Misplaced Pages

Talk:Aspartame controversy/to do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Aspartame controversy Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:49, 31 May 2009 editMaxPont (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,757 edits add timeline (it might be forgotten otherwise← Previous edit Revision as of 19:50, 29 August 2010 edit undoYobol (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,179 edits clarify as WP:Controversy was demoted to essay from guidelineNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tasks {{tasks
|npov=Remember that some parts of this article follow ] and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article follow ] and must explain the controversy. |npov=Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow ] 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 ].
|verify=Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article. |verify=Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article.
|expand=Why the US approval process caused controversy |expand=Why the US approval process caused controversy

Revision as of 19:50, 29 August 2010


 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.