is to delineate health related from health related medical which brings us back to discussion. Still I'd suggest that the content requiring sources that are MEDRS complaint is narrower than some are advocating in this discussion.

Maybe the most obvious issue is that the second sentence of the Organic Food article lead talks about research and speaks in a definitive way (Misplaced Pages's voice) about the research. This prominent placement and definitive language carries a lot of weight, and serves to negate the topic before the article has even progressed very far. This violates undue weight and NPOV, and in no way does this summarize the two sided issues surrounding the topic. On a personal note, I was amazed to see that in this day and age with what we know about pesticides and herbicides that the second sentence can stand implying a definitive view. Sure the article should show all sides of the issues on organic food, but no one view should be pushing for the reader's attention as is happening now. (olive (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC))

I disagree that there is a clear distinction between what you call "health" and some sort of medicine related health. One of the claims is that regular food causes cancer (i.e the text under discussion at the top of this paragraph); that is a medical claim, and I think it's clear that this requires MEDRS. It seems to me that you are challenging the lead based on what you believe to be true (i.e your statement about "what we know about pesticides and herbicides") rather than any evaluation of the sources. What are the "sides of the issues"? If the most reliable sources are all definitive, do you propose that we include less reliable sources that say the opposite in the name of "balance"? Misplaced Pages doesn't aim for balance, but for neutrality by WP:WEIGHT. What Montana is explicitly proposing is that the fringe claims he wants included aren't published in the peer reviewed literature, so he wants to include them in the name of "balance". Montana accepts that they need MEDRS: "While a "medical" claim certainly needs MEDRS compliant sources, they are not exclusive, the opposition view, as is noted here, may not have the time, money or resources to have reams of peer-reviewed literature, hence the need to say "organization X says this" -- which is EXACTLY what I did on that paragraph." Montana wishes to give weight to views that haven't got into journals (apparently because publishing in journals, which is free unless you go through open access, is too arduous). If the opposition isn't publishing in reliable medical journal they don't belong in any health section because they have no weight. Now, if some of the MEDRS sources address the fringe groups, then we can discuss that in context with the results, and showing the mainstream view with respect to this position. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree, and find the attempted distinction between "health related" and "health related(medicine)" to be bizarre and not particularly helpful; MEDRS makes no such distinction, and attempts to create a false distinction where none exists smacks of wikilawyering. If it is making health claims, it falls under MEDRS. I also would like to caution against trying to give equal validity to "both sides of an issue"; WP:NPOV says we give WP:WEIGHT based on reliable sourcing, not individual editor preferences. We don't "give both sides" of the issue on whether HIV causes AIDS or the earth is round. If reliable sources say organic food is not more safe or nutritious, that's what we say. Yobol (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you call almost everything a health claim. The Banner _talk 22:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to address the attempt at compromise above, rather than grossly mischaracterizing my position, yet again. Yobol (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your replies are basically an attack on MEDRS guidelines in any form. They exist, they apply to health claims; get over it. Empty responses where you don't address anything are not even wrong. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Wolfie, it is not a plain attack on WP:MEDRS. That you see it that way, is your problem, not mine. Medical research should definately be backed up by MEDRS-approved sources. But I think you see "health claims" far wider then is healthy for the encyclopedia. Research about what substances are found in products are not necessarely health claims. When you say that scientific research has proven that tomato juice contains tomatoes, it is certainly not a health claim. When you say that scientific research has proven that organic tomato juice contains tomatoes, it is certainly not a health claim. When you say that scientific research has proven that tomato juice contains substances that are scientificly proven to support the natural resistance against diseases, it is certainly not a health claim.(WP:SCIRS is enough) When you say that scientific research has proven that tomato juice can cause allergic reactions, it is certainly a health claim conform MEDRS. The Banner _talk 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I;m still waiting for an answer, Wolfie... The Banner _talk 02:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The neutral folks see the problem here. I think it is accurate to say that the above two editors will not budge from their positions much and have an unfortunate tendency to misstate others (No, Banner and I are NOT claiming that "regular food causes cancer" - the issue is far more nuanced than that). What I understand to be Noleander's compromise is to create a "historic" section. I don't quite agree, as I believe that additional research since that time can be added, the concerns about pesticide residues in conventionally-raised foods is still out there. I think a better structure is along the lines of "prominent historical opinions, correctly attributed and documented in appropriate secondary sources". (1989 "historic"? LOL! Excuse me, I remember 1989 like it was yesterday! Now, 1959 MIGHT be "historic"...). Thus, one section can review the "peer-reviewed literature funded by Monsanto" (grin) section, and another section can be the "muckraking studies by poor, underfunded but noble advocacy organizations" section. (Trying to make a joke there, but you get my drift...) But I would argue that MEDRS AND SCIRS both work -- a peer-reviewed ag journal would have better info on the trace amounts of pesticide residue on a harvested crop than would a medical journal. Is this a useful angle to look at?Montanabw 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to show that the 1989 report has attracted academic interest, otherwise it is just one of thousands of reports of no notability. It could be that their research was flawed or it could be based on agricultural practices that have been abandoned. TFD (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source must be "notable" or must have "attracted academic interest". Notability applies to articles, not sources. If the 1989 report was a major policy statement by a major proponent of organic food (and I don't know if it was or not), then by all means it can be included in the article for the limited purpose of showing how organic food proponents were making their arguments. However, the report probably cannot be used to assert the report's contents in the encyclopedia's voice ("organic food improves health") because it apparently has been superseded by more recent scientific studies. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See Due and undue weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Anyone can search through the millions of articles written about various topics and find an unnoticed article from longago that supports whatever one happens to believe. If no one has commented on it then it has no significance. Sorry for saying "no notabity" instead. TFD (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's a typical POV pushing tactic to cherry pick the minority of sources that agree with the POV you want (hence the arbitrary rejection of medical sources in this particular case). You can cherry pick sources to say just about anything. If you work from the prominent works then this issue is ameliorated. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

/me keeps mirror before IRWolfie. Does MfD says anything to you? The Banner _talk 20:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

An MfD has no bearing on this discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In the strict sense, you are right. But for dispute resolution it is essential to have some level of AGF and trust. You are making that increasingly difficult. The Banner _talk 11:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

More sources needed

At the top of the prior section are two sources (NRDC report and "Cancer and non-cancer health effects") that are proposed for inclusion in the article - either in a "Historical Opinions" section; or a "Various opinions" section. It would be really helpful if those editors that want to include those sources could supply additional sources here, including: (a) sources that discuss/analyze/use those two sources; and (b) other sources that suggest that O.F. improves health. Go ahead and provide sources of all kinds: scientists, farmers, advocates, dietitians, etc. Speaking as an uninvolved editor, it is hard to form an opinion based on just two sources, so seeing 10 or 20 sources that buttress each other will help uninvolved editors form an opinion. --Noleander (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

For the uninvolved editors, here is what is currently cited in our organic food article, all of which meet WP:MEDRS, and all of which have noted that the nutritional or safety differences between conventional foods and organic foods are minimal, nonexistent, or unknown:

Journal articles: secondary review articles published in medical journals:

• Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A (2006). "Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46 (1): 23–56. doi:10.1080/10408690490911846. PMID 16403682
• Bourn D, Prescott J (January 2002). "A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 42 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1080/10408690290825439. PMID 11833635.
• Smith-Spangler, C; Brandeau, ML; Hunter, GE; Bavinger, JC; Pearson, M; Eschbach, PJ; Sundaram, V; Liu, H; Schirmer, P; Stave, C; Olkin, I; Bravata, DM (September 4, 2012). "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review.". Annals of Internal Medicine 157 (5): 348-366. PMID 22944875.
• Williams, Christine M. (February 2002). "Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?" . Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 61 (1): 19–24. doi:10.1079/PNS2001126
• Magkos, F.; Arvaniti, F.; Zampelas, A. (2003). "Organic food: Nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence". International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 54 (5): 357–371. doi:10.108

Journal articles I found that will be added when protection expires:

• Dangour AD, Lock K, Hayter A, Aikenhead A, Allen E, Uauy R (July 2010). "Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 92 (1): 203–10. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269. PMID 20463045.
• Dangour AD, Dodhia SK, Hayter A, Allen E, Lock K, Uauy R (September 2009). "Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 90 (3): 680–5. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041. PMID 19640946.

