Talk:Organophosphate

I have removed some rather biased matter which is not in agreement with the majority of scientists. It was about BSE, I suggest that until the editors who added the comments can offer up some evidence to support their claims, we should not include the following matter.

I quote

'An organic farmer, Mark Purdy discovered that BSE and type-3 CJD is caused not by a new form of infection called a prion but is caused by poisoning by organo-phosphate fertilisers. {{DiseaseDisorder infobox | '

See [1] for a counterblast aginst this point of view

Cadmium 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments do not adhere to wikipedia's "neutral point of veiw" policy and that both side of an aurgument should be presented for the reader. If you have evidence that "the majority of scientists" agree with your point of view please provide it. Apart from that comments relating to OP's relationship with BSE are irrelevent and inapropriate within the context of this article.

Either both sides should be presented or neither side !

That is not completely true. If a point-of-view is unsupported by outside evidence (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE) or held by a very small minority (WP:NPOVUW) then it would be allright to not bring this point of view. Please provide evidence, then disagree on policy. JFW | T@lk 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to quote your own reference but . ."the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."(WP:NPOVUW) : If majority scientific views were treated as fact, and it was allright not to bring the point of view of small minorities - the world would still be flat ! I am not disagreeing with policy - only your interpretation of it.

Where's your source, mate? JFW | T@lk 23:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Origional Hypothosis of Mark Purdey [2]; Report of Phillips Enquiry [3] - From Findings & Conclusions of Phillips Enquiry - "It remains possible that environmental factors, including toxic chemicals, may additionally be implicated in susceptibility to prion disease."[4] Dlm4473 (talk · contribs)

"Additional", eh? But I think a report in Med Hypoth should be linked as an academic reference. I think it may be notable enough for mention, unless Cadmium disagrees. JFW | T@lk 13:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Phillips enquiry cite lends credence to, nor refutes Purdey's theory. I'm leaving it out for now. JFW | T@lk 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No Problem with that, happy with latest edit - i am not trying to push Purdey's hypothosis but i do believe that alternative theories should be given the light of day - letting the reader evaluate the merits of the case for themselves in absence of 'proof'. Statements along the lines of "The organophosphates are not linked to BSE (AKA Mad cow disease)" do little for education or for Wikipedia's credibility. Thanks for your time on this JFW.