Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	20 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 3 hours
Norse Deity pages	Closed	Dots321 (t)	13 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	12 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 11 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	12 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Banedon (t)	3 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	11 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 days, 3 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	9 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	6 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 3 hours

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, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Charles35 on 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Breast cancer awareness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Charles35 (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• GabrielF (talk · contribs)
• Biosthmors (talk · contribs)
• Quiddity (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In short, the dispute is over 2 paragraphs that mention an "inner circle" of breast cancer awareness supporters. The article portrays awareness is an extremely negative light, making supporters seem like they are working secretly with pharmaceutical companies and have cunning agendas to actually cause more breast cancer so it will not "deplete their future supply of volunteers" (however, I am not disputing these since they are sourced and thus technically valid). All that I am disputing is "inner circle", which asserts that through "extended suffering of chemotherapy and radiation", women are "initiate[d] into the inner circle of the breast cancer awareness culture." This is presented as fact, violating WP:NPOV in my opinion. However, it is followed with a quote of the material that actually shows that it is in fact a metaphor. But if the quote were to be removed, the material would nonetheless violate NPOV. Of course, I believe the material should be removed due to it violating WP:UNDUE. It is a long (full paragraph) quote elaborating on a bizarre metaphor comparing women with breast cancer to initiates in a tribe going through circumcision rituals.

There are many issues currently being debated about the article, but I'd like to focus on 2. For convenience, I like to call them "alcohol" and "inner circle". These issues involve two pieces of material in the article "Breast cancer awareness". Both pieces of material are cited. The objections state that the material violates wikipedia policies including but not limited to: WP:INTEGRITY, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TONE, WP:OR, and WP:V.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

These issues have been discussed extensively on the "Breast cancer awareness" talk page. There are entire sections about each. See sections "Inner circle", ""might contribute to" "cause" etc.", and "Shopping for the Cure".

How do you think we can help?

We can help resolve this dispute by coming to a consensus about the material. On the talk pages, we have so far failed, and it only seems to be growing further and further away from a consensus. I'm hoping that new opinions might be able to lead us on a better track.

Objections to material

Alcohol

Reporter says this is no longer an issue

ATTENTION: the alcohol issue is resolved (for now). I am not putting strikethroughs because it wouldn't surprise me if it opens back up again. Please focus on inner circle for now. Any opinions are welcome. Thanks. The “alcohol” material cites 1 source. WP:INTEGRITY, WP:OR, and WP:V have been called into question. The dispute is over the listed chemicals and whether or not "cause" is the correct word. The current sentence reads as follows: Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that critics say cause or possibly contribute to breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash) (Mulholland 2010). The relevant sentence from the source is as follows: Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies.

Inner circle

The second issue, "inner circle", involves WP:DUE, WP:TONE, and WP:NPOV. The objection is that the metaphor does not deserve 2 full paragraphs, 1 of which is a quote, especially because of its strong bias. The material speaks of an "inner circle" of the BCA culture. It at one point mentioned Elizabeth Edwards, but that contentious material about a living person was removed. The objection says that "inner circle" is all but conspiratorial and demonizes innocent victims of a tragic disease. I have argued that the claim undermines the integrity and reliability of wikipedia and taints the article with extremely radical and immature views.

The paragraphs:

Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". Women whose treatment requires less suffering feel excluded and devalued. The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture. Barbara Ehrenreich says:

Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor." (Ehrenreich 2001) Charles35 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Further explanation of issue:

The article takes a critical (both in terms of criticism and critical theory) sociological approach to breast cancer awareness, which I consider undue weight because it takes up the majority of the article. The form of this is for the most part a metanarrative, or "grand storyline" if you are familiar with sociology terms. A "grand storyline" is a feature of sociological theories first seen in Marxism. It is criticized for being a rash generalization, unsupported by empirical evidence, and essentially fictional. This is condemned by contemporary sociologists such as Goffman and Michel Foucault for being archaic and overly simplistic.

The inner circle is the best example of a fictional grand storyline in the entire article. This is because it is simply a metaphor. As you can see from the quote, breast cancer awareness (BCA) culture is being likened to primitive (for lack of a better word) human tribes. Chemotherapy and surgery are compared to scarification and circumcision rituals. It considers innocent victims of a, let's not forget, fatal and tragic disease to "initiates" this tribe to be "initiated" into the "inner circle" of BCA. Bizarre, right? And is 2 full paragraphs (one of which is exclusively a quotation) due weight? In my opinion, no.