Summary statements by scientific/medical bodies

• Canavari, M., Asioli, D., Bendini, A., Cantore, N., Gallina Toschi, T., Spiller, A., Obermowe, T., Buchecker, K. and Lohmann, M. (2009). Summary report on sensory-related socio-economic and sensory science literature about organic food products (2009).
• American Cancer Society

Academic book published by expert in field:

• Blair, Robert. (2012). Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. ISBN 978-0-8138-1217-5

To my knowledge, there has not been any MEDRS compliant sources presented that have found large, consistent differences between organic and conventional foods (most found no differences; the few differences found are either inconsistent or unlikely to have a meaningful health effect). Yobol (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That is quite likely, as medical journals don't publish about agriculture... The Banner _talk 10:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your view that they don't publish about health issues in relation to food is self-evidently incorrect since Yobol has just shown multiple sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you found any sources that comply with WP:WEIGHT but fail MEDRS? If not, why are we discussing MEDRS? In other words, is there anything that should be in this article were it not to come under MEDRS? TFD (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I have:

• Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444

This was included in the original contentious paragraph, and indicated that typical conventional food consumption was associated with exposures to some pesticides (and other toxins) far above the federal limits.

• Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in our Children's Food

http://docs.nrdc.org/health/hea_11052401.asp

This report was also cited in the original paragraph, and suggested pesticide residues pose an important cancer risk concern for children.

• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/05/17/peds.2009-3058.abstract

This study indicated that normal levels of organophosphate pesticide residues in food consumed by children was strongly associated with ADHD.

• Pesticide Residues and Breast Cancer: The Harvest of a Silent Spring?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8468714

This study is more speculative but suggests a possible link between pesticide residues and breast cancer.

• Pesticides and Breast Cancer Risk: A Review of DDT, DDE, and Dieldrin

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11250804

This is a review and discusses literature that show, and fail to show, a link between these pesticide exposures and breast cancer.

• Blood Levels of Organochlorine Residues and Risk of Breast Cancer

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/8/648.short

"These findings suggest that environmental chemical contamination with organochlorine residues may be an important etiologic factor in breast cancer."

• A comparative study of allowable pesticide residue levels on produce in the United States

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293037

"The model estimates that for the identified items, 120 439 kg of pesticides in excess of U.S. tolerances could potentially be imported to the U.S...Pesticides in this review are associated with health effects on 13 body systems, and some are associated with carcinogenic effects."

• Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2126&page=1

"Pesticides may also cause harm...depending on dose, some pesticides can cause a range of adverse effects on human health, including cancer, acute and chronic injury to the nervous system, lung damage, reproductive dysfunction, and possibly dysfunction of the endocrine and immune systems...Diet is an important source of exposure to pesticides."

• PESTICIDES ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990809222752

Just a report, "A recent report from Consumer Reports reveals unsafe levels of pesticide residues on certain fresh fruits and vegetables, including many that are grown in the United States." There's many more similar reports, probably studies also documenting that many foods sold in the US have illegal pesticide residues or pesticide residues above federal limits.

• Illegal Pesticides in the U.S. Food Supply

http://www.ewg.org/reports/fruit

Similar to the above

Someone with more time than me and/or an expert in the subject could probably find many more studies and possibly more secondary research studies. Krem1234 (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned, the first is uncited and in a non-prominent open access journal. NRDC isn't a reliable source. The third is a primary source, doesn't mention organic food, so is being coat racked in. The fourth, fifth and sixth are quite old, don't mention organic food and are about the banned DDT/DDE. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@TFD: I'm not sure what question you are asking. I presented this list to illustrate to uninvolved editors that there are MEDRS that discuss the question at hand, and that they all present similar findings (organic foods are generally not significantly different from conventional foods in terms of nutrition and safety). Yobol (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User Krem1234 has supplied a few sources above that are more recent and perhaps more scientific than the NRDC report; for instance "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides" and "Blood Levels of Organochlorine Residues and Risk of Breast Cancer". user IRWolfie objects to some of those sources. Specifically, to 3 of them because they apply to a banned chemical and don't mention organic food. Those are sensible objections. Do any other parties have thoughts on those sources? --Noleander (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The source “Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides” seems to be fairly useful. It is referenced in an EPA report: http://epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2010/op-adhd.html. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a document from Pesticide Action Network here which lists several studies that study the relationship between pesticides & health. I have not looked at the studies listed. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My main objection to these studies is that we should be using secondary sources such as review articles, not primary research studies, per WP:MEDRS. MEDRS specifically cautions us not to use primary sources to debunk or contrast against reviews. I also note that this is not the Health effects of pesticides page we are discussing, but the Organic food page. The sources I note above specifically compare organic food to conventional food, and I suspect we need that type of sourcing here, not just sources that says pesticides can be harmful (which no one seriously disputes). Yobol (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms could easily be made Re: the five main sources used to support the entire current Consumer Safety section:

• Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature

States that "With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, available evidence is extremely limited preventing generalized statements."

• A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods.

Focuses on nutritional differences: "It is evident from this assessment that there are few well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison", then regarding pesticides: "While it is likely that organically grown foods are lower in pesticide residues, there has been very little documentation of residue levels."

• Citation #4 is a book, citation #44 appears to be non-WP:MEDRS?:

http://orgprints.org/17208/2/deliverable_1_2_sensory_literature.pdf

• Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review

This final citation states "All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus"..."The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce". Based on the abstract it doesn't appear to actually discuss health risks

