Revision as of 23:04, 26 May 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits manually archive to focus on new discussions← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 26 May 2015 edit undo85.211.108.65 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
:And I see that you couldn't resist taking some cheap shots at your fellow edits there as well. Stay classy, Jytdog. ] (]) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | :And I see that you couldn't resist taking some cheap shots at your fellow edits there as well. Stay classy, Jytdog. ] (]) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
:: not a cheap shot. the article is now protected. I hope we can use this time to talk through the issues. ] (]) 22:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | :: not a cheap shot. the article is now protected. I hope we can use this time to talk through the issues. ] (]) 22:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
::The compromise statement is in the same tone as the original statement, which was talking about the different types of mercury and their relative dangers. And it was a pointless statement, there's no reason in the first place to assume that it is methylmercury. | |||
::And yes, it was a cheap shot. When you continuously hack and slash with dozens of edits and have your ] way with the article, that's fine, but once you run into serious resistance, that's 'all hell breaking loose'.] (]) 23:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:04, 26 May 2015
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about High-fructose corn syrup.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High-fructose corn syrup article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The contents of the High fructose corn syrup and health page were merged into High-fructose corn syrup on May 25, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
worked this over
I worked this over today. there was a lot of content about health based on primary sources that violated MEDRS. A bunch of content had grown up in this article about health, that overlapped with content in the sub-article on "HFCS and health". This happens a lot. I first took all that content out of this article and put it into the other one, then blended them, and then realized that the article wasn't very long, so I moved it all back here and redirected that article to here. the MEDRS sources are pretty clear that as far as we know, HFCS per se doesn't cause metabolic disease - we just eat too much (and too much sweet stuff generally) and don't exercise enough. all the content about dicarbonyls was PRIMARY and UNDUE. I found a 2013 review that mentioned that work and built some content based on it. The stuff about mercury... 2 papers on that in 2009 and a lot of fuss in the media but no (!) reviews on the topic, nothing at CDC about it, nothing at FDA about it. That means it was either a lot of fuss over nothing, or there is a Great Conspiracy To Kill Us All. This is wikipedia, so we go with the former, not the latter. I found an explanation for the lack of concern in a quote from the FDA in a WebMD article, which is as close as I could come to a MEDRS source on this.
The content about the history of HFCS was WP:OR and wrong - somebody had tried to cobble together PRIMARY sources to write their own history. Same thing on the production process. I found secondary sources for both things, and built the content around them, keeping the primary sources as adjuncts to the secondary sources where they were helpful.
when i was done, i rewrote the lead. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- note: i am dropping a note at WT:MED about this rewrite so other editors from project med can review this. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Mercury Removed from Lead, Reliance on WebMD
So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: . What gives? Meanwhile I've tagged the article for NPOV issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe the confusion stems from me directly linking to the primary sources mentioned in the article as well. This was for the convenience of the reader, and I thought I made it clear that they were linked for convenience, but maybe not. So, to be clear, they were in fact not used in the mercury contamination write up—it simply summarizes the secondary source, The Washington Post, warts and all. I've removed the links to avoid additional confusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:MEDRS. WaPo is not useful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- WaPo is not being used to provide medical advice here. It's reporting on what is being said between these parties and the fact that a controversy existed. There's history here, which is being reported on. That's far more useful han WebMD—a site of notorious crackpottery. We don't need a medical source to report on the fact that a controversy existed in the public and why. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- the content is about health. that is why you care about it, right? Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's more to these articles than simply "health". There's a web of issues surrounding ethics, sociology, and other interests, usually less about health and more about money. This is one such situation. Mercury contamination has a long history that WP:RS certainly applies to. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The context to anything about mercury (i.e. weight) is always going to come back to health in this case. MEDRS is pretty much always going to come into play no matter what perspective someone is approaching this one from. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hm. Embedded editor clique, got it. Moving on. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The context to anything about mercury (i.e. weight) is always going to come back to health in this case. MEDRS is pretty much always going to come into play no matter what perspective someone is approaching this one from. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's more to these articles than simply "health". There's a web of issues surrounding ethics, sociology, and other interests, usually less about health and more about money. This is one such situation. Mercury contamination has a long history that WP:RS certainly applies to. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- the content is about health. that is why you care about it, right? Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- WaPo is not being used to provide medical advice here. It's reporting on what is being said between these parties and the fact that a controversy existed. There's history here, which is being reported on. That's far more useful han WebMD—a site of notorious crackpottery. We don't need a medical source to report on the fact that a controversy existed in the public and why. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:MEDRS. WaPo is not useful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think that deep back-and-forth quotes between one study and industry would go into too much detail, and the MEDRS sources currently used are sufficient to get the full story. The information about methylmercury is particularly helpful to readers. Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Bloodofox please explain your deletion of sourced content here. If you don't like WebMED, please provide a better health-based source. I looked for a long time and I could not find a better one. I would be very open to a better one. WaPo is popular media and is not OK. Please work toward strongly sourced content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Funny, the content I added was entirely sourced as well. And the above explains it pretty well. In this case, WaPo is entirely appropriate as reporting on this falls well outside of the guidelines of MEDRS, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't answer me directly above - please explain why the concern about mercury is not at its base about health. Sure there are issues about ethics money etc.. but please explain why you care about it at all. This really is the heart of the matter and is something we can talk about and use dispute resolution for if we fail to agree. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
proposed wording
- Proposed compromise wording: Although inorganic mercury is less dangerous than methylmercury, both forms are are a threat to human health.85.211.108.65 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please provide a MEDRS source that says that levels of inorganic mercury involved here were a danger to human health. I looked for one and couldn't find one. I will be interested if you (or anybody) can. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Bees
in this dif Nitrobutane (editing as an IP address) restored a bunch of content built on primary sources. The current section High_fructose_corn_syrup#Beekeeping mentions that and is sourced to a review article, which says that HFCS is being considered as a candidate causal agent for CCD. We don't know if it is or not at this stage. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Going to hopefully address this flurry of activity in other sections later tonight, but I see no reason to add additional bee information here than what Jytdog mentioned (see WP:COATRACK). We already have other articles on colony collapse disorder where detailed information would actually belong. That being said, most recent reviews don't actively discuss HFCS with any significant weight, so it's not likely to stick much in most places. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've linked the main article on this subject, Imidacloprid effects on bees in the beekeeping section. This link to more information should suffice, in lieu of the one-page essay another editor tried to add. Mamyles (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that Colony collapse disorder is a better target. Thanks for the correction! Mamyles (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
page protection
i have requested page protection to drive discussion. all hell has broken loose here. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- And I see that you couldn't resist taking some cheap shots at your fellow edits there as well. Stay classy, Jytdog. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- not a cheap shot. the article is now protected. I hope we can use this time to talk through the issues. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The compromise statement is in the same tone as the original statement, which was talking about the different types of mercury and their relative dangers. And it was a pointless statement, there's no reason in the first place to assume that it is methylmercury.
- And yes, it was a cheap shot. When you continuously hack and slash with dozens of edits and have your OWN way with the article, that's fine, but once you run into serious resistance, that's 'all hell breaking loose'.85.211.108.65 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)