Talk:Aspartame controversy

Controversial article vs. article about controversy

I see the first as editorializing and introduction of editorial POV, while the last is a statement of fact. Two edits seem to confuse the issue:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=327961656&oldid=327873422
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&curid=6821757&diff=327962955&oldid=327961656

I'm going to restore the previous version and let's see if a consensus forms to change it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not following the BRD cycle. Seek consensus here on removing the 'controversial' tag. Your edits mean the reference does not make sense.Fxsstm (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by it not making sense. Please explain. You could copy the wording and ref here and we can discuss it. I'll even add a references subsection so the refs will appear. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference speaks to the controversy. I would also ask that you apply the same rules to yourself as you do to others. For instance here on talk you stated "BTW, your last revert violated the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so I'm restoring the status quo until a discussion here has resulted in a consensus to change it." which is exactly what your current reverts have done. You also assert that it is editorializing (which it is not) and yet you have a history of intense editorializing. Can you please explain the inconsistencies in your behaviour, as I feel your strong POV is not helping the article. Fxsstm (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't editorializing, but accurately describing/paraphrasing sources. That was from the lead of this article at that time and accurately summed up the situation as required by the rules for writing a LEAD. Many edits have occurred since then, and some of that wording has been altered. I think it's best you stay away from commenting about "strong POV". I'm well aware I have one. You also have one, so let's leave it at that and discuss this situation below. - Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're really arguing that "subject of debate" is less encyclopedic than "subject of controversy from conspiracy theorists and some scientists"? I appreciate you're quite an active Wikipedean crusading against junk science (which I commend you on), but it does dishearten me that you think these sort of actions are okay. Keep the sentences calm and let the science speak for itself. -- Fxsstm (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving on to discussing your proposed edit to remove the 'controversial' tag from that study, I would disagree, as the journal clearly illustrates the controversy around the study in an authoritative journal. What issue do you have with informing readers that scientific studies are considered controversial by scientists working in that area of research? Have you read Soffritti's response? Fxsstm (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read and understood the heading of this section? You don't seem to be getting the point. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but I have read and understood. Let's be civil. It's perfectly logical to find controversial reviews within an area of research that is mired in controversy. It's unfortunate that your response here once again avoids discussing my direct questions on this issue. It's also curious that as an active editor of this article for quite some time, you've taken no issue with other studies being introduced as controversial. I presume you are satisfied with labeling any studies which disagree with your own POV as controversial, but not vice versa?

Can you see how this is unhelpful to producing a quality, NPOV article? I would also urge you to re-read your own words on NPOV, for instance "Wikipedia editors should consider it scandalous if a reader, after reading an article here, discovers totally new or unfamiliar significant information on the subject outside of Wikipedia". Your current efforts go against your own words. Providing factual information about a cited source (that it is controversial within its own field and industry-funded) is highly relevant, and Wikipedia should provide more, not less information.

Could you please address my initial questions: what issue do you have with stating that a review is controversial within its own field, and have you read Soffritti's response? I can think of no better example which demonstrates the controversy around this review than that of a leading aspartame researcher publicly attacking the validity of the safety review in an authoritative journal like Environmental Health Perspectives, Can you? -- Fxsstm (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this thread is to note that your introduction of the descripive words "controversial" is editorializing that is designed to poison the well against that source by adding your POV that it's controversial. It may not be so to others. It is your POV that it's controversial. It may well be, but we should follow the sources. If you wrote that it was an article that described the controversy, that would be fine, as that's what it does. I again suggest that you stick to the subject of this thread, rather than commenting on my history as an editor here. If you continue to violate WP:TALK by doing so, I'll have to seek to have you topic banned or worse. Just stick to the topic of this thread and we'll be fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please drop your threatening and disruptive behaviour, it does not help the discussion. The industry-funded review is considered controversial within its own field of research, and we have a high quality source for this controversy. A key scientific figure in this area attacked the study's conclusions and questioned its independence in an authoritative journal. You will also note many other Wikipedia articles quite correctly introduce reviews and studies as controversial. You appear not to understand what POV means, or are being disingenuous in applying it in this instance. As this directly relates to our discussion: would you argue that introducing the Ramazzini studies as controversial is also an exercise in poisoning the well? -- Fxsstm (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Confounding two different references together in the same sentence is confusing and original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit confounded two references in the same sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit you refer to is, as you know, a manual revert of the edits you did which violated the BRD cycle. The issue we are discussing is the validity of describing the 2007 safety evaluation as controversial. The additional footnote reference was pre-existing - feel free to suggest editing it if you feel it is confounding two different references together. -- Fxsstm (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