Very underwhelming, these studies mostly seem to suggest "well, we don't know yet" then to actually say anything definitive Re: health risks of consuming pesticide residues, or with regard to health benefits, if any, or organic foods. Krem1234 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, which is why our article states that the weight of available evidence doesn't support organic or conventional as being healthier or safer than the other. Books are clearly WP:MEDRS applicable (as you should know if you have read MEDRS), and one should always read the article, and not just the abstract. I don't mind adding a sentence to the lead noting the paucity of good data/studies in the area. This, of course, does not in any way support those who have been pushing the POV that organic foods are safer or more nutritious. The high quality sources simply do not back that position up. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree (my point with the book was that I can't comment as I don't have a copy, and I don't have full access to most studies). My main point is that requiring only reviews here produces an un-balanced article. Krem1234 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, to me, the first paragraph of that section reads like it's been established in the literature that organic foods are not healthier, safer, etc. From reviewing the cited studies, this doesn't appear to be the case. Krem1234 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What is established is that there is no significant evidence to support that either is healthier or safer (this is true, and is what our article says). Like I said, we can add a comment about the overall lack of studies in the area. As has been noted above, limiting this to reviews has the actual benefit of establishing a neutral point of view, rather than us citing thousands of primary articles and weighing them ourselves, we use secondary reviews to weigh the evidence for us. This is how Misplaced Pages works (see WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS). If the consensus of secondary sources it that there is no evidence of a difference, this is what we should be writing. We don't take it upon ourselves to use inferior sources to make it sound like what we wish it would say. Yobol (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus is only secondary studies (like most of the current references), the overall point of the section should be "not enough research has been conducted" - which is the actual conclusions of those studies cited. "Reviews of the available body of scientific literature have not found that organic food is any safer or healthier than conventional foods" implies that conventional and organic foods have been compared and definitively found to be more or less equal with respect to safety and health. If those studies conclude that "we don't know yet"/more research is needed, that's what should be written. Krem1234 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There would be no implication if, as I suggested, we add that relatively few studies have been done and more are needed. They don't just say more research is needed, they clearly also say the evidence available does not support conclusions about one being better than the other. You can't just pick and choose conclusions here to try to slant the POV. Yobol (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems clear from the abstracts that those reviews don't show anything definitive, which should be reflected in the Consumer Safety section. I don't think I'm "picking and choosing" anything here. Krem1234 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And if there isn't anything definitive, clearly there isn't enough evidence to declare one better than the other (which is what our article says). Yobol (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that claim be made. I still think there are sections of the article that should be reworded to make what you said clear - that "there isn't enough evidence to declare one better than the other". Krem1234 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The obvious issue is that it they didn't look at organic food vs regular food, or anything like that. They looked at "urinary dialkyl phosphate concentrations" and saw it correlated with ADHD in their study. Now, the leap you need to make is that correlation shows causation and that they took care of all confounding variables, that exposure to organophosphates has a significant impact on phosphate concentrations, that organophosphate pesticides are primarily used by regular foods, and that phosphate concentrations are significantly greater in regular foods than organic foods (which also uses fertilizers, just naturally occurring ones). I don't think this is clear from the source which doesn't mention organic food or discuss it from what I can see. For food factors the report cites "Children's exposure assessment: a review of factors influencing Children's exposure, and the data available to characterize and assess that exposure" from 2000, which says "Such a limited diet may potentially increase the dietary exposure of young children to environmental contaminants such as pesticide residues in fruit " (highlight mine). Highly speculative, but again it does not discuss organic food food. In summary; Primary study, doesn't mention organic food. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to respond appropriately to the above (or most of the other comments here), though this study's conclusion might be of interest: "The present study adds to the accumulating evidence linking higher levels of pesticide exposure to adverse developmental outcomes. Our findings support the hypothesis that current levels of organophosphate pesticide exposure might contribute to the childhood burden of ADHD. Future studies should use a prospective design, with multiple urine samples collected over time for better assessment of chronic exposure and critical windows of exposure, and should establish appropriate temporality." If this article was cited somewhere, it could simply be summarized, no one's saying it should be presented as "X causes Y" or anything over-reaching. Krem1234 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Note I generally share Yobol's views here. The fact that there are indeed WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that address the specific biomedical claims being considered by the article should really put an end to the question of whether we need to use more relaxed sourcing guidelines, which can only lead to the article having statements supported by lower-quality sources possibly alongside better-sourced statements, and this is a clear problem with the WP:MEDRS guideline and WP:GEVAL policy. Zad68 16:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems like people are going to try and throw enough cherry picked (I can't imagine someone googling and not coming across all the MEDRS sources, they must be ignoring these other sources) sources at the problem and hope some of them stick. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm not cherry-picking (I can search and find your sources, you can search and fine mine). I have a collection of around a dozen studies suggesting that pesticide residues are safe, and around the same number suggesting they're an important health risk. The point of the original revision was try to produce a more balanced article. Krem1234 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, this is not the Health effects of pesticides articles, this is the Organic food article we're talking about. We need to find good secondary review articles speaking about organic foods, not try to WP:SYNTH sources together about pesticides. Yobol (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a place for reasons why people want to eat organic food. This is one of the big ones. Would be ridiculous to not even mention it. Montanabw 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the article should cover reasons given for why people eat organic food, and perceived health and food safety benefits I am sure are among them. They should be in the article, well-sourced to reliable secondary sources. However, we should be clear in the article that perceived health and safety benefits are one thing, and what the best biomedical evidence says is another thing. Zad68 15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I should note at this time that our article already discusses perceived safety benefits from reduced pesticide residue is a major reason why organic food is bought, and we spend a whole paragraph discussing the perceived benefit in addition to the (lack of) evidence supporting that position. Suggestions that we include something that is already included is probably why we are getting nowhere with this discussion. Yobol (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is mentioned, but pretty much dismissed without allowing for any supporting evidence; support was what was deleted and locked out (it's always a WP:WRONGVERSION protected! LOL) and the supporting evidence is what we are discussing here. Montanabw 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned, and the material you wanted included is sourced to non MEDRS and was undue weight. That we mention it does not mean we have to give it validity. That is for secondary sources to determine, not you or I. Yobol (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So we are in a deadlock. We have a POV-article with one-sided sourcing and the two of want to keep it that way. Correct? The Banner _talk 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Making accusations that two other editors are consciously furthering POV problems fails to adhere to WP:AGF in a very disappointing way. Yours is a loaded question that does not deserve a response and is counterproductive. However, I agree that we do appear to be at a deadlock. I observe that at this time, there is no consensus to make the changes to the article you have been proposing. Maybe this DRN case will end with this result. Zad68 03:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I do not see a real effort to break the deadlock by Wolfie. Yobol gave a little glimmer of hope with is remark about "taste", but Wolfie immediately slammed that door again creatin more fuss and blur. I would be very nice when the volunteers could summerise the whole discussion, because we are flying everywhere and it becomes increasingly unclear what is happening where. The Banner _talk 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Organic foods movement material?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all modern scientific secondary sources have determined that there is no concrete health benefits derived from organic foods (I'm not saying that is so, this is just a hypothetical). I'd like to then return to the proposal made above: Should the article contain historical information about the proponents of organic food? Something like:

The organic food movement consists of individuals and organizations such as blah, blah, blah. They promote organic food for a variety of reasons, including X, Y, and health benefits. Their claims for health benefits are based on concerns that pesticides and fertilizers cause health problems. For example, DDT, blah blah, .... However, mainstream scientific research has not found a correlation between eating organic food and improved health.

The question is: would such information about the arguments of proponents of organic food (presuming sources exists to support the above text) be relevant to the organic food article? (It is noteworthy that WP does not yet have an article on Organic food movement). --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree as I did above, although we need reliable secondary sourcing that describes the history of the movement and the studies used by the movement's proponents. We should not at all be using these historical sources directly in the article, except maybe possibly very carefully per WP:PRIMARY for a selected quote or something like that. However, based on the previous discussion, I'm betting this won't be acceptable to everyone as a proposed resolution to this. Specifically, even though there might be agreement to discuss the historic use of dated studies or primary research, I'm betting there will still be some insistence on using them directly to support biomedical claims in the article. I may be wrong but we need to hear from those who have been discussing the use of these older sources. Zad68 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

...meaning, although I think the article should carry this sort of history content, it's actually largely off-topic from this DRN case as stated. Zad68 19:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the historical/movement/motivation material is not directly related to the question of "is organic food scientifically proven to produce better health?" But the article is missing some critical information about the relationship of organic foods to health:

• Do some people buy organic food because they think it will make them healthier?
• How many?
• Why do they believe that?
• Which famous books/movies which promote that idea?
• Which pesticide/fertilizer health issues have been raised in the past that support such beliefs?
• What organizations or individuals promote(d) organic food as healthier?
• Do these proponents rely on scientific evidence for their assessments?
• Are there flaws in the data they rely on?

