User talk:Nikurasu
|
|
Though this article has now been redirected, just letting you know that I replied on its talk page again to your statements. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and archived again. I had reverted the archiving so that I could reply and we could end the discussion properly, but, for us regarding this matter, it usually takes too long between each reply. And the talk page should really be archived now that the article is no longer there. You can see what I stated here. If you are that much up for replying, then I guess you could de-archive things as well (as responding in the archives is not allowed), or continue this discussion on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to drop a message to explain about the concerns expressed on the talk page. The history of that page has been one of a number of editors that have been disruptively pushing the point of view that aspartame is dangerous despite multiple high quality sources showing the contrary. This disruption also spread to the talk page, with endless discussions about the topic in general with precious little discussion of how to improve the article besides the spamming of very poor sources (such as the ones Arydberg just put up today). This calmed down somewhat when these POV pushing editors were topic banned from the article for a short amount of time. I would reinforce that when making medical claims, we have a guideline for which sources are appropriate, which would include recent, high quality peer-reviewed secondary sources such as reviews in the medical literature (which are already in the article), and we do not use old or primary sources to rebut such high quality sources. I think this controversial article would best be served by people discussing specific changes with specific sources referenced. No one wants to return to a time where people are arguing endlessly on the talk page without specific suggestions in mind. Yobol (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I see. That makes sense. My primary concern was that the research looked too sparse, and the discussion had become too geared towards addressing these extremists. I am aware of their existence in general. I assumed there had been some group of them trying to write into the article. Obviously, addressing this group is a very important concern. Obviously specious information from unreliable sources should not be on Wikipedia. However, we cannot lose ourselves in this process. I also thought there might be some corporate editing of Wikipedia, but this does not seem to be the case here.
I have no issue with the section I created being closed. It seems to have already been hijacked by wholly idle discussion.
As for the lack of broad research basis in the article, you have to understand that the goal and method of a government board is entirely different from that of a scientist. While many government reviews are posted, there is only a single scientific research review Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-Butchko-52. There is also one medical summary article. Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-16. I suppose you could count a textbook as a research review, as well. Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-Kotsonis-25 Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-53 appears as if it is a research review, but it is really just a review of data on aspartame consumption (rather than safety). This is certainly not bad, but it is not enough. Multiple research reviews, or at least, a research review and another's evaluation of that review must be cited. What is good is that there are a number of studies cited at the end. However, as I said, these are basically Google results (or Pubmed). It might help to dig a little deeper. Looking at recent issues or even older issues of medical journals might be a good idea, for example. I do not think Pubmed is complete.
I don't see what is so inspecific about pointing out the limited research.
As for what I pointed out in the beginning, it's valid to an extent, but I'm not sure that I will find the sources again. Nowadays, I try to keep a record of my research readings.