After merely reading this section I expected to agree with Fxsstm. Having read the diffs as well: I don't. This reference (EHPLetter) consists of two letters: 1) Aspartame-funded researchers Magnuson and Williams attack the Soffritti study. 2) Soffritti defends his study's finding that aspartame can cause cancer in rats. (The same set of two letters is currently being referenced in two consecutive footnotes: once for the first letter, and once for the response.)

Arguably we could consider this evidence sufficient to call the Soffritti study "controversial". We can also assume that if Soffritti contradicted the Magnuson/Williams letter, then Soffritti will also disagree with the Magnuson et al. safety review, its findings, and particularly with the weight it gives (or rather does not give) to Soffritti's own results. But IMO that wouldn't be enough to call the entire Magnuson et al. review "controversial", and anyway, it would by improper synthesis for us to draw such conclusions and make them explicit in this way. Hans Adler 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this, however the diff you are basing your conclusions on is a manual revert of an edit made by QuackGuru - that additional footnote citation was pre-existing. Feel free to suggest editing it out.

The debate here is simply whether it is valid to characterise the 2007 safety review as controversial. Is the validity of the safety review and its conclusions disputed / debated by any significant figures in this area, and so considered controversial? Yes. What is the evidence? A written opinion by a leading researcher in an authoritative journal casting doubts around the reviews independence and validity: a recent article (Magnuson et al. 2007), which was a "safety evaluation" sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of Aspartame ... Their article...contain[s] numerous erroneous statements".

We can certainly modify the source link to point directly to Soffriti's opinion if that clears things up? We don't have to assume, however, that Soffritti disagrees with the safety review as well as the letter, as his response addresses both directly. Nor is the test for whether research is considered controversial based on whether the entirety of a piece of research is considered controversial. If research is disputed / debated / questioned by a leading figure within an authoritative journal, it is by definition controversial. There is no improper synthesis involved. -- Fxsstm (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Soffritti does refer to the safety review, even putting it in inverted commas. Sorry for missing this at first. So there is a controversy between Soffritti and Magnuson all right, with no improper synthesis involved. However, I do think that this only proves a normal controversy between scientists and does [not] rise to the level of controversy (scandal) where we would normally use the word "controversial". See WP:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal for a discussion of this word. Hans Adler 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for agreeing (in part). However to address your new concern, Soffritti is explicitly drawing the reader's attention to the safety review's funding and his belief that it lacks credibility. If Soffritti merely disputed the study's conclusions then I might tend to agree with your analysis that it is only a normal controversy (dispute) between two scientists, but by directly raising the issue of funding and quoting the "safety review" he is raising it to the level of controversy (scandal) that you expect. Industry-funded research is considered controversial, and Soffritti is clearly making this point about the safety review in his response. Thanks for your input, it has made me think quite a bit about the usage, but I am left feeling more confident in its appropriateness. -- Fxsstm (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about confounding two references in the same sentence. It was fixed with with this edit. After editors stop messing up the text by mixing different sources then we can discuss what the text shopuld say. We can't move forward when editors want to editorial references and confuse the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Added critical missing word in my comment above. Hans Adler 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru appears to be taking issue with a separate point. That is not being debated here, so I will make an edit to make the source of 'controversial' explicit by linking directly to the Soffritti response, and also by removing the additional footnote he also takes issue with. -- Fxsstm (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru added two MEDRS tags, and these were (correctly, IMO) reverted. We don't need a WP:MEDRS quality source to say that a review is "controversial". We do, however, need sufficiently strong sources. In this context "controversial" will be read as "scandalous". A scandal clearly consists of more than a bit of mud-slinging between two directly involved individuals. (Basically of the form: "Your study was sloppy, and it wasn't even the first time!" – "You are industry-funded, and yes it's the second time our research is attacked unfairly!") Fxsstm, if you want the word "controversial" to stay in, the minimum you need is proof that this controversy is taken seriously by a priori neutral third parties. Ideally a neutral or authoritative third party calling it a controversy or using similarly strong words. Contrary to the edit summary of your latest comment [2], the response by Soffritti doesn't "rais[e] it to an appropriate level of controversy". Hans Adler 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hans, I feel the issue was addressed above in my earlier comments. That a leading researcher disputes and disparages a safety review in a leading journal and explicitly references that a "safety review" is industry funded is direct evidence that the study is considered controversial. However I am interested in this newer test you have set for asserting something is controversial. Could you point to an example on Wikipedia which meets this test, and are there any Wikipedia guidelines that specify the minimum proof you mention? -- Fxsstm (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained how this letter meets MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Fxsstm, a letter is not RS. A letter is not equal to a review. This is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are attempting to mislead editors here. You will note my comment in that edit is actually "Does not reference any study as stated." It made a claim about a nonexistent study, and instead referenced a letter. I made no pronouncements on the validity of a letter as a reliable source. Your behaviour here is not very helpful to the discussion. -- Fxsstm (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fxsstm believes a letter must be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are attempting to mislead editors here. See my comment above.