Turning back to this DRN case: it may be that the "pro organic" editors will be amenable to a compromise whereby the article is enhanced to include history/motivation/movement information, and they "drop" the drive (forgive the colloquial wording) to state a conclusive causal relationship between organic food and improved health. --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree assuming this section would be un-biased and not be written as an "historical" (read: out-of-date) section. Krem1234 (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• comment If you are proposing to create a synthesis of the DDT material and other primary sourced material, then no (I've not seen any source that even links DDT to the organic issues at all). We need to start from concrete sources for history and then work from there. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, no ... I'm not proposing any violation of WP:SYNTH. I'm simply observing that the article is missing some critical information about the history & motivation of the organic foods movement. I'm wondering out loud if this DRN case would be resolved if a new history/motivation/movement section were added to the article. Of course, all material must conform to all WP policies. DDT may or may not play a role in the movement's history & motivation ... I just threw that out to give a feel for what it might contain. --Noleander (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree in principle that such a section would be an important addition to the article (though I agree with IRWolfie-'s assessment that the new sources recently produced are not the type of sources to be used). I also agree with Zad68 that this suggestion really doesn't help solve the primary issue that brought this dispute here, namely how to properly reference and characterize the scientific knowledge in the area of safety and nutrition. Yobol (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My current thinking is maybe we could suspend this DRN case, and have editors write a new history/motivation/movement section and see how it goes. With luck, it will cause the "scientific" dispute to go away. If it doesn't, we could always start another DRN case (or RfC) later if we have to. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Refuse (for the original suggestion of Noleander at the top of this section). In my opinion, this proposal is being biased, due to it being incomplete. Stumbling block is this: However, mainstream scientific research has not found a correlation between eating organic food and improved health. I am missing here a text about the (possible??) correlation between eating conventional grown food (= grown with the aid of among others artificial fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides) and health problems. Having no positive effects, is still beter them having negative effects, don't you think? The Banner _talk 22:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  BTW: anyone familiar with History of organic farming? The Banner _talk 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Support move back to talk page: The lock expires in two days. We are getting nowhere here. (removed by volunteer), and frankly I have no interest in continuing this drama on multiple boards. Montanabw 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The lock, in my opinion, should not be lifted as the dispute is on-going. Yes, it may be on the talk page, but here is fine too. The difference with being here and a talk page is that one (here) has volunteers to get the discussion going (or trying too) while the talk page is for the parties (and WP:3O). Montanabw, the statement about IRWolfie is at the wrong place as it is about conduct, and your comment is a personal attack. I have removed it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support extension of full protection We're not seeing consensus either here or at the article Talk page, and there's the suggestion that article changes will be made anyway without consensus. The admin who full-protected was User:CambridgeBayWeather. Ebe, as you were uninvolved in the original dispute, maybe you could suggest the extension of the full-protection to that admin? Zad68 03:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. I think we are seeing a consensus forming, helped by the suggestions of the volunteers. Consensus doesn't require unanimity. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the extension. I do see some progress here, although it is slow. Lifting the protection is a guarantee for more editwars and far more drama. The Banner _talk 12:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK If Banner is OK with extending protection, I am as well. I'm more dubious about actual progress being made amongst the primary folks involved, but the praise from all the others to the third parties for their work is praise I also share; you folks are trying to get us to a working solution. I would add that I am strongly in support of the material suggested by Krem1234, which is precisely the sort of material I have in mind. I am concerned that the two users taking the position opposite to that of myself and Banner seem to simply dismiss all others' suggestions for material; it will probably take a third party consensus to get us where we need to be. My own view is that we could restructure the section in question along the lines of this outline (this is a SUPER ROUGH outline, just to put out an idea for structure, you all can continue to spat about cites and actual content) Montanabw 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)):

1. Proponents of organic food state that the health benefits include (flavor, health, safety, no pesitcide residues, - all with appropriate cites).

2. As early as 1989, when NDRC conducted a peer-reviewed study (cite to study as proof that there was a study and its conclusions) concerns were raised about pesticide residues in conventionally-farmed foods, which has since been further supported by (stuff Krem1234 found, etc...)(Don't need MEDRS for evidence that there IS pesticide residue, as no health claims made - yet
3. Organic food proponents point to studies (find and cite, need to be MEDRS compliant studies) showing a possible link between pesticide exposure and health problems (cite assorted press releases and other appropriate WP:RS proof that proponents have made these claims)
4. However, peer-reviewed medical studies to date have been at best inconclusive, not showing a clear correlation between X and Y (citing various sources that we have noted above, ideally a few on both sides, noting weight of studies if not WP:SYNTH) and
4. a meta-analysis of existing studies suggests proponent's claims are primarily unsupportable by current peer-reviewed studies (as of date of meta-analysis) (all the stuff currently in the locked version of the article that IRWolfie and Yobol support, properly sourced)

5. Proponents, in turn, cite to systemic bias in mainstream studies (citing and sourcing the agrichemical industry funding of the studies)

Would something like this create a structure from which to plug in the source material? Montanabw 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Saying that I dismiss every proposal made is a bit short around the corner. I had (!) lost hope on any constructive move from Yobol and Wolfie, till Yobol's surprise move on the taste section. He agreed that this section does not require MEDRS but the RS is sufficient. That restored my hope on a solution through discussion and mediation.

But at the beginning I had already said that my time was severely limited because of real life commitments, with an exam due for coming Monday. I just don't have enough time to fully investigate and appriciate the efforts made by the volunteers. The Banner _talk 18:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving in the right direction like, maybe, 60% of the way there.  :) The devil will be in the details, and we're going to have discussions about how to present this material, but it's pointing the right way. We definitely do need to have secondary sourcing mentioning, for example, the NDRC report and how it was used by the promoters of organic food, instead of us reading through the report ourselves and picking out what we think should have been used to promote it. But, getting there. Zad68 20:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Montanabw's outline is a great step forward. Regarding Zad68's comment about secondary sources: While the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy does encourage secondary sources above primary, the policy does not prohibit the use of primary sources. In fact, primary sources are frequently used in articles. What the policy says is that primary sources cannot be used as the basis for analytical or interpretive statements in the encyclopedia's voice. The policy provides: "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Applying that to the NDRC report, if the NDRC is a significant organization in the OF movement, the article may use the report as a primary source to state that the NDRC published a report in 1989, and that the conclusion of the report stated "blah, blah, blah". Secondary sources would be needed to interpret or analyze the report, or to discuss the motivation or impact of the report. --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, choosing which parts of the report to mention and which ones not to mention is in itself a matter of interpretation, because you are interpreting the report to some degree when you choose which parts are 'important' and which ones are not. In a good (or better) article, primary sources need to be used carefully alongside good secondary sources. If there are already good independent reliable secondary sources, they need to be used first, with uses of the primary sources only to support what is in the secondary source. Surely if the NRDC report were that important to the organic food movement, there must be good reliable secondary sources that talk about it and how it was used. Those are the sources needed. Zad68 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the entire report was about pesicide risk, so no need to really do more than cite the pages that are either intro or conclusion - overall summary. Montanabw 21:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Zad68 about use of secondary sources. The issues here are WP:WEIGHT and the improper use of primary sources out of context to push a POV; there are thousands upon thousands of primary sources discussing organic foods, and cherry-picking a select few is going to be a very distinct problem. Best to stick to what reliable secondary sources say, unless we can find important primary sources which are recognized as important by independent secondary ones. I should note that WP:MEDRS very clearly states we should not be using primary sources to debunk reliable secondary ones, and any hint of trying to have an end-run around MEDRS should not be tolerated. Yobol (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that we need to be very careful not to WP:SNYTH material into here. Again, this is the Organic food page, we should be using secondary sources that discuss organic food as a primary topic, not mention it tangentially (see again the list of MEDRS sources above for appropriate sources which discuss organic food as the primary topic) - most of the pesticide related material is not about organic food primarily and would be probably be undue weight and synth to add to the organic food article. We have enough material that discuss organic food primarily which discuss pesticides that we don't need those sources that don't discuss organic food as a primary topic. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Back to square one

Instead of discussing every detail and stretch this discussion to Easter 2035, it might be an idea to look first at the original chapter that got us here. That chapter, with the name "Health and safety" contains two subsections, each discussing several subjects. During the discussion on the talkpage, I suggested to split it up. Not surprisingly, two editors gave a blanket "no" against it.

I suggested to split up and reorganize the chapter "Health and Safety" to the following:

1 Food safety

1.1 Proven facts

1.1.1 Safety for producers

1.1.2 Safety for consumers

1.2 Claims and perceptions

2 Positive effects on health?

2.1 Medical view

2.2 Agricultural view

2.3 Claims and perceptions

3 Taste

WP:MEDRS should cover 2.1; WP:SCIRS should cover 1.1 and 2.2; WP:RS should cover 1.2, 2.3 and 3.

