Talk:Aspartame controversy/to do: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:50, 29 August 2010 editYobol (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,179 edits clarify as WP:Controversy was demoted to essay from guideline← Previous edit	Latest revision as of 05:22, 11 March 2012 edit undoYobol (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,179 edits Undid revision 481210564 by 184.77.216.82 (talk)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 05:22, 11 March 2012

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : ~~Scientific publications -- weak~~ Gone --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Alleged conflict of intrerest prior to 1996 -- should this be merged into discussion of approval?
Expand : Why the US approval process caused controversy
- Charges of COI in DOJ handling of FDA's Fraud allegations against Searle.
- Charges of COI in hirings of 6 FDA personnel (described in GAO 86 report to Metzenbaum)
- Studies by Olney and others dismissed.
- Expand and integrate the timeline in the article
- Charges of COI when new FDA commissioner overturned unanimous decision of PBOI
Senator Metzenbaum's role in returning the controversy to the news. Why the Ramazzinni studies contribute to the controversy
- Allegations of COI in industry-funded critiques of Soffritti studies
...
NPOV : Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow WP:MEDRS and should rely on secondary sources and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article that deal with historical, social, legal, etc. aspects explain the controversy should rely on secondary sources as much as possible but are not subject to WP:MEDRS.
Verify : Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article.