Talk:Fight the New Drug/Archive 1

Opposition

Some opposing text was obviously necessary in this article. I've made a start. It seems to me that this is a religious organization despite its proponents perhaps self-deceiving statements otherwise. To avoid retribution I am remaining anonymous, and support the contribution of other anonymous authors to material such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.179.53 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

POV dispute, "FINDINGS" section

Article states that organization's claims are "substantiated by research" but does not offer citation backing this up. Additionally, article claims that negative effects of pornography use are based on two articles. However, these two article's cited relate to pornography addiction / compulsive use, not to pornography use. In other words, the claims made in this section are not substantiated by the conclusions section in cited paper. It is misleading to claim that papers support the organization's claims that pornography use is bad when they clearly do not have any implication for non-compulsive / casual use. Additionally, this article refers to a paper as "groundbreaking research"; this is editorializing that does not belong in this article, or on wikipedia in general. The article also cites a paper's citation of a paper. Finally, the "findings" section of this paper are contradictory to the views of most academics in the relevant fields. The "findings section" really does not belong on this page, discussion of the effects of pornography should be migrated to a potential "effects of pornography" section. This section in its current form is more misleading than it is factual, and should be removed.

I have added a POV flag to this section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.253.241 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC) 

A quick search of the organization's website found endless citations to original sources validating the claims the organization makes. Baseballreader899 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"History" and "Overview" sections

I am concerned about the "History" and "Overview" sections of this article, because frankly, most of it's content is unreferenced content that appears to be WP:Original research, or the claim is not found in the source. For example, I couldn't find any reference to serotonin or norepinephrine in the FTND website, even though this section says that "They maintain that pornography causes an individual's brain to become overloaded with a combination of potent chemicals such as dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, and norepinephrine". This appears to be WP:OR as well. As another example, I could not find any references the anti-tobacco campaign in the source provided for that sentence (Psychology Today). Given that, according to WP:OR, "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source", I believe the removal of these sections in their current state would be justified. Trinitresque (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

POV Concerns

I concur with the statements in the above section. To me, this article reads like an essay or advert in favour of the organization. Rather than simply summarizing the organization's stance on particular issues, the authors of the article seem to actively argue for the positions held by the organization. This is concerning to me, and has caused me to tag the article as non-neutral. The purpose of an article like this should be to present facts about the organization, such as where it is located, who started it, who operates it, and for what purpose. Summarizing the views of the organization is okay, but actively arguing for them is not okay. Wikipedia articles should take a neutral stance on controversial issues. If the authors want to comment on the scientific research behind the issues, they are free to do so. But they should provide citations to the studies that they are referencing. Simply saying "Science supports x" without citation to any studies is NOT acceptable. This is not to mention the fact that the scientific community has not come to a consensus on many of these issues. For instance, the science shows that pornography can be addictive to SOME people, but certainly not the majority of the population. It is fine to say that the organization has a particular view about something, but if the authors of this article are going to supplement that view with scientific qualifying statements, they should also make an effort to address the controversy. I have also tagged specific lines that I feel do not represent both sides of the scientific debate where they should, or that seem factually questionably. Mww113 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is a Wikipedia article informing about an organization, it is relevant to present neutral information about an organization as it is stated. It is not relevant for Wikipedia to contain information arguing for or against the stances of this organization. The edit history of this article appears to show it has only been used to argue whether or not the organization's stance is correct or incorrect, it does not seem this page has been used to provide basic, neutral information about the organization. It is my recommendation that this page be deleted, as it does not provide noteworthy information. Baseballreader899 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"FTND insists it is non-religious"

“'Are you religiously affiliated?' No. We do not affiliate with any religion nor do we preach any religious or theological reasoning. We are here to speak out on the harmful effects of pornography using only science, facts, and personal accounts."

However, FTND was founded by 4 Mormons and Olsen states that organizations like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are essential in the fight against pornography.