I am still convinced that this split can help to find a way out of the deadlock, that is why I bring the suggestion in here. Remember, this is a line of thinking, not the Holy Grail. The Banner _talk 22:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, other than a gentle minnow at my friend Banner for saying "proven facts" because, last I heard, gravity is still "just a theory!!" LOL! Montanabw 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Och, I guess "The Duo" will be able to prove every detail with 100% accuracy with their Holy Sources. The Banner _talk 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Hmmm, I've studied too long abd get cynical. Better call it a day.

I have already noted my opposition to this type of material on the talk page, but because it is being brought up here, I will mention my objections here again. Section titles like "Proven facts" and "Positive effects on health" as well as "claims and perceptions" are clearly in violation of NPOV and are non-starters. Any significant discussion about safety of producers of organic food belongs on the organic farming page, not here. Discussion about the "agricultural view" of health effects gets us exactly back to square one about our choice of sources. We should also be wary of having point-counter point style articles which give inappropriately give equal validity/weight to two sides of an argument where we should not. Yobol (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You look at the letters again, Yobol. Try to understand the line of thinking. Or be creative, and come with a solution to solve this dispute. The Banner _talk 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you at some point actually address objections rather than make vague innuendo and accusations. Yobol (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that a discussion about "taste" needs MEDRS? The Banner _talk 01:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't require MEDRS, but then again that wasn't one of the objections I raised, either. At some point you need to actually address concerns, rather than raise the same point over and over. Yobol (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You can keep your PAs for yourself instead of accusing me time and time again over WP:IDHT.

But this is the first time you say "taste" does not need MEDRS. Does it require other expert sourcing or is WP:RS enough? The Banner _talk 01:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)/me sees a glimmer of hope

I have never said "taste" requires MEDRS. Let's not focus on things we agree on, and possibly address the multiple problems I have with your suggestion?Yobol (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, you did not say anything about it. But can we move "Taste" out of the contentious chapter "Health and Safety" now? And do others agree with that move? The Banner _talk 09:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering the sources appear to talk about nutritional value and the taste together I'm not sure it makes much sense taking just the taste part out into a new section. What's wrong with where it is? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think that "taste" requires MEDRS and why it cannot be split from nutrition? The Banner _talk 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we ALL do agree on one thing: We are looking at the edit dispute in the "health and safety" section. However, the problem is that we also have, as part of that section, a "Nutritional value and taste" section. So maybe, let's look at the low-hanging fruit (pun intended): Does the "nutritional value and taste" section require MEDRS compliant cites, or merely WP:RS cites? (Which may include agricultural journals, or for that matter, Ladies Home Journal) And if not, perhaps that should become its own full section (delete an = from the markup syntax) and be placed outside this discussion altogether? Then, can we all at least agree that the scope of this discussion is ONLY the "Consumer safety" section and the health issues mentioned therein? Montanabw 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Can you explain why you think that "taste" requires MEDRS", please highlight where I said taste requires MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with where it is? Meaning, in my opinion, leave taste where it is now and let it fall under MEDRS. Correct me if I am wrong. The Banner _talk 02:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would the exact position of the content matter? It is dependent on the content itself, not the section it is in. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to return to discussion about reliable sources

I note that uninvolved editor TransporterMan made a suggestion at the top of this discussion section which has been endorsed by several editors, and not opposed by any with regards to proper sourcing. Can we all agree with that framework with which to discuss sourcing and move on? Until we nail down what appropriate sourcing will be we're going to be here forever. Yobol (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The Banner _talk 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to highlight why? Your rejection statement above didn't address anything that Transporterman said. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Transporter Man's detailed comments about MEDRS don't solve the underlying problem of what material is sufficiently health-related to mandate MEDRS, and then, even if it does, if MEDRS itself has some loopholes and caveats that may apply. I think we must narrow the discussion. The problem that brought us here are the health benefits of organic food claimed by supporters. We seem to actually have a fair number of excellent studies that at least meet WP:SCIRS and some probably meet WP:MEDRS. But my concern is that the two individuals who consistently push a rigid interpretation of MEDRS have, at least in this discussion, appeared to state that everything presented above has problems, even though the same critiques could be applied to some of the presumably MEDRS-compliant material already in the article. So: IRWolfie and Yobol, here's the gauntlet: What SPECIFIC claims within the health and safety require MEDRS sources (just your opinion, in specifics, not generalities), and what specific claims (such as, I hope, statements about taste) do NOT require MEDRS sourcing and can do fine with SCIRS or RS sources, in your opinions? Montanabw 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• For example: a statement such as "Pesticide/herbicide residues have been found on conventionally-grown foods" appears, to me, to NOT require MEDRS sources, as it contains no health claims; just needs an RS that the statement is true. Montanabw 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  But a statement such as "Pesticide/herbicide X exposure has been linked to cancer in white rats" would require a MEDRS source, probably yes? Montanabw 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  However, what to we do with something like: "therefore, proponents of organic foods state that eating food free of pesticides and herbicides may lower the risk of cancer, particularly when consumed by young children?" I think it should be included, noting that it's an opinion, not a health claim, and IMHO, subject to WP:RS. Montanabw 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  Then we have what I think is the big gray area in dispute: What do we do with proponents' evidence? Some of it is easily RS, some could pass SCIRS, but possibly not MEDRS; such as studies from agricultural journals, nutritional journals, the weight of preliminary and anecdotal reports, and so on? Is THIS the actual sticking point that we all are fighting about? Montanabw 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If the MEDRS sources address what the proponents believe then we could mention that in the context of the MEDRS results. This isn't an article about organic food movements, and they don't have any weight in comparison to the MEDRS sources for medical claims. We should not be pretending they are equally valid viewpoints as that would be a distortion of the the sources; giving undue weight to fringe groups. The sources don't pass RS if they don't pass MEDRS. MEDRS is a guideline which clarifies RS in relation to medical claims. The specific groups may have some weight to be mentioned in some history, but we should not imply that the health claims have some validity, because the reliable secondary sources don't support that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, organic advocacy groups are not reliable for medical claims, nor are any non MEDRS. Their claims might be useful for a section discussing advocacy, but has no role in a discussion about actual safety unless mentioned by MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember, you and Wolfy want everything covered by MEDRS sources. That makes me quite curious about why you two have allowed this source into the Nutrition section. I would never take that article as a serious source... The Banner _talk 00:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly not an appropriate source, and should be removed when protection expires. I also clearly do not want "everything covered by MEDRS sources" as you well know, and I once again ask you not to misrepresent my positions. Yobol (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie and Yobol, the "organic food movement" is part and parcel of an organic food article -- what is it, why is it good for you. Here, I asked you, simply, to SPECIFY if 1) You want MEDRS for the whole article (which I don't think you do, at least not Yobol), or 2) If you only want MEDRS for the health and safety section, or 3) Something else. WE ARE GOING IN CIRCLES. Will one of you two please state if you have any willingness to compromise whatsoever on anything or if we should just throw up our hands and let you two get your own way on everything... THIS IS GOING NOWHERE, SOMEONE HELP!!!!