I also object to the term aside from the context of the quote (since, I assume the quote will likely be removed, leaving just the material). The term is conspiratorial and undermines the integrity and reliability (in a non-wikipedia sense of the term) of this article. It is extremely ridiculous, bogus, bizarre, etc. There is no "inner circle" of cunning conniving evil victims of breast cancer. The rest of the article implies that the awareness organizations work with pharmaceutical companies to cause breast cancer to be more prevalent in order to make money. "Inner circle" is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Examples of text that support this implied yet never explicitly stated include:

Extended quotations

Samantha King says that prevention research is minimized by the breast cancer industry because there is no way to make money off of cases of breast cancer that do not happen, whereas a mammography imaging system that finds more possible cancers, or a "magic bullet" that kills confirmed cancers, would be highly profitable (King 2006, page 38). This paradigm applies equally to breast cancer organizations, because a reliable form of prevention would deplete their future supply of volunteers. Women with [carcimona] are promoted as breast cancer survivors due to the fear they experienced before they became educated about their condition, rather than in respect of any real threat to their lives. This effectively increases the market size for breast cancer organizations, medical establishments, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the makers of mammography equipment (Sulik 2010, page 170–171). Corporate marketing machines promote early detection of breast cancer, while also opposing public health efforts, such as stricter environmental legislation, that might decreased the incidence rate of breast cancer. These critics believe that some of the breast cancer organizations, particularly the highly visible Susan G. Komen for the Cure, have become captive companies that support and provide social capital to the breast cancer industry, including big pharma, mammography equipment manufacturers, and pollution-causing industries, as well as large corporations, creating or exacerbating other problems (Sulik 2000, pages 160–210). To avoid offending sponsors or to woo new ones, breast cancer organizations may self-censor their message and oversell options like screening mammography and new chemotherapeutic agents (Sulik 2010, page 209–210). (woo?) As the majority of women with breast cancer have no risk factors other than sex and age, the environmental breast cancer movement suspects pollution as a significant cause, possibly from pesticides, plastics, or petroleum products (Ehrenreich 2001). The largest organizations, particularly Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the American Cancer Society, are not part of the environmental breast cancer movement (Ehrenreich 2001). These organizations benefit the most from corporate sponsorships that critics deride as pinkwashing, e.g., polluting industries trying to buy public goodwill by publishing advertisements emblazoned with pink ribbons, rather than stopping their pollution under the precautionary principle (King 2006, pages 1–2).[not in citation given] Some corporate sponsors are criticized for having a conflict of interest. For example, some of the prominent sponsors of these advertisements include businesses that sell the expensive equipment needed to perform screening mammography; an increase in the number of women seeking mammograms means an increase in their sales. Health care professionals are sources of information, but the rightness of their advice is not to be seriously questioned. Patients are not encouraged to notice the absence of any meaningful method of prevention or treatments that are non-mutilating, non-debilitating, or noticeably more successful than what existed in the 1930s (Sulik 2010, pages 365–366).

Charles35 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolution?

Okay so since no one has anything to say, I guess we should go ahead with deleting inner circle as undue weight and changing alcohol to linked to???? Charles35 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

After starting a DRN case, we need to wait 2 to 5 days for the other parties to provide opening statements. Then one or more volunteers will mediate and provide comments at the bottom in the "discussion" section. Discussion usually lasts 3 to 10 days. Then the DRN case will be over and action can be taken in accordance with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor point of fact: Elizabeth Edwards is dead. She died two years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BDP. Two years isn't that long in my opinion. The text was still malicious and no source mentioned her. Charles35 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BDP is normally applied to people who died within the last few days or weeks, not a couple of years ago.

As for it being "malicious", you can ask the person who added it, but I suspect that it was meant as a tribute. Edwards is widely considered a positive role model for women with breast cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WLU

Though there are certainly issues on the BCA page, the two cited here seem like they would far better be dealt with through a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:DRN process is an alternative to the WP:RFC process. They both have situations where they work better. Sometimes, after a DRN case, a follow-on RFC is initiated. But once an editor has opened a DRN case, asking DRN volunteers to give their opinions (and mediate) it is appropriate to follow the DRN process through to its conclusion. WP:Forum shopping and all that. An RFC can be performed after the DRN if the DRN does not result in a decent resolution. --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to mention that sometimes a case may be filed here that is not at the right venue. If this is the decision of volunteers the case can be closed early and a suggestion given to the proper venue to use. RFC could well be the proper venue for some cases and perhaps even this case, but for the moment all evidence seems to point to DR/N as the correct venue so far.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, Charles doesn't seem to like the fact that the page spends large amounts of space criticizing the BCA movement for being emotionally harmful, ineffective at actually preventing breast cancer and involving considerable co-option and conflicts of interest by various companies who use it as a form of marketing. These points are made in highly reliable sources by experts in the field, and I do not believe there is a valid reason to remove them, though wording, attribution and other means that do not involve outright removal can certainly be used to adjust emphasis so long as the intent of the sources is not distorted.