Fxsstm believes a letter should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please don't make false inferences. That sentence falsely claimed to cite a study which purported to claim there was "no controversy". Apart from the fact it did not cite any study (it cited a letter to the editor), to assert that a medical study would even come to such a conclusion is evidence of a failure to understand what the purpose of medical research is. -- Fxsstm (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A letter on this page is no different than a letter on the main page. You can't have it both ways. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit was to remove a sentence which made an unsubstantiated claim. That it referenced a letter was not the issue, the sentence was the issue. Your continued efforts to mislead is really quite disruptive to the conversation at hand. -- Fxsstm (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Another editor beleives a letter is an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please don't insist on this MEDRS red herring. Like BLP, the granularity of applicability of MEDRS is per claim, not per article. We have had such discussions before, and to establish that there is a controversy about something we simply don't need sources that pass MEDRS because something being a controversy or not is not a medical fact. (Conversely, medical claims need MEDRS quality sources even if they are made in passing at a non-medical article.) I agree with you that the word "controversial" is not appropriate here. But your approach to getting it removed is plain wrong. Hans Adler 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

MEDRS policy is not a red herring. We should not ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about "ignoring" MEDRS. This is about applying it where it is applicable and not applying it where it is not applicable. MEDRS until recently was unclear in this respect. I discovered this when I realised that according to a literal reading, medical claims (such as "aspartame causes cancer in rodents") would not have been in the scope of MEDRS if made in the context of List of common misconceptions#Human body and health. See WT:MEDRS#Scope of this guideline for the thread I started when I became aware of this problem. Eubulides then fixed MEDRS [3].

The sentecne is still original research. Confounding two references together in the same sentence is plain wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not original research, and we have already discussed and agreed that no improper synthesis is occurring. Hans has stated a higher test for using the word 'controversial is demanded, but I believe the source clearly meets the criteria, and am awaiting evidence of this higher test. Industry-funded scientific research is highly controversial, and the source links the report to this controversy (around industry-funded research and its validity) clearly in the research journal. -- Fxsstm (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, exactly. Of course it is original research (see following explanation). In any case, WP:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal makes it clear that we must be careful with the word "controversy", and that it is often used as a synonym for "scandal". The word "controversial" is even worse in that respect, since it functions like "scandalous". In this case it gives the impression that a lot of relevant people object to the safety review. This may be the case; but a single letter by a single expert, whose work had even been discredited by the review, is not sufficient evidence for that.

Do you seriously want to argue that (1) industry-funded scientific research is automatically controversial, and (2) therefore we can call an individual industry-funded study controversial? Then I have bad news for you: You haven't given any evidence for (1), and (2) would be improper synthesis. Hans Adler 09:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The source does not meet MEDRS. So I don't see any point to 1 or 2. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello - no I'm not arguing 1 and 2, they seem to form part of a straw-man argument extracted from my earlier talk comments (I was just providing more context to demonstrate the link to a greater controversy). I am simply stating that if an authoritative journal publishes the opinion of a leading researcher, in which the credibility of a "safety review" (as Soffritti refers to it) is questioned, its industry-funding is emphasised "sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of Aspartame", and its truthfulness is called into question "Their article...contain[s] numerous erroneous statements" this is sufficient direct evidence of the safety review being considered controversial within the pages of an authoritative journal. Are there any examples of usage across Wikipedia which pass the much higher test you are setting in this instance? -- Fxsstm (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring MEDRS. Please show how the source mmets MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) QG, MEDRS is no more relevant for the claim under discussion than it is for the birth year of Louis Pasteur. It is completely irrelevant because we are not talking about a medical claim at all. Hans Adler 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about ignoring it, it's about applying it where it applies, and not applying it where it doesn't. MEDRS is about medical and health-related claims: "These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects of all articles." The claim under discussion is only tangentially related to that. It can be handled perfectly well by just using WP:RS and WP:OR (and the result is what you want). It makes no sense to require (as MEDRS would do) systematic reviews of medical primary medical research on the question of whether a given safety review is controversial. Hans Adler 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a review that meets MEDRS but misusing a letter to undermine the review is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I made this change. No evidence has been given the reference meets MEDRS. Improper synthesis should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While no one should ignore MEDRS, it is not applicable in this instance. The fact that needs verifying (whether or not it is controversial) is not a medical fact. This has been pointed out to you above, as well as previously elsewhere. Please stop with the tendentious editing. DigitalC (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is applicable in this instance. A letter is being used to undermine a review. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not applicable. You will have more success getting the screw into the wall if you drop the hammer and start looking for a screwdriver. Hans Adler 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This needs a little WP:ASF and attribution. On the one hand, MEDRS need not be satisfied to show that there is a non-medical controversy over the results of that review (obvious for this article). On the other hand, just dropping the word controversy in those sentences gives the appearance that the controversy is medical, and is thus misleading. Can we get around this by stating review concluded flaws [FULL STOP] criticized by [specify] [FULL STOP]? Just removing the word controversy would suit, as the rebuttal (which could be described better) is right there after the review is introduced. In the lead, much less detail is needed - the statement of the current safety consensus should be simple and direct, leaving space for introducing the highlights of the history of the controversy. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A letter to the editor could, maybe, potentially, at most, be used to source the personal views of a notable individual. It cannot in any way be used as evidence that a review is "controversial". If there is a reliable secondary source, MEDRS or not, that refers to the review as controversial, that would be acceptable. A letter to the editor is not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you understate the sources significance in this issue. However I have listened to your requests for a secondary source (and the continued reasoned arguments of Hans and others), and have provided one illustrating the controversy around the review's independence and industry funding, which Soffritti is also directly referencing in Environmental Health Perspectives as the primary source. -- Fxsstm (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, your attempt at misapplying MEDRS, and then removing the debated sentence (a debate that you have been participating in) does not seem to be helpful behaviour to the discussion at hand? -- Fxsstm (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors agreed that the word controversial was inapproriate. I don't understand why you continue to add that word. So I removed it with the other massive changes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fxsstm has demonstrated a clear disregard for consensus here and at Aspartame in a transparently single-minded attempt to push an agenda. This sort of behaviour is inappropriate and detrimental to the project.

We would do well to consider the advice of 2/0, a respected and long-time editor on Wikipedia, who suggests that the lead is much too detailed. I agree completely, have rewritten, and have been reverted by Fxsstm with little solid reasoning. Consensus is not a vote; it's the weight of argument.

On the now-nauseating "controversy" issue, there is no evidence that anyone outside of the small but rather vocal anti-aspartame activists considers the 2007 review to be controversial. The WebMD source actually presents quite the opposite of what Fxsstm is claiming; it emphasises that the writers were not aware of the funding source until after review. I advise Fxsstm to stop the tendentious agenda editing before there are blocks for edit warring. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When Fxsstm first began, they seemed to feign an air of neutrality and respect for our policies, but as time has gone by, this SPA has shown their real motives, and their twisting of wording is a clear POV push using editorially biased wording. I would support a topic ban or block of User:Fxsstm (and QuackGuru for other reasons). -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Violations of WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Best to not comment on editors, especially when WP:POT applies.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I am very interested in Wikipedia articles being written from an NPOV and comprehensive. A number of editors here appear to disrupt discussions by misapplication of Wikipedia rules, and mischaracterisations of editor actions. Addition of valid sourced sentences are removed without discussion or reasoning in edit comments, wholesale reverting of various changes are made and these tendentious activities are then applied to editors such as myself who are interested in moving this article along. It appears that a number of editing accounts are intent on mischaracterising the science, and the controversy on both these pages including: Verbal, Keepcalmandcarryon, Brangifer, and QuackGuru. An intense effort is made to keep or add emotional wording, such as "activists against food additives" (rather than scientists), remove significant scientific studies which provide unfavourable reports on aspartame's safety (such as the Ramazzini Foundation studies), and remove significant context around favourable scientific studies (such as the safety review conducted and funded by industry). Continued efforts are made to mischaracterise concern over aspartame safety as merely grounded in conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and fueled by activism when it has its basis in scientific research. These do not appear to be the actions of editors merely intent on ensuring 'conspiracy theorists' don't push pseudoscience and strong POVs. The final result appears to be a poorly-written article which represents the talking points and tone that industry would find favourable. To remove the POV label on this article numerous edits do need to be made to remove the mischaracterisation and communicate the science, both favourable and unfavourable, on aspartame, but entrenched editors appear to be completely satisfied with an unbalanced, inconsistent status quo. Brangifer has previously threatened to "topic ban me or worse" (how much worse, I wonder?), so this sort of stepped-up aggression is not unexpected. As a new Wikipedia user it is interesting to see experienced editor accounts being used to clearly misapply Wikipedia rules, stifle discussion, and disrupt good-faith edits. There appears to be an agenda here alright, but it's certainly not mine. I feel the science around aspartame safety is still inconclusive, and there are certainly more serious carcinogenic factors in most peoples everyday lives. My only focus is to ensure the science on controversial Wikipedia topics is accurately communicated, and that is strictly NPOV. The Aspartame pages have been a good start in revealing editor motives and learning about the gaming of the system, wikilawyering, and other tactics editors use, so thank you for the introduction and education. As a new user I'm sure to put a foot wrong here and there on Wikipedia protocol which will be seized upon by experienced editors with a clear agenda. However I can only assume my knowledge of the correct way to go about improving Wikipedia articles will increase over time. The sophisticated attempts to disrupt improvements to this article are impressive, but I will consider what options are available to Wikipedians faced with this sort of scenario. -- Fxsstm (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Keep calm, consider the arguments before you, get used to dispute resolution. Ensure that language you introduce to articles is neutral and attributed even if the existing isn't. Oh, and collect diffs. Unomi (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Best to avoid such comments, especially when WP:POT applies. These comments only add to the evidence against you in favor of blocking or worse (banning). -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in this conversation.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Editor_continues_to_ignore_MEDRS I am not familar enough with the topic matter and the literature to make indepth comments on this article but I think that much of this dispute is misunderstanding or misrepresenting guidelines such as MEDRS as well as failure to reach a sensible compromise by following wiki guidelines by both sides.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial synthesis

I tagged the controversial text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

A lot of references have unsourced text or are not part of the reference format. There are a lot more like this. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

I removed a paragraph describing opinion pieces in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health". Devoting this much space to minority views already well represented in the article appears to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I also question the reliability of these opinion articles in this journal as indicative of a significant opinion in science. A journal not listed by PubMed is unreliable, but journals listed by PubMed have different degrees of reliability. This one seems obscure and perhaps biased.

There's no getting around the main issue here: the current scientific consensus is that aspartame is safe. The point of this article is to describe the controversy in encyclopaedic fashion, not to describe every letter written on the topic. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Aspartame Controversy and the reasons behind it. Usually a controvery revolves around disagreement with mainstream opinion. Therefore, covering non-mainstream opinion, but giving the non-mainstream the corresponding weight that it has in the overall opposing opinion is appropriate. But eliminating non-mainstream opinions in a controversy article is not appropriate because of what the article is about. The weight would be different in the article on Aspartame, but not here. stmrlbs|talk 18:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Government warning in Abu Dhabi

Ref: [4] MaxPont (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)