I'm not sure how you could be confused, but I subscribe to TransporterMan's clear and thorough presentation about sourcing. Yobol (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If information is health information then it requires MEDRS. If information is not health related, it does not require MEDRS. No one has said the entire article should be MEDRS, that would be quite silly. Any medical claims require sources reliable for medical claims (MEDRS), any non-medical claims do not require MEDRS. I think that's quite clear. Thus claims about cancer risks falls under MEDRS. Taste does not require MEDRS, but nor does it mean we should add poor quality advocacy sources. High profile MEDRS secondary sources exist that address nutritional value: (132 citations), so I think that issue is settled as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite; you hold a double standard that anything favoring organic food seems to find fault under your interpretation of MEDRS when MEDRS itself clearly indicates there is wiggle room to explain alternative views. MEDRS is needed simply for definitive statements, or as Banner says "proven facts." If we were discussing tobacco, would you say that we cannot state that smoking cigarettes is linked to lung cancer because there is not a peer reviewed study that says, definitively, "smoking cigarettes causes long cancer?" This is a sincere question, Wolfie. Montanabw 23:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
• Michael2012ro (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about Stalin (copy/paste from WP:ANI)

Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about Stalin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In I was accused of being irresponsible because I have removed a reference which has to show that an icon flown at the orders of Stalin has repelled the enemies of the Soviet Union. The problem is that, as far as I can see using Google Translate, the source does not mention Stalin and it does not mention anything about an icon having repelled the Nazi invaders. Perhaps Russian speakers may kindly show me where the source says "as ordered by Stalin" or "the icon has repelled the enemy". Otherwise, the accusation itself may be flawed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is at http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/235326.html . Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 2 states "According to some accounts". Who? What? When? The influences of the icon looks more like an urban legend. A counter offensive and -42°C look more realistic reasons for a retreat... The Banner _talk 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the issue is not that the icon beats the army or not but the reference attests exactly this urban belief, which is even celebrated. Can we keep it? Michael2012ro (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is whether the source mentioned above supports the urban legend or it has simply to do with a commemoration of the victory in WW2. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion that you take a content dispute to the dispute resolution board. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

discussed it on the talk page, asked in WP:ANI, but it was the wrong place.

How do you think we can help?

First, Russian speakers could exactly decide if the source says anything about Stalin or an icon having repelled the Nazi army. Second, the matter should be decided here in order to avoid an edit war.

Opening comments by Michael2012ro

Even the link does not say anything about Stalin , clearly shows that there was a flight with an icon above Moscow in december 1941 with this specific purpose to help Russian army. There is also a commemoration of this flight. So, I think the reference helps to understand better this urban belief and also helps as a link to further informations about intervention of Stalin in this issue. This article is also about a religious belief and the reference obviously helps in confirming and understanding this belief.Thank you.

Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir discussion

Comment from uninvolved editor: Here is the text that is in dispute:

In December 1941, as the Germans approached Moscow, Joseph Stalin allegedly ordered a service in the Assumption Cathedral to protect the city from the enmy and that the icon be placed in an airplane and flown around the besieged capital. Several days later, the German army started to retreat.

References are:

• Russia 5 by Simon Richmon, p 160
• patriarchia.ru

--Noleander (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I had no problems with the first source, but the second fails to verify either element of the urban legend, so it should not be used as a reference in order to support the urban legend. It says something about a commemoration of WW2 victims and heroes and victory, but not enough to support the urban legend which is purported to support.

Otherwise, at User:Staszek Lem has completely removed the urban legend. I don't know if he was aware of this dispute resolution attempt. The text should be indeed of dubious encyclopedic quality in order to be challenged and removed by two inclusionists. I mean there is a difference between faithful and stupid, the urban legend depicts the Russians as being stupid (or credulous) rather than faithful. But that's just my opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Another third party editor and volunteer here. The first source is a Lonely Planet book, a travel guide, and is not a reliable source for historical events. See the discussions here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102#Lonely Planet. Travel guides are only reliable for topics that pertain to travel, like restaurants or hotels. Articles about historical events should use academic sources, like journals or textbooks.--xanchester (t) 01:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Stack Exchange Network

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Stack Exchange Network (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bjelleklang (talk · contribs)
• Georgopl (talk · contribs)
• Manishearth (talk · contribs)
• Sirtaptap (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple users (including myself) has been trying to remove the criticism section on the article Stack Exchange Network on the grounds that it's based only on blogs and other non-reliable sources.

Discussion of the section and the sources has taken place between may-july 2012, as well as december 2012. I attempted a rewrite of the original section, but concluded that after removing everything not properly sourced, virtually nothing was left. Based on this I removed the section from the article on december 6th, and left a note on the talkpage.

The day after I removed the section, User:Georgopl reinserted a shorter version based on the sources left after my rewrite, I commented on it and questioned the sources further before removing the section yesterday (december 13th), only to be reverted again.

Other users have also tried to discuss the issue only to be reverted when they tried to remove the section.

Note: User:Manishearth has admitted to having a slight COI, and a request from him on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help) for a third opinion was the reason for why I entered into this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for additional opinions from other users on #wikipedia-en-help, User:Nathan2055 responded by removing the section citing Completly unreliable sources only to be reverted. User:Dreamyshade didn't comment on the sources, but mentioned that a better solution would be to incorporate the section into the rest of the article.

How do you think we can help?

Take a look at the sources and the criticism section, and see if any of us are being unreasonable. Do the sources cover the issues as described, and are the sources considered reliable in this context?

Opening comments by Georgopl

Personally, I have been maintaining the entirety of the article. Personal contribution to the entirety of this page can be verified by looking throughout the history of this article, but let me summarize it here to facilitate everyone:

1. cleaned sources in all sections of the article 2. corrected grammar and other language issues 3. removed sections that promote the subject 4. detailed SE history 5. introduced the criticism section

In the past 3 years this article has been attacked a number of times by users , allegedly or admittedly affiliated with SE either by being directly or indirectly affiliated with SE operations. This has been either by:

1. Adding content that promotes SE with the purpose of transforming this WP article into an advertisement post for SE. 2. Removing the criticism section all together without sufficiently justifying in the Talk page. 3. Alter the criticism section in order to impair it.

This is my impression, but I will not try to make a hard case for this.

Specifically, to the case:

1. Claim that : The article in its entirety is based on non WP:VECTOR or non WP:RS

(a) "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities," , clearly source is as such and may be considered.

(b) source is WP:RS and WP:VECTOR since it points to cnet.com

(c) source is WP:VECTOR and obviously WP:RS since it is a verification of the claim in criticism section from the creator of the website.

sources and may well be removed along with the corresponding claims.

2. Undue weight, may have been true, but the section has been shortened to an extent that now is proportional its weight. Further modifications can follow, given that time permits. It currently takes up 1/4 of the article but may be shortened to 1/5, especially if other sections grow.

3. "A little Googling suggested..." , This is truly an undue claim, google searching cannot stand in a logical argument since it employs stochastic algorithms and personalised searching to present results. This only demonstrates the user's clouded judgement. Finally, I cannot adhere nor deny the validity of the claim as is, since that would increase its information content, and may disorientate from the content of the article itself.

4. Claim: "Sources are outdated". Even if outdated, sources may document criticism past and present. However, most of the sources are currently up to date.

Conclusion : Criticism section is a vital documentation wrt SE as is its history. It is based on WP:VECTOR sources and WP:RS sources and some sources that may not be WP:VECTOR. In the past there have been links to meta.stackoverflow.com that further documented the claims in the section, but have been removed upon demand of the involved users as non WP:VECTOR and WP:UNDUE ( I do not disagree with WP:UNDUE). The latter have been included to present criticism of SE based on user opinions, This may be justified due to the nature of the section itself.

Proposion: 1. Leave the criticism section , 2. engage in a constructive discussion on a source by source basis in the talk page. 3. I would appreciate if the involved users would aid in any other part of the article just to demonstrate that they are not WP:NPOV . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgopl (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Manishearth

As mentioned, I indeed have a COI here. In retrospect, it was indeed a bad idea to just blank the page (I _did_ plan to rewrite it with better sources, but I couldn't get the time), with said COI being in existence, but I thought that it would be OK (at the time) if I cited the relevant policies. Of course, I was wrong -- I have been semi-retired for a while now (though I never got to updating my userpage), and I'd forgotten the nuances of the policies.