I'll re-iterate my previous opposition to the idea that we can discount a reliable source because of general criticisms of sociological theory that never mentions BCA specifically, that I have no opposition to reliable sources criticizing the sources in question being integrated, and that I have no opposition to the page being expanded with positive information on BCA. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about other issues with the article, or about our recent conversation about sociological theory, which was just that - a conversation. Had I wanted to delete material, I would have done it and then given justifications in edit summaries. But that wasn't my intention. I wanted to discuss it. These other issues you are bringing up are 100% irrelevant. My purpose for quoting the other passages from the article was not because I'd like the remove them. All that I want to remove is inner circle. I only quoted them to support my argument that the inner circle is the "icing on the cake" for the conspiracy that is implied in this article. Without it, the rest is moderately acceptable, and will do for now (ie we'll worry about that when we get there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles35 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Without it, the rest is moderately acceptable, and will do for now (ie we'll worry about that when we get there)." - I think we'd be better off coming to an understanding of where the article should be headed overall, rather than discussing the wording of a specific paragraph or two (which will just result in us coming back here again, when the next paragraph/change is disputed). - What you say above is quite different from what you said two days ago[1], "The content over there is reaching psychotic level. It is honestly pathological. The article is an overwhelming rant against awareness." - Hopefully the DR/N volunteers can provide some guidance, as to what would be more useful. –Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

^This quote came from my talk page, where I can say what I want. It wasn't uncivil. Neither Quiddity, WhatamIdoing, or WLU were involved there and it was a semi-private conversation. Quiddity, please do not Attempt to label me or otherwise discredit my opinion based on that my associations rather than the core of my argument.

Actually, you can't say whatever you want on your talk page. See WP:UP#OWN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm stil of the opinion that the page is best dealt with via a RFC or series of them, but I have no issue if the DRN volunteers are willing to provide a comparable service. I don't think any wikipedia page has ever been served by deciding in a final POV and working towards it, in my experience the neutrality of a page is best addressed by finding and integrating reliable sources rather than editors deciding on what a "neutral" version is and discarding sources on that basis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

^This is beside the point. I knew that. I didn't feel like taking another 50-100 words to explain that I have free reign over my talk page except for x y and z. It's pointless and you all already understand anyways. There's no reason for me to explain it to you. Please keep this focused on the topic. Thank you.

We understand that you have a preference for RfC. However, we are at DRN. Please do not bring this up again. Maybe after DRN we will check out RfC. Or, if you'd like, you are always free to start a section at RfC. But for right now, bringing this up again and again is doing nothing but causing a distraction. We have all heard you. Charles35 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the issues we have been having is that you do not appear to understand some of the policies and guidelines - for instance, claiming a reliable source should be discounted because the "grand narratives" of sociology are now deprecated is pretty much wrong. Editors are taking great pains to explain these things, politely and with reference to policies, because you are making statements and errors that give every impression of you not understanding certain key issues. I don't know what policies you understand versus those you do not, and some of the lengthy discussions on the BCA talk page have involved common misunderstandings of core content policies.

If you agree to be bound by the outcome of any RFCs undertaken, then I will start suggesting issues we could resolve via this means. An RFC is generally a much narrower focus on factual (and sometimes stylistic) matters than a DRN discussion, and tends to be quicker. One way of ensuring I don't bring up the RFC issue again is by saying either "yes, let's use the RFC process" or "I would prefer that specific issue be addressed here" then consolidating discussion of said issues in a single location. Spreading it across two pages is confusing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by WhatamIdoing

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I think we can summarize this locus of this dispute in very few characters: "There are multiple experienced editors working on that article, and none of them agree with Charles35's POV."

There, that's just 108 characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

:-) Funny, but we need to assume that the "minority" editor may have a point. Perhaps the best resolution is between the two viewpoints? In any case, DRN volunteers would appreciate your opinons on the merits of the issues. --Noleander (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

All things are possible; some are less likely than others. Last I checked, Charles wanted to say that treatment "initiates women through the breast cancer culture" (emphasis added), which we might call a creative phrasing. It is unlikely that the best resolution is halfway between a literate use of the prepositional verb in question and his suggestion.

Additionally, his concern about the phrase, as stated on the talk page today, is, "I don't trust readers to understand that you don't mean there is a conspiracy of a group of evil connivig cunning BCA-ers." I believe it is the general practice at the English Wikipedia to write articles under the assumption that our readers are not gullible idiots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. To clarify: there are two alternative texts:

1. "forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture... "
2. "forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women through the breast cancer culture ..."

and the issue is which text is more grammatical, and more consistent with the source(s). Is that correct? --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (I have added five words to the end of the first quotation to be more complete.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NO. Not at all! The issue is not about grammar. It is about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Charles35 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The differences between the two sentences are not merely grammatical. Do you agree that the dispute is between these two sentences? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is about both the quote and the paragraph that starts with "misery quotient" and ends with "inner circle". Charles35 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to be clear so that no fresh opinions of uninvolved editors are skewed by what WhatamIdoing just said. Just because I am the only one that has expressed concern does not mean that my concern is invalid or that there is a true "consensus" on the talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made a joke like that if I didn't trust the editors here to be able to make up their minds independently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just be aware that if all policy, guidelines and procedures are in line and only one editor is objecting to content, it may well be a rough consensus if the reasoning of the one is not justyfied.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, please stop bringing outside arguments into this. Thanks. When you said you trust readers, you meant that you trust them to realize that there is no actual circle (ie a curved line). I said that is ridiculous, but that based on the text, it isn't farfetched to assume that some readers might think there is a conspiracy going on. This only applies to the case in which the quote is removed, because the quote makes it clear that it is a metaphor.

Which leads me to the next point. Amadscientist - I do not believe this is in accordance with the policies. I believe that the full paragraph quote is WP:UNDUE. It is simply bizarre. Awareness is like a tribe? With circumcision rituals? Seriously? That is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Even without the quote, it is undue in my opinion as it is no longer making a bizarre metaphor. Without the quote, it is no longer presented as a metaphor. It is still bizarre, but now it is a claim (which is in reality a metaphor) and is presented as a fact.

I also think it doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Without the quote, the text states the metaphor as a fact (which is worse than stating an opinion as fact). It is also judgmental, and doesn't indicate the prominence of opposing views. WhatamIdoing and WLU are "requiring" that all material added to the article must address the material that is already there. If I don't find a source that says that there is in fact no inner circle of the breast cancer culture, then there's nothing I can do. This is, obviously, impossible, as no other source talks about such a conspiracy or addresses such a bizarre metaphor. So I am left to come here to DRN. Charles35 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is stated that readers are smart enough to know that FRINGE ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources - a key sign of NPOV problems. Charles35 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the nature of a metaphor that it is presented "as a fact", that is, equating two things. That's how metaphors work. If you say "Cancer treatment is a journey", then you have a metaphor. If you say "Cancer treatment is like a journey", then you have a simile, rather than a metaphor.

What matters here is that we have sources talking about suffering initiating women into something. They are not initiated into the broad cancer culture. They are initiated into a small, select, exclusive part of that culture. IMO the phrase inner circle describes that part of the culture just as well as any other phrase. I'm open to alternatives, but you haven't ever proposed any. You just assert that our readers are too gullible to know that there isn't a vast, evil conspiracy by cancer patients. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do assert that. Inner circle implies that these people are working together and are all connected on an individual level. This isn't true. Supporters in Cali generally do not know those in Florida. This might be different if you tightened your definition of inner circle. If you are talking about any supporter who has gone through months of radiation and chemotherapy, that refers to millions of women. Most of these women do not know each other and would detest your claims. And I will reiterate: "It is stated that readers are smart enough to know that FRINGE ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources" Charles35 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by GabrielF

First, I would like to state up front that I will have limited time to participate in this process over the next two weeks. I apologize for that.

I first became aware of this article via a request for help from Charles35 in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC. I disagree very strongly with Whatamidoing that "There are multiple experienced editors working on that article, and none of them agree with Charles35's POV." I consider myself a very experienced editor (10,000+ edits, active since 12/2004) and I do think that there are some very serious structural issues with this article. I'm assuming that WAID is referring to Charles' POV about the article rather than about the topic, but I should point out that I find myself quite sympathetic to what critics such as Barbara Ehrenreich are saying. Yet, I still feel that the article in its current form is not neutral. Several editors have said that the tone and emphasis of the article accurately represents the state of the discourse about this topic in reliable third-party sources. I don't feel that this is accurate - I agree that a number of commentators and social science researchers have taken a strident tone, but my impressions from looking through the sources are that (1) some of these books (Kulik for instance) are not as negative as they are portrayed to be; (2) there are other perspectives from other fields that are not so negative (for instance perspectives from advertising and marketing professionals, from non-profit people and from public policy researchers) and (3) when this topic is portrayed in, say, the New York Times, there tends to be more balance than this article suggests. I've added in some additional information from the other side of this issue - for instance statements from the Komen foundation - but I do think that this article does need to be examined very carefully. I've outlined some significant issues that I see here: Wikipedia:NPOVN#neutrality of Breast cancer awareness (note this was written on 11/30 so some things may have changed). I do believe some progress has been made with this article and I look forward to more productive work. GabrielF (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, they know nothing about my POV on the topic. As I once discussed with WhatamIdoing, I originally stumbled upon the article as I was looking for info about how out of hand BCA is getting. When I read the article, at first I agreed. But then when I came across things like "inner circle", I knew I had to edit this article. To make it clear for everyone, I agree with the viewpoints expressed in this article, but I am much, much more moderate. And I also have no real life reasons to be against these critics. I am not close to anyone that has BC, if that's what any of you have suggested or thought. I've never been involved in any awareness effort either. Charles35 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with what GabrielF said in number (1) - that the viewpoints expressed in this article are cherrypicked from the sources. Much of the sources express attitudes towards awareness that are not seen here. For instance, both Sulik and Ehrenreich, while both being overall negative, have a lot of positive things to say about BCA. I was especially surprised when I read Ehrenreich. She is portrayed as a radical critic in the article, when she is in reality much more down to Earth and neutral. I don't know if I'd say she even has a POV. She might be a critic, but she seems to have no non-neutral inclinations. Charles35 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero opposition to taking the positive aspects of Sulik, Ehrenreich, or any other source, and expanding the page with the great things about BCA. Certainly, that would seem to alter the perceived imbalance of criticism on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. When GabrielF added pro-BCA from multiple sources already used in the article, WhatamIdoing met the edits with strong opposition. Gabriel might be able to expand further on that. Yesterday, when I added pro-BCA material from Ehrenreich, WhatamIdoing thoughtlessly deleted with edit summary "makeover time":

[2]

And then she had to be sure to add more material against the positive material I added, beginning with "However, regardless of whether the..." - [3]

Doing this sort of thing just buries the positive material in more and more negative material. If I didn't add the positive material, then WhatamIdoing wouldn't have added the negative material. She was, IMO, making a WP:POINT. If this keeps up, it effectively makes no difference for us to add positive material, because it just gets buried. In fact, if you keep up adding one negative sentence for each positive one, then the percentage of positive material will actually decrease. Charles35 (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The "makeover time" edit kept the information you added from Ehrenreich, near verbatim, adding a single sentence which I don't see as negative. The fact that women treat it as a makeover opportunity isn't portraying it as a bad thing, either in the source or in the BCA wiki page - only that part of treatment is retaining a version of femininity and an effort to reinvent their physical appearance. I do not see it as negative (the fact that you do may have something to do with how you perceive all of WAID's edits however), but have reworded in an effort to address your concerns. What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Biosthmors

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Quiddity

The overall dispute seems to be, that Charles35 objects to the quantity/balance of criticism in the entire article (He recently said it was "extremely unbalanced"). He believes the article should have less detailed information on specific aspects (which he has repeatedly described as "radical" and "conspiratorial"), and more details on the accomplishments/benefits of the BCA movement (which no-one objects to, but no-one has done the work of researching/writing about). Here's a specific example where he describes the problem as he sees it.

I believe he started off wanting to delete the entire article and start over (in late October), and has since then adjusted his perspective significantly. However he still believes that some of the ideas summarized in the article are utterly inappropriate, and should be removed completely. That is what DRN might be able to help with (by either substantiating his perspective, or by explaining to him what aspects he might need to reconsider). Hope that helps, I can provide more diffs or thoughts if requested. –Quiddity (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as you can tell, I joined wikipedia in late October. I was not aware of how things worked. Pardon me. My arguments have changed over time. Let's not ad hominemically talk about Charles, please. Let's focus on the material. As you can see, that diff is from November 10th, only about 2 weeks after I joined. It is now December 7, an entire month later and over 6 weeks since I've joined. How about we focus on the material and the current arguments, not try to undermine my qualification by quoting diffs from a month ago. That isn't going to get us anywhere. We are talking about inner circle. Bringing up these irrelevant arguments is only distracting us from the point, something done by just about every post since we've started:

-Elizabeth Edwards (WhatamIdoing)

-request for comment (WLU)

-sociological theory conversations brought up about metanarratives violating WP:TONE that are irrelevant to this (WLU)

-summing up this issue in 108 chars with "Charles doesn't know what he's talking about; we do." (WhamamIdoing)

Let's stop talking about editors, and start talking about edits. All that this is doing is distracting us from the issue. Why do you guys have such a difficult time talking about anything related to this issue, and why do you continually avoid and divert it to discussions about editors? I am afraid that distractions will just lead us off topic and lead to this dispute being closed. You guys don't want that to happen, do you? Charles35 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the issue at DR/N is the history of objections made by the editor. This is really not a dscussion of you, persay, but the history of your objections and editing on the article. That is fair to discuss if not about conduct or behavior and sticks to the content issue. However it is sometimes best to speak in the third person at DR/N as to not make it look like a PA.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but all that we need to focus on here is inner circle. It's the only reason we're here. So far, nobody except for me has said anything about inner circle. The editors have not defended it, and no volunteers have commented on it, likely due to the fact that nobody is really talking about it. Let's not distract the conversation away from the actual point here. All that we are trying to accomplish is the inner circle. That's it. But as you can see, we have effectively been distracted, intentional or not. I am not commenting on the actions of other editors. All I'm saying is that we have been distracted from the actual point, and that I'd like to get back on topic - Amadscientist, do you have any thoughts regarding the inner circle issue?

Quiddity, you say that if we don't address all these other issues, we'll end up right back in DRN. Well, if we do address all those issues, we won't accomplish anything! We have come here to focus on one issue and actually get something done in a timely manner. If we start bringing up all these other issues, all that will happen is DRN will turn into the BCA talk page, which is the exact reason that we have left the talk page. I don't want that, and neither do you (I assume). Talking about all these irrelevant things is just clouding the issue. Please do not comment unless it is talking about inner circle. That is the reason we're here. Let's not turn DRN into the BCA talk page. Charles35 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quiddity is not required to focus on the one detail that you currently want to focus on. Sometimes a big-picture perspective is more helpful than focusing on details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. Please trim the opening statement to 2000 characters. I am not opening discussion right now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ebel23. Please see talk page section "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles35, reduce your opening statement to less than 2000 characters. If you continue to persist in adding content, there is the possibility that this filing will be closed. The discussion is still not opened. Do not post in this section until one of the volunteers invites discussion. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the DR/N notice board. Charles35 was asked by this volunteer to give more detail on the dispute from the simple statement originally posted. As the filing editor was concerned about the character limit, I have given the editor permission to go past the limit. Do not close this case just for their going over the limit as they were asked to do so if it was needed. Please see the DR/N talkpage. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the case originator was given permission to exceed the limit, of course we should let it slide. On the other hand, I'm still trying to grasp what the precise issue is. It would be nice if one of the parties, in their opening statement, could give a simple, plain summary of the issue(s) that is understandable to outsiders. --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand it from the short version and am still not entirely clear on the issue now. Perhaps another opening will clarify or Charles may read over his opening and see areas to improve on. Right now I can only assume this is an editor that has not had their contributions stand after discussion on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of editors there is appropriate and within policy, this may just not be the correct venue but may indeed be a case for RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it. I hope that is more clear. Charles35 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets go ahead and begin the discussion. Charles, if you could, I wonder if a brief description of what you feel is needed to the article would be a good beginning. Is there any sort of compromise to the content you feel would be acceptable by the involved parties?

Okay. The inner circle problem can be broken down into 2 pieces - the quote, and the text. The quote is a paragraph long and is making a bizarre metaphor relating cancer victims to barbaric circumcision and blood rituals. It's degrading, inappropriate, and violates WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV. I think that this should be removed, no question.

While I do oppose all talk of a conspiracy-like inner circle of awareness supporters, in the spirit of compromise/consensus, I think this might be appropriate:

1) the quote must be removed.

2) the text must identify the idea as a metaphor, and attribute it by stating the person's name in addition to the inline citation (to put extra emphasis because the article uses inline citations, so it appears no different from any other sentence without attributing it in the text). This is very important - the idea CANNOT be displayed as a fact.

3) the text cannot use the term "inner circle". It sounds conspiratorial. The source does not use it. I think that "rite of passage" is okay. The source uses it. And it fits with the metaphor.

I think that with those 3 conditions, the text will not lend undue weight to a bizarre metaphor, it will not be misleading in stating the idea as a fact, and it will not sound conspiratorial. Charles35 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU made a revision that identified the idea as a metaphor in the text. I don't see that as making any difference because the quote identifies it as a metaphor anyway. Then I edited it more, removing the quote, keeping WLU's identification of the metaphor, and removing inner circle. To me, that makes the material acceptable. WLU reverted my edit, but didn't give any reason in the edit summary. WLU - can you let me know the reason now? What exactly did you not like about my edit / those 3 conditions? Charles35 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless and until the other participants decide to weigh in, this may likely go stale. For the most part this was a one against many situation and was opened by another volunteer who weighed in by posting. This happens often and can make participants feel as if the case was ready for DR/N, when it may well be that no one is interested enough to make this a real dispute. I will leave a message on the article talkpage to ping involved parties but if no one posts there is little we can work with. If any other volunteer has more to add, please feel free.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate to include the quotation, which said:

"Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor.""

As for inner circle, Charles is invited to explain how he would describe the "new and higher status" that women are initiated into. I thought that "women are initiated into the inner circle of the culture" was a reasonable and standard description of the idea (by "standard", I mean that the exact quoted phrase "initiated into the inner circle" gets more than 100K ghits and appears in several hundred books, so it's a pretty common phrase that ought to be recognized by any fluent English speaker).

Charles—and Charles alone, as far as I can tell—thinks that saying they're initiated into an inner circle sounds like some sort of evil conspiracy. But he's not been forthcoming with alternatives. If he's got sensible alternatives to offer, I'd like to hear them.

("Inner circle" appears in other sources cited in the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not see "inner circle" as conspiratorial, I see it as an evocative description of entry into the most respected and revered area of a culture. Yes, conspiracy theories and secret societies can be described as having an "inner circle", but so can nearly any organization where trust, history and respect impact the social capital held by members. Ehrenreich's quote initially wasn't there, and Charles disputed the text on the basis that the "rite of passage" and other prose was not verified by the sources. I added the quote, which verified the information, and have been replacing it because I think it again is evocative - I don't think I could come up with a summary that is anywhere near the quality of the original material. In addition, the use of the quote firmly places the term "inner circle" in the context of initiation rites - not conspiracies. I think it's good writing, quoted in an appropriate place, that illustrates a valuable point about the culture of BCA. I have read Charles' objections, and find them all less compelling than the quote itself. This is an issue that could be addressed by a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't really see the paragraph as being neutral in tone and actually do not understand the use of the term she-roes. This is highly unusual for a fact based statement. In fact, the entire first sentence seems very POV: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". --Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "not understand the use of the term" - did you see the sub-section just above, Breast cancer awareness#The she-ro? (Note prior discussions in the talkpage archives, here and here). See also ghits and g-scholar-hits for the exact phrase "misery quotient" and also ghits for "she-ro" cancer (eg this article from 1994). Both terms are used extensively outside of the currently cited sources. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the section shown is of undue weght and would also prefer to see inline citations used and not a single overarching opinion for the section but regardless this term should not be used in this manner as a fact based claim. There is a way to write an encyclopedia and this isn't it in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think the sections being mentioned suffer from POV. The idea of a Wikipedia article is not to suggest that these terms are standard, which is what I believe is going on here. It seems to me that some information is the opinion of various authors and are not actual statements of fact. A lot of this should be attributed to the author in the form of their own opinion and not as un questionable fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Terms like "she-ro", "misery quotient" and "inner circle" are metaphors or constructs used by one or a small group of authors. They need to be treated as opinion and not as fact. GabrielF (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how two sentences, representing 0.005% of the article, about the fact that society honors cancer patients because of their suffering, is really "undue". It's less than 1/200th of the article. How much smaller do you think it should be? How much smaller do you think it could be?

Also, since DUE weight is determined by the prevalence of ideas and concepts in the reliable sources, not the prevalence of ideas among editors, and you've read few (none?) of the sources that discuss the specific question of what society values or honors in cancer patients, can you explain the epistemiology ("how you know what you [think you] know") behind your assertion of undue weight? It seems to me that until you've read multiple sources on that talk about this specific subject, that you don't actually have enough information to form a rational or relevant opinion on whether these two sentences represent a balanced summary of the published, reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What two sentences are you refering to? I am referring to the She-Ro section itself, which actually seems to have about 4 references, however I still see it as undue weight as the article is about Breast cancer awareness and I feel this section is needlessly over-written. Also, you are wikilawyering now and making far too many assumptions on me alone. I am not the subject or your prejudices about me or what I may or may not have read. But I think you are mistaken about what I am talking about. Also, I am curious about the parenthetical citation style being used. Does this have a consensus?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:Parenthetical referencing - yes, it's an uncommon but completely accepted style (See WP:CITEVAR). At least 2 FAs use it. Complaints about the usage of this style, was the original/only reason I took an interest in the article! –Quiddity (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the following paragraph is particularly demonstrative of the neutrality problems with this article:

Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative" (Sulik 2010, page 250, 308)

Here are some issues:

1. "critics say is 'exploitative'" - Sulik says that "the culture's use of women's voluntarism for the cause can be exploitive" (308). She is not saying, as the Wikipedia article does, that it is exploitive, but that it can be. Sulik offers an example of a woman, Melinda, who received many calls to speak about her condition and who felt socially obligated to volunteer even though her health would have benefited from a reduced schedule. Just because a critic points out one case that she feels constitutes exploitation does not mean that this critic sees breast cancer culture as inherently exploitative as opposed to having the potential to be exploitative in certain cases. In fact, as Sulik explains, Melinda may not be a typical case. Sulik points out that the African American community has a history of avoiding conversations about cancer. As an African American woman who was willing to be a spokesperson, Melinda may have been a rare and valuable asset who was called upon more than a typical breast cancer survivor and who might have felt a special obligation that other survivors may not have felt. To conclude from this one case that breast cancer culture IS exploitive, rather than that it CAN BE exploitive in certain cases is to misrepresent the source.
2. "critics say is 'exploitative' - Do critics say this or does the one cited critic say this? Why are we not attributing this directly to Sulik?
3. "Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause." - What this seems to be suggesting is that the purely symbolic events described in the preceding few paragraphs (painting a bridge pink or a facebook campaign that asks women to post the color of their bras) doesn't have any value except as a means of self-promotion for this movement. Where is the source for this? It seems to contradict things that we say elsewhere in the article, for instance: "The high level of awareness and organized political lobbying has resulted in a disproportionate level of funding and resources given to breast cancer research and care." This suggests to me that attention-grabbing events may keep help maintain a high level of awareness of breast cancer that leads to tangible benefits for breast cancer patients in the form of additional dollars for treatment.GabrielF (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik, who's work is very recent and does not appear to be the mainstream. A lot of what is being used is being referenced as fact and I think that has lead us here. I am going to read through the entire article and all the refernces closely to see what's what, but just a quick look makes me uncomfortable how much Sulik is being referenced and not in the best manner possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find page 310 on Amazon, it is hidden on Google Books. It seems like Sulik's point about exploitation is that the breast cancer awareness organizations can ask a lot of women and these women then have to take responsibility for negotiating exactly what it is they are willing to do, given their own feelings of obligation to the organization and their desire to take care of their own needs. I'll quote exactly what Sulik says below, but my reaction is that it seems like what Sulik is describing is a very typical human relationship: Sometimes you feel an obligation to help out with something but you have your own needs and you need to strike a balance. This seems very common with non-profits but also with friendships and with family relationships. My relatives call me to help them with their computer problems. I have to balance my sense of obligation towards them with my irritation about having to deal with other people's wireless routers. This may be worth a couple of pages in a 300-page book on the breast cancer awareness movement but does it really belong in an encyclopedia article? I'd like to delete the entire paragraph.GabrielF (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, what paragraph are you talking about? Charles35 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sulik quote about breast cancer culture as exploitive

Then she kept getting calls to speak and participate in breast cancer activities. She said, "I did not want to be the poster woman for breast cancer." Melinda asked herself: "Is this going to be my primary focus to go around and do this, or am I just going to have this be a part of my life...I decided that I just want it to be a part, not my primary focus." In addition to feeling responsible to her community, Melinda also felt responsible for finding balance. She said, "I allowed myself... I took the focus off of me and I began to focus on what I could do with other people and helping other people...it's been a struggle" (emphasis added). The sisterhood assumes no responsibility for exploring Melinda's goodwill; she had to bear the burden of setting boundaries on the sisterhood's intrusion. Such negotiations are a regular part of the survivor experience, especially for women who are committed to broader communities.

Charles disputed the text on the basis that the "rite of passage" and other prose was not verified by the sources.

WLU, please do not jump to random conclusions. I said that "inner circle" was not in the text, which is true. I said nothing about "rite of passage". Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. But half the things you say about me are false. So please, everyone, take his words about me with a grain of salt, because I don't have time to dispute all of them. Charles35 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, when I googled "initiated into the inner circle", most of the hits were talking about Freemason conspiracies. Charles35 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the fact that this is, as you say, "1/200th" of the article is irrelevant. This is the exact reason why I, at the beginning of this, quoted a bunch of other passages from the article to give the context for this quote. Every sentence is 1/200th, or however small, of the article. Does that mean that we can't consider any single sentence undue weight? How does this thinking apply to the pro-Komen sentence that GabrielF added? [4]. Each sentence must be taken within the context of the larger article. Charles35 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the pro-Komen statement is currently in the page despite that diff being from December 1st, presumably WAID thinks it is OK.

The Ehrenreich quote makes it very obvious that "inner circle" does not refer to Freemasons or other conspiracies, as does the use of "ordeal" and "rite of passage" in the page. It is quite probable that readers will use the context of the page, rather than googling the term, to decide what sense is being used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Probability is not a standard I recognise as a Wikipedia policy or guideline. While I agree in some small degree, I also see something of a POV there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I was responding to WhatamIdoing's statement that "the exact quoted phrase "initiated into the inner circle" gets more than 100K ghits and appears in several hundred books". Thus, my observation was that most of these hits and books seem to be referring to the Freemason conspiracy. Charles35 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on quote

The quote found in the culture section is a source of disagreement. The quote is:

Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor." (Ehrenreich 2001)

A DRN volunteer indicated that this was an appropriate place to resolve issues like this, as an alternative form of WP:RFC. Discussions on the BCA talk page have indicated that a formal external opinion would probably resolve this issue. Accordingly, should the breast cancer awareness page include the above quotation?

---

I believe the quote briefly and evocatively describes a facet of the culture surrounding breast cancer awareness and treatment, the fact that the social capital of a breast cancer survivor is enhanced by the degree to which their cancer and treatment was painful and grueling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mobile operating system

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Davidkmartin on 08:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC).

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: Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia needs to have a neutral point of view. That he cannot use Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Organic food

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Zad68 on 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC).

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

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

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^(talk) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Banner

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

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

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

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

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

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-

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Noone has focused on the actual content under dispute. Here is the content under dispute: [5]. 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" [6] 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

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 [is not covered by MEDRS].

--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 Wikipedia 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 ^(about)_(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) [7]. 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 ([8]). 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:

  "Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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.

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 [9] 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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 (Wikipedia'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"? Wikipedia 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)

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^(talk) 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)

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). [10]
• American Cancer Society [11]

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."

I have about half a dozen more 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)

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)

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)

Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir

– New discussion.

Filed by Tgeorgescu on 16:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC).

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 [12] 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)

The discussion above 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.

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

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Theotokos of Vladimir discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.