NOTE: Given that the aforementioned source does not exist, this appears to be a personal opinion unrelated to the organization's page. The organization's mission statement indicates they are non-religious. Baseballreader899 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Advertisement

The article, in its previous state, looked too much like an advertisement. I have moved around some text to other sections, and removed some obvious pov statements. I also added a reference about their history. Hopefully the article is better now, and more neutral. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think the article still needs improvement and the 'multiple issues' and 'pov' macro should remain. So I kept those in place. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What does "more neutral" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.0.191 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Still reads like an advertisement for the campaign. Does the fact that the information is not scientifically accurate create a neutrality issue? Should there be some mention of the scientific veracity? In a few minutes I was able to find numerous peer reviewed articles about the true of these claims. What should I do? Southernlefty (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup, or "where did half the article go?"

It's been said before, but I will be going into more detail about why I'm going to just delete the "findings" and "criticism" sections.

Sources need to be specifically about about the group. We can't just cite studies that they claim justifies their beliefs if those studies have nothing to do with the group. If the studies were funded by the group, then they're obviously biased and can only be cited to show the group's views as their own opinions (well-funded opinions are still opinions). Otherwise, the inclusion of those two studies cited fail WP:SYNTH. Likewise, the criticism section is just arguing with the findings section, WP:NOR. Both sections are meant to justify some sort of position, in contradiction to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Presenting the group's claims as some sort of scientific truth (which is what the article does) is a violation of WP:NPOV.

The more I look at either section, the less reason I see for either section to exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the findings of @Ian.thomson above. Please do not undo his removal of content without discussing here. I have restored his version of the page. This article reads as though it was created by people affiliated with the organization. Wikipedia is not the place to argue for or against the mission of this organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and content published here must be independent and verifiable. We don't need to hear about the organization's "findings". Anyone is welcome to go to their website if they are interested in the argument that the group is making. Mww113 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@CrispinAspen: Please see my comment above and read over the rest of this talk page. Edit warring is disruptive and against policy. Mww113 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify/repeat, a reliable source that is not specifically about this group does not belong in this article, no matter how much the group likes that source -- see WP:SYNTH. This article should also be based more on independent sources than the group's own propaganda -- per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:PSTS, and WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And according to independent sources, this group is known mostly for their billboards, attempted secular image, contested science, and Mormon leaders. Again, we generally stick to independent sources. This is true for the Catholic church, the Coca-Cola company, the Republican party, Enron, the Church of Scientology, Alcoholics Anonymous, -- whoever or whatever. Can we cite affiliated sources? Yes, but only for uncontroversial statements about themselves. If the statement is about someone or something else, or is controversial -- we can only mention it as only their claim (if we can include it at all). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, we still seem to have a misunderstanding here. I'm going to go over the independent sources, why they belong, and what they have to say.

• Here’s the deal with all those ‘Porn Kills Love’ billboards around the Bay Area By Bill Disbrow, San Francisco Gate. - Per WP:NEWSBLOG and this page, the SFGate does not fall under WP:SPS. It is reliable to say that the group is primarily known for their use of billboards saying "porn kills love," having Mormon leadership despite their non-religious stance, and their use of contested science.
• Anti-Porn Group Brings Billboard Campaign To Bay Area by Sharon Chin, CBS San Francisco - Article mentions billboards and Mormon leadership. It mentions that their claims are contested.
• Can a non-religious Web-savvy campaign against pornography work? by EJ Dickson, Daily Dot - the article puts scare quotes around the word science when describing FTND as "anti-pornography organization devoted to using “science” to fight this addiction" and says that "it purports to be non-political and non-denominational" (emphasis added, but they cannot bring themselves say that the group is truly non-political and non-denominational). They describe the group as having a "supposedly science-based argument," not just "scientific evidence," and dedicates paragraphs to discussing why the science is debatable, even noting "There’s an emerging body of research contradicting the claims of pornography addiction specialists," and quotes one authority as saying "Any preferred stimulus, you’re going to show an increased reward response, and that is not any evidence of addiction." In short, this article requires that we point out that the group's science is contested and debatable.
• Group is fighting against 'the new drug' — pornography by Lynn Arave, Deseret news - can only say (at most) that "there is an ongoing debate on that subject." Being a Mormon newspaper, they would obviously side with the group. Still OK as a source, but should be treated as an extension of the group's claims.

I have only covered independent sources because sources from the group need to be restricted to non-controversial statements about themselves. In other words, their sources are not reliable for statements of scientific fact. If a statement about themselves is contested by an outside source (as is the case with their Mormon leadership being important), then the most we can do with the group's sources is say "the group claims X, but outside sources point out Y" and only if that's WP:DUE weight.

@CrispinAspen: If you intend on restoring an older version of the article, or removing or downplaying any of the above sources or what they say, you need to provide a policy based explanation here. Simply saying something is "biased" does nothing, you need to explain why and how. Wikipedia is not a pulpit to praise this group from. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

I feel like to some extent, the POV has swung around to arguing against the group, and presenting it as making untruthful claims. Whether or not they are truthful is besides the point. I feel like it is ok to say "sources have pointed out that XYZ" but there seems to be a bit too much bashing. I haven't edited Wikipedia in more than 5+ years, so I have to do some policy research before I make any major changes and will also seek to build consensus but I think that we can definitely build a more complete, neutral article than it's current state.

--Captain Cookie 03:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs)

New sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Almost all of the independent sources point out that their scientific claims are contested. Per WP:DUE, that means we must mention present their claims as contested. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, religion and "findings"

A variety of secondary sources point out that the group is founded and run solely by Mormons. Not even just Protestants (which, given America's religious make up, could happen merely as coincidence), not a coalition of Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, and so on down to Zoroastrians -- just Mormons. They have further concluded that that is noteworthy. Therefore, the article must give it WP:DUE weight.

Also, the "findings" section that keeps getting inserted is based on sources that are not actually about FTND. "FTND cites these studies" is not sufficient reason to include them, the studies are not about FTND. Furthermore, the material is nothing but a WP:POVFORK for the article Pornography addiction.

@SantiagoPierre:, why do you want the article about FTND to not discuss FTND? Because that's what your edits are doing to the article. Shall we just redirect the article to Pornography addiction? Because that's the direction that your edits take the article in. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding a "Controversy" Section

Hello, I am adding a controversy section to help balance the article. The section will describe the three oped's posted by Salt Lake Tribune in October - December 2016 in regards to Fight the New Drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorf231409 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a criticism section would be more appropriate as controvery sections are generally used to specific events or controversies, not general criticisms of the organizations methods. @Relicanderson: The criticism section should be about specific criticisms of the organization, not a debate on the merits of those giving the criticism, especially when claims are made against them with no citations. As mentioned above "Almost all of the independent sources point out that their scientific claims are contested. Per WP:DUE, that means we must mention present their claims as contested." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cash_cat (talk • contribs)

Lead section

Not everything in the lead section has to be immediately WP:VERified, see WP:LEDE. This means that the lead abstracts the body of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism for new news coverage and IRS information

@Natureium:The sources for the executives of Fight the new Drug are directly from the IRS, these are not in dispute. These are reputable sources, yet you keep removing them and claiming they are not reputable sources.

@Praxidicae: Is involved in an edit war. The critic section includes direct quote from investigative news articles. The sources are widely read and the authors have no personal investment in the issues they wrote about. The sources are irectly quoted and include screenshots of the information. NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I reverted you once and explained in my edit summary why it needed to be discussed on the talk page and I left you a guide to navigating reliable sources. A university paper-blog is not "widely" read nor is it going to be subject to the necessary editorial oversight we expect from reliable sources. Also we don't cite IRS documents generally, for the same reason we don't use companieshouse etc...because it requires original research.Praxidicae (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

yet you keep removing them and claiming they are not reputable sources. I reverted you once. You also need to read about secondary sources. I already gave you a link to learn more. Natureium (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also I'll add that since this discussion and your multiple warnings, you've continued to edit war. I agree this article is in dire need of some balance but WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are not the way to do this. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have made no removals/reversions.

You edited multiple times, the IRS is a primary source, and the IRS actually eliminates the need for "original research" by providing the reader the actual information.

The School newspaper (which you called a "blog") has original screenshots supporting their information and two national outlets also were cited. Specifically...

In March 2019, investigative reporters from the University of Wisconsin's newspaper reported that Fight the New Drug was engaged in systematic misrepresentation of science, was religiously based, and was encouraging the stalking of a neuroscientist who studies sex films.

The group denies religious affiliation, but numerous investigative journalists have identified evidence of the religious basis of Fight the New Drug. These include: ″Fight the New Drug (FTND), a Utah-based anti-porn organization with an all-Mormon founding team″. " The group calls itself “non-legislative and non-religious,” but it publishes updates on political activities and was seeded with millions of dollars from Mormon church officials, a fact it downplays."

References

I would very strongly encourage you to read WP:RS. No one is saying that the IRS isn't a reliable source but your assertion that someone's salary is somehow relevant to your other statements is absolutely WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NPOV. Praxidicae (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-profit groups are required to provide this public information exactly because it is of public interest, including for calculations of non-profit donation use (e.g., percentage to governance vs. beneficiaries). If you want to move the salary information, what section would you put it in?NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of refs

Pursuant to the discussion above and the edit warring here, obviously Instagram is not a reliable source, and we can't have synthesis or original research, but I'm mildly concerned about this edit [1]. @Natureium:, are you asserting that Deseret News is completely not a reliable source at all, or is it more that in context of this particular topic? I'm aware of the paper's history and ownership but I am not aware of it being considered comepletely unreliable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked into Deseret News itself. The reason I thought that this article does not count as a reliable source is that the byline is blank and I found it strange that there would be no author listed if the author was a staff writer of the newspaper. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, and if you disagree, I'm not going to argue for it's exclusion. Natureium (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, FYI Deseret News is in fact owned by the LDS church, so it's not always entirely objective where their members are concerned, but for general news sotories, particualrly in the Salt Lake area, it's usually a decent source. It is also odd that there is no byline, I hadn't noticed that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: is biased edits. The Salt Lake Tribune series of pieces were written by 5 neuroscientists https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4680276&itype=CMSID and four terminal-degree therapists specializing in this area https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSID. Biased editing.NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete deletion of critic leaves only "support" unbalanced

@Natureium: just removed the entire "critic" section while adding to "support" section. This is grossly biased editing that fails to provide readers with the extensive, well-documented fraud across multiple national investigative journalists and scientists. Biased editing must be removed. One removed citation was literally written by five neuroscientists about the science fraud. Another removed was written by four therapists about the fraudulent clinical claims. You are grossly reducing the accuracy of this article and appear unable to be impartial in this area.NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased editing must be removed I agree. I did not add to the support section. I actually removed things from the support section that didn't seem relevant for a wikipedia article. I'm not sure which multiple national investigative journalists you're referring to, since the whole criticism section focused on one set of op-eds in a newspaper that labels itself "Utah News, Religion, Sports & Entertainment" Utah is only 1/50th of the nation. Natureium (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As cited above, those were not Salt Lake Tribute writers, they were internationally-known neuroscience scholars who specialize in studying pornography that authored the Salt Lake Tribune piece. You also deleted the segment from two national investigative journalists who showed (by direct evidence links) the Mormon funding of the group. These are established facts that should cause anyone to be concerned about claimed "science" from this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@NewsYouCanUse2018: I would not worry too much about this article. If it remains as it is now, i.e. without WP:FRIND sources, it will be deleted sooner or later for lack of WP:Notability. The only positive claim about FTND is that they had a video which was spread by the media. That's very little for an article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of entire section

@Bradv: Financials were deleted claiming that we must only use "secondary" sources and a "primary" source was used. That is, of course, insane. Please restore the deleted section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.36.29 (talk) 18:09, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

We write article based on information available in reliable sources. That's not insane. Bradv🍁 18:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)