My concerns about the section (at the state it was in when I first saw it) are:

• Its citations are not reliable. They mainly consist of blog posts and comments therein.
• It gives undue weight to the topic of criticism
• A little Googling suggested that the other user involved, Georgopl, may be a "disgruntled user" (See the links here), which may create problems with NPOV. Part of the dispute was regarding the need for these links on the page. I'm not insisting that Georgopl is in fact a disgruntled user, but I do feel that these links mean something and ought to be kept there.

In the end, I find myself in agreement with Dreamyshade's comment-- having a section known as "features" with the positives and negatives of each would be a nice idea (and it's OK if some features have only negatives). I would like to help make such a section as well -- except that I'm rather bad at finding good sources (If you check my WP contributions they're more cleanup-oriented). Plus I'm extremely busy for a few weeks.

ManishEarth 17:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sirtaptap

Talk:Stack Exchange_Network discussion

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN and I'm opening this up for discussion. Just because I volunteer doesn't mean what I say has any extra weight over any other editors but I'm coming into the dispute as an uninvolved third party and will do my best to broker a resolution. Cheers Cabe6403 10:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can understand the dispute revolves around the inclusion of the criticism section of the article. When reading the discussion on the talk page this statement jumped out at me: "The current Criticism section takes up half of the page on the network, that is clearly a lot of undue weight". I would suggest that, in that case, instead of removing criticism, expand the rest of the article.

What I would suggest though, as a fair few sources are a from 2008-2009 about a website that has, no doubt, evolved since then would be to rewrite the section including only the facts that are still relevant. I doubt that some of the points people raised in 2008 still exists. Cabe6403 10:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not completely disagree with this view. Of course criticism may be as well in the past tense, documenting what has come to pass. In my view it would be better to include these, but rephrase the related content such that it is clear that this was in the past. If a source is not longer available then we can remove the content. Regarding WP:UNDUE , the entirety of the article has 20 sources , and 6 of those sources are on criticism, with 4 of those sources being WP:VECTOR . I would not say that the article is WP:UNDUE if the Criticism section would be larger than 1/3 of the article, which is the case currently. Nonetheless, if someone wants to improve the section, I would not disagree, but complete removal of the section is in my opinion not the proper action.

Drive-by comment from another dispute resolution volunteer:

Right now the criticism section does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards, and I am concerned about the fact that this problem was not corrected by the first editor who read it. To be specific, he section says:

"The founder Joel Spolsky recently invited on his blog to make the site a 'welcoming, friendly place', while continuing parenting users with a 'how to be civil' indication ."

Really? It's OK to make the parenting users claim in Misplaced Pages's voice as if it was an established fact? It's OK to present a blog post as if it were a reliable source? whether telling people how to to be civil (something we do a lot here at Misplaced Pages) is "parenting" is a PERSONAL OPINION. the personal opinion that telling users telling people how to to be civil is part of making the site a more welcoming, friendly place is equally valid.

It is a blog post by the founder SE. How can it not be WP:RS , have you read WP:VECTOR or should I cite it once more. I Torvlads was out to say that "you know linux kernel sends usage data from every users that uses linux to NSA" on his blog that would be WP:VECTOR and WP:RS? right? and that would indeed be an established fact until denied by multiple other WP:RS yparjhs (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Everybody involved in this page needs to read WP:V again and to kill obvious policy violations like the above on sight. Criticism needs to be properly sourced, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the section again, only to be reverted by  User:Georgopl. Bjelleklang - talk 13:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You shoud not keep removing the section until all opinions have been heard. Didn't you also claim that if I undid you would ask for admin intervention, in case it was reverted. Haven't you seen the status of this WP:DRN that you have initiated? Isn't it only logical to ask for the resolution of this dispute before taking action?

I have read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:VECTOR , could you please read from WP:VECTOR " questionable sources on themselves " and tell under which argument sources or even are neither WP:VECTOR neither WP:RS. yparjhs (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have read WP:V, you have surely seen section 1? The burden is on the person who adds or restore material, and note 2 in the same article says that

Once sources that an editor believes in good faith to be sufficient have been provided, any editor who then removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages. All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

After I removed the content I explained why, as have several other users, including another administrator after I asked him to take a look at the section in order to get an additional outside opinion. The burden is on you as the reverting user to explain why the sources are reliable, especially as there has been around 9 other users who have either removed the section, or commented upon it here or on the talkpage. As I've stated before I'm not opposed to having a criticism section, but it needs to be based on reliable sources. As for your analysis of the references above, I disagree. 15 is okay as a source as Spolsky is one of the founders; but 16 is user generated (although Spolsky is one of the posters) and there is no indication that he is parenting users. For me this is no different than the countless number of debates I imagine Jimbo has participated in on WP:CIVIL. Sources 17, 18, 19 and 22 is frankly too old to be an indication of general criticism, as they were all published within two months of the site's launch. User:Snowolf also commented on this on the talkpage. The CNET article is probably the best of the references, but it doesn't say anything about criticism, only that they're operating with a new business model.

As for your proposal, there is another alternative which I have already suggested for you here; move the section into a sandbox and improve it there. If you can find good sources to build the criticism section on I have no problems putting it back in, but until then it needs to be removed. Bjelleklang - talk 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Leveson Inquiry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meerta (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Leveson enquiry is a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. It took evidence over nine months, and last month a 2000 page report was published for part one. It is the largest event for the press in the UK since the war, and has ramifications well beyond the press. The report collated the evidence, commented, drew inferences and made recommendations. E.g. Sections of the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

The report contained a mistake concerning one of the founders of the Independent newspaper (i.e. Brett Straub - who did not found it), which may have come about by an assistant on the report relying on a Misplaced Pages that had been edited in bad faith. This was talked about in a humorous manner on a satirical news quiz programme. This now has a whole section to itself on a rather spartan page. This seems out of proportion and similar types of addition had already been argued against in other Talk page sections.

Arguments are being ignored and consent and conclusions assumed and I have requested that certain comments about me be taken back. The tone is surprising in parts. There was a period of edit reverting, maybe warring, which may seems to be continuing.

The discussion in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

All the appropriate arguments have been made in the section often by more than one person.

How do you think we can help?

It might be helpful if one or more experienced Wiki editors with background knowledge of Leveson can read carefully through this section http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub (including sub-heading "Mentioned on Have I Got News for You", and now part of "Further info needed") and assess everything that has been said. There have already been four or five contributors to the discussion.

Opening comments by Paul MacDermott

I feel this should really be taken to WP:3O before coming here, but since the discussion is open now I'll add my thoughts. I originally raised the issue of whether to include a brief reference to the incorrect naming of Straub as a founder of The Independent in the Leveson report after seeing an item about it on the aforementioned quiz. I thought it possible someone might decide to add it so a discussion was needed, but had no strong feelings about its inclusion myself. Having seen the information added and removed by other users I became more involved in the talk page discussion, but have made minimal editing to the Straub section itself. I removed some unreferenced text and suggested sources should be added. 2 were subsequently provided, 1 of them from YouTube, which I removed per WP:YOUTUBE amid possible copyvio concerns. To me there seems to be a WP:UNDUE element to the section as it stands, although I'm not against the idea of a brief mention of Straub in an expanded version of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by AJHingston

As I have been involved in the debate I should comment here. The issue seems to me to be how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of WP:NPOV as a whole when the topic has been the subject of widespread media debate, a report totalling almost 2000 pages and nearly 600 witness statements. The article has been recently (and I think reasonably) pruned, for example to remove the list of oral witnesses, many of whom are notable enough for a BLP. In some cases their evidence was a top news item. The inquiry and the issues raised have been the subject of very extensive media coverage. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all spoken about the recommendations and their differences are the subject of cross party talks. In this context, the inclusion in the report of an error from Misplaced Pages is of course something of great interest to Wikipedians but it is not seriously suggested to have any material significance nor do there appear to be other similar errors in the report. True it has been picked up on a popular satire show, but such shows have also referred to other aspects of the inquiry. They are tribute to the interest and importance of the subject but not included in the article. If the Brett Straub affair is to stand as now and be given due weight then the rest of the article will need to be enormously expanded to include the evidence of witnesses, the media coverage, the detailed recommendations of the inquiry, the discussions about implementation and the alternative proposals of the industry. Some of that may be desirable, but in total it will not lead to a good article. A good balanced article needs to be selective. --AJHingston (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jimthing

Re. the Youtube video: it has fair use rights attributed to it, so whilst we do have WP:YOUTUBE we also have WP:ELNEVER (precisely "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"), and anyway there is also another BBC cite given also, added when link was live. Re. the Straub section inclusion: I partially agree with AJHingston on his points that the article needs to be expanded upon to include much more missing detail, which it is sorely in need of, this would then negate the WP:UNDUE argument being raised here against this interesting detail. I did in fact raise the issue of missing detail in the page talk ("Further info needed?") which Meerta agreed with, but instead of adding anything to expand the page to therefore negate the UNDUE reasoning, instead they wasted more time opening this DR instead, running contradictory to the UNDUE issue they are suggesting by not expanding the article to negate it's prominence. To be honest I can't really believe this has been taken to a DR for it's inclusion, as whilst the inquiry/report is of a serious nature, this doesn't negate being able to have less serious points like this Straub incident too, as it forms a wider point of interest to the reader. Examples of this can be seen across site, including—but not exclusively—a great deal of articles with Trivia sections on them, listing such info for this very reason, so they are not mutually exclusive types of info.
Jimthing (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

Juan Manuel de Rosas

No extensive discussion. Editors are advised to continue to find common ground on the article talkpage. If, after such a discussion, there is still a dispute, attempt Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. If this fails then please feel free to re-file. Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

PRSA

As the filing editor admits, "The issues have not been discussed at length". So please do. If you cannot find common ground it is suggested that parties seek Misplaced Pages:Third opinion for disputes between to parties before returning to DR/N. Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:The Holocaust (Inclusion of Serbs in template)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Template talk:The Holocaust (Inclusion of Serbs in template) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
• Diannaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute in question is between two camps with Antidiskriminator and I (i.e. tulipsword) representing one, and Peacemaker67 and Dianna representing the other. The dispute of interest, as you will see, is primarily between Peacemaker67 and me.

Peacemaker67 insists that Serbs be removed from a list of “victims” within the template titled “The Holocaust”. His argument – which is extremely problematic – is that the genocidal campaign that was carried out against the Serbs during WWII by the Independent State of Croatia is not part of the Holocaust.

A major problem with his argument is that he has not defined what he means by “the Holocaust”. Given that Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah’s witnesses, and others are included under the list of interest without objection, it is clear that what has been implicitly accepted by all users is that the list of interest represents the wider spectrum of victims of the Holocaust.

Misplaced Pages operates according to consensus. Antidiskriminator and I have many times expressed our disapproval of Peacemaker67’s decision to continually disregard our protests as well as our arguments.

For the reasons that I have provided on the Talk page of interest, I do strongly recommend that “Ethnic Serbs” be re-added to the list of “victims”.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have recommended that we try and make the template consistent with what is written in the Misplaced Pages article “The Holocaust” since the two are directly related. Establishing consistency between the two would require us to re-add “Ethnic Serbs” to the list of “victims”. Further, I have proposed that we specify that what is meant by “victims” in the template is the wider spectrum of victims. Peacemaker67, as you will clearly see, is just totally ignoring everything I write.

How do you think we can help?

Specify, by way of a footnote or something like that, that what is meant by “victims” in the template is the wider spectrum of victims.

The re-adding of “Ethnic Serbs” under the list of “victims” should be clearly authorized by a dispute resolution editor who will confront Peacemaker67 who is not listening to any of us.

Tulipsword (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Peacemaker67

Opening comments by Antidiskriminator

Opening comments by Diannaa

Recently I became aware that my local library has a couple of high quality new books on this topic, so I decided that I would undertake an overhaul of the article once I am done my current project. Initial copy edits were started on November 13. I noted my intention on the article's talk page on December 3 and received a positive response from other interested editors. Preliminary discussions are underway on the article talk page as to structural changes, which will likely be the first step in improving the article, hopefully all the way up to a GA standard. A lot of things may change about the article, including the definition of the Holocaust that is used therein, depending on where the sources lead us. So to add things to the template in an effort to match the article at this point in time does not make sense, in my opinion. On December 13 I suggested that the article was not in very good shape, being due for a total overhaul, and told him about my long-range plan. Later that day I decided to discontinue participating in the discussion on the template talk page as it seemed to be going around in circles and I felt my concerns were not being heard. Later I noticed this post on user talk:Antidiskriminator, so I posted there my actual reason for not participating any further in the discussion.

Template talk:The Holocaust (Inclusion of Serbs in template) discussion

Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trahelliven (talk · contribs)
• Number 57 (talk · contribs)
• No More Mister Nice Guy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel the location of the new state is described as 'IN ERETZ-ISRAEL'. In the first info box in the Article , Number 57 gives his description of the purpose - 'Purpose Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine after its expiration.' Number 57 has given a contemporary article (15 May 1948) in the New York Times as a reference for the ‘Purpose’, When I asked Number 57 for 'the exact proposition for which the NYT was the reference or RS', he gave an answer in his edit of 22:57, 15 December 2012. I consider that answer unhelpful. If the purpose of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 was limited to parts of the British Mandate for Palestine, presumably the new state was content as late as 14 May 1948 with the boundaries allocated for the Jewish state by Resolution 181(II) of 29 November. 1947. On the other hand, if the Purpose of the Declaration was limited only by the boundaries of Eretz-Israel (Land of Israel), presumably the new state was not content, even as early as the moment of its birth on 14 May 1948 with the boundaries allocated for the Jewish state by the Resolution. When Israel first made the decision on the limits of its possible future boundaries, is critical in apportioning blame for the start of the conflict. My view is that the ‘Purpose’ should refer to Eretz-Israel, the term used in critical parts of the Declaration of 14 May 1948.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An enormous number of edits have been to the Talk page with no help of resolution in sight. Can you persuade Number 57 to refrain from abuse? Number 57 has not answered my question on the exact proposition allegedly supported by the NYT reference. ‘Palestine’ (used in the article) in any event, is not the best translation of Eretz-Israel; ‘Land of Israel’ (the Old Testament term) is better.

How do you think we can help?

By helping to see if a compromise can be reached. Persuading Number 57 not to be abusive. By getting Number 57 to answer my question on the exact proposition allegedly supported by the NYT reference.

Opening comments by Number 57

I have tried to explain to Trahelliven several times that the common name of the state in which Israel was declared independence should be used (at the time the phrase in question was written, the article was located at British Mandate for Palestine. Since then it has been moved to Mandatory Palestine, and I have suggested rewording to reflect this, but Trahelliven has rejected), as opposed to duplicating the declaration, which is both ambiguous and not using the common term.

After making clear my opposition to his suggested edits and pointing out the flaws of using "Eretz Israel", Travelliven then demanded a reliable source to state that Israel was declared in Mandatory Palestine. I found the NYT reference, which states that Israeli independence was declared in Palestine. However, Trahelliven refuses to accept that the Palestine referred to in this article is the same thing as Mandatory Palestine, despite the other editor in the discussion agreeing. To me, this is similar to someone claiming that a modern day news item about China is not a reliable source unless it states "People's Republic of China". Trahelliven's attitide to the NYT source suggests to me that he is deliberately seeking to avoid acknowledging it to be correct, as this means there is no ground for his preferred use of "Eretz Israel".

If further sources are required, the Times on 15 May 1948 states "President Truman late today formally proclaimed the recognition of the new Jewish state, acting a few minutes after its proclamation in Palestine" (this is an online source I have access to through my local library). I think it should be fairly clear to anyone that "Palestine" here is being used as shorthand for Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by No More Mister Nice Guy

Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence discussion

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution