Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

You've got to be kidding!

How dare you guys remove DORway.com and keep an article like Snopes, which baldly states erroneous information. Not even the FDA or the aspartame makers deny that aspartame produces tumors in rats. If you are going to keep this article as part of your links, I demand that Snopes print a correction so that their article at the very least is amended to say "in humans." Because, conclusively, studies have shown it causes tumors in animals. Really, how dare you include this in your main set of links and discard DORway, which houses a multitude of articles written by doctors. I'm absolutely incensed and I find this very suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, our guidelines on identifying reliable sources. Snopes has a reputation for fact checking and therefore is reliable. The other website you mention is self-published, and is not reliable. Yobol (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS WP:MEDRS and if you are mad at snopes, take it up with them. Actually, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Snopes is fine because they debunk popular misconceptions. If you want DORway.com listed then you need to show that it is significant as part of the aspartame controversy. TFD (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you call Snopes erroneous reporting fact checking ... I can provide sworn statements from the FDA that refutes what is stated in that article. And DORway is self published, but the information on there does NOT come from DORway. It comes from doctors, scientists, others who are accredited. Opinion editorials are clearly marked as such. I own DORway and I happen to be an award winning reporter and writer. You obviously have not bothered to do your research - not about Snopes, DORway or aspartame. DORway has been at the forefront of this controversy and has been an established source since 1996. I am not mad at Snopes ... I just find it highly ludicrous that you would include them in that list and yet leave a site like DORway out. It's just par for the course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 January 2011

The specific policies relating to the inclusion of sources may appear confusing. If you would point out the specific edit, it would be helpful. We could not use DorWay as a source except for about itself. We could mention DorWay in the article because it is notable in the aspartame controversy, but would rely mostly on secondary sources, e.g., "Sweet Poison" Sweet Pleasures, to describe it. TFD (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? The erroneous information you're linking to on Snopes? (Which I can prove, of course.) If snopes wants to continue to make that claim, even to be in the realm of editorial correctness, they MUST add two words to the statement they claim is false -- "in humans." They claim aspartame has not been proven to cause tumors, etc, but the simple fact is that it has been proven to cause tumors in rats and that is not a fact that is even disputed by the makers of aspartame. Everyone is in agreement there -- Searle, the FDA, everyone. What they are disputing is if that correlation is significant for humans. I have a sworn statement to congress by the FDA's own toxicologist Adrian Gross that states one of Searle’s studies “established beyond any reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance.” If that's not enough there is MUCH more. And if they don't remove it, I feel you are obligated to remove it as a link.

As far as DORway is concerned, I'm not sure what your'e stating. Even Sweet Poison references DORway in the videos ... it has been a MAJOR player in this arena and to leave it out is negligent ... especially when you are using hearsay from another unreliable site that can be disproven with a single statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, what Sweet Poison learned about aspartame initially they learned, from guess where ... DORway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And neither comes anywhere near being a reliable source. You could try the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (and will fail), but there is no basis for ongoing arguments here. Continuing futile arguments here (or on any page) can become disruptive and will not be tolerated.Novangelis (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Writegirl62,

Aspartame is produced by very powerful people who will do or say whatever is required to promote their product. Perhaps the people who run Wikipedia are innocent dupes or perhaps they are complicate in the aspartame promotion, I do not know. In any case, content that is critical of aspartame is simply not allowed. Your logic will be turned against you. You will be threatened with being thrown off the site. WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE will all be invoked against you while they will be ignored while promoting aspartame. The Spanish Inquisition was a better example of fairness than Wikipedia is on the subject of aspartame. Arydberg (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andyberg, please read WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, I am VERY disappointed in you! By violating one of our most fundamental behavioral polices, you have set a bad example for our new editor, and she has then been inspired by that example. You have effectively sabotaged her and her possible future here by instilling in her an attitude (conspiracy theory) that will prevent her from becoming a good editor. Well done! You've really screwed your own cause. I really hope other anti-aspartame activists don't figure out who you are, although it's very easy to do. They would crucify you for doing such a dumb thing. No one who approaches Wikipedia with a conspiracy theory mentality will ever be taken seriously because that mindset violates AGF on so many levels. If you can't drop that attitude, you may as well leave now. So far you have done little but cause disruption, waste time, and reconfirm the strong impression that anti-aspartame activists are so emotionally involved that they can't be taken seriously or trusted to not misuse Wikipedia for forbidden advocacy for their cause. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If what I said was false I would be quickly dismissed. It is the truth to my assertions that brings out such anger. Arydberg (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, PLEASE assume good faith. I am tiring of having to somehow prove I am not part of the international aspartame conspiracy. Your accusations violate policy rather grossly. Please stop. You have no proof, not even of whiff of it, that editors that disagree with you are shills, yet you keep spouting this nonsense. Please, please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE: all parts of the conspiracy. --King Öomie 14:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Sweet Pleasures (published by the University of North Carolina Press),[1] not "Sweet Poison". TFD (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(Empty Pleasures).Novangelis (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Arydberg, for reminding me of what I am dealing with. DORway has existed for 15 years without Wikipedia, and will continue making a difference without Wikipedia. People can see the skewed perspective here on their own. And it almost suits me fine that they don't include DORway. It only highlights what you're saying. But this is exactly the sort of thing that will forever exclude Wikipedia from any scholarly debate. Currently, they are not permissible as a source and it will continue to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the "scholarly debate" between the consensus of the scientific community and government regulators versus the sceptics, then you are correct. That is Wikipedia policy, not specific to aspartame, and you would have to change policy. TFD (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is NO consensus between the scientific community, I have to enlighten you. But I'm done with this conversation. You guys aren't worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's get this straight. I notice a new editor who seeks to promote DORway, her own website. (We have discussed the site many times before. See the archives linked above.) That's a WP:COI problem for her personally, but according to our policies it's not necessarily a deciding factor on whether or not to use the site. From what I could read on the website's blog about the death of the previous owner of the website, David Oliver Rietz, Writegirl62 must be his daughter ("My father was...."). Am I correct? (I'm sorry about your father. He was a man who really fought for what he believed to be right. I have exchanged emails with him a number of years ago. Unfortunately his close connection with B.M. damaged his reputation and credibility. I see DORway still connects to her, and that's a liability for the website if it ever wants to be taken seriously.) I suggest that you read the COI guideline (linked above) very carefully, and especially the section at the end: Wikipedia:COI#Consequences of ignoring this guideline. We don't want you to run afoul of that one.

I just checked the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and find that DORway isn't blacklisted. I thought it was because of frequent spamming by activists, but it's not, so that hurdle is out of the way. For a website to be considered "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, it must have an easy to find contact address, and I don't find it. Maybe it's hidden somewhere, but it should be noticeable, preferably linked on every page. That's just a suggestion to improve the website and to make it even possible for consideration here.

The site is (with few exceptions, such as WP:Attack sites) allowed to be used on an article about itself, but keep in mind that an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Its use as a source in other articles is governed by WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:MEDRS (because it deals with biomedical subjects) and WP:EL, especially WP:ELNO (see 1, 2, 5, 11) and WP:EL#ADV. I hope this information is helpful. There's a lot of reading to do, but if you wish to succeed here, do your homework well. There is no rush. These policies are complicated, interrelated, and it takes years of editing here to really understand them. We're all still learning. Just ask for help anytime. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an email at the top of every page, along with a facebook page and a twitter link as well. Additionally, there is a contact us page. I'm not interested in doing an article about DORway on Wikipedia, frankly. My purpose wasn't to get DORway on wikipedia, but to have DORway rightly included in an article that really is remiss without including it. It's an article about controversy. And while Betty Martini has no ownership in DORway, no matter what you think of her, she's also an integral part of this. You don't have to like her to mention her part in this. It's poor reporting not to. And to be honest with you, this feels like an uphill battle that isn't worth fighting and will be lost regardless. I'd rather put my energy into more positive endeavors, but thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I am David O. Rietz' daughter. And based on the countless emails DORway receives, I would not say my father's reputation is the least tarnished. As you said, he was a man who fought until his last breath for something in believed in. He had more integrity in his pinky than most people have in their entire bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This article should focus on information about the campaign against aspartame, who the campaigners are, why they believe what they do, actions they have taken, etc. TFD (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, which is my point exactly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegirl62 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please don't give up. If approached politely we're pretty easy to get along with. I have no wish to not mention DORway as it is indeed a significant player. Betty is already mentioned, and I believe I am largely responsible for achieving that. BTW, please start signing your posts with four tildes. This is a requirement on talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer, yours is the first nonacid reply I've received here. That's hopeful, but I'm uncertain what you need from me at this point, since it seems you have all discussed and ruled against DORway for reasons I'm not aware of. Writegirl62 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As the question, so the answer(s). (Actually I think the answers you received have been mostly polite, pointing you to the policies and guidelines we all have to comply with.) Dorway is a self-published source, so according to Wikipedia's sourcing policy (especially the section about self-published sources), it can only be used as a source about itself; I think Brangifer asks for suggestions on how to mention your website in this article, not on how to use it as a source for anything beyond that (but of course I may be mistaken). --Six words (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Snopes is also self published by a husband and wife team, fyi, who, by the way, don't have any journalism experience. That is not the case with DORway. But that's neither here nor there. And I haven't found any of the answers here helpful in the least. I find them to be hostile, snide and more boundary driven than anything else. I don't intend to waste valuable time jumping through hoops to try to get you to do what's right. You're either driven to, or not. And yes, I got that he/she was trying to help getting DORway referenced in this article. That's all I was trying to do as well.

Incidentally, I'm really about ready to drop this topic. It feels futile to me. But no matter where this discussion goes, it might (or might not) interest you to know that aspartame was just published on a list of suspect chemicals by the EPA.Writegirl62 (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your source for that (that it's on the EPA list)? --Six words (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post, Politics Daily and various other reputable reporting institutions. An additional bit of digging provided official EPA documents discussing aspartame's inclusion. I downloaded them for safekeeping. You'll have to do the digging yourself. The list itself will not be made public until next year.Writegirl62 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to me to prove you're right. AFAIK this list is in draft stage, so it wasn't in fact “published on a list of suspect chemicals”. --Six words (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm officially done. This is a waste of my time. Considering that DORway didn't just come out of the blue, I think you know without me having to prove anything that DORway has been an instrumental part of this controversy. And guess what; other people know it too and it just shows you in a negative light. What you're doing is throwing out obstacles and I don't find this discussion fruitful or positive in any way. Instead of addressing valid points, you find nooks and crannies to sift through and create more obstacles. Thanks for opening my eyes. Writegirl62 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not be discouraged. Take some time to learn policies, and you could find wikipedia editing quite rewarding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We all have to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so I'm not clear on how this is inacceptable to you. If you make a statement, you have to be prepared to present sources for it. Your tone hasn't been very friendly (starting with your very first post to this page), so I don't know what you expected. If asking you to play by the rules of wikipedia is asking too much then I guess it's really better if you focus on your own website. --Six words (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We just discussed the EPA above.[2] In fact the anti-aspartame campaigners have been successful in making aspartame the most tested of all food additives. Now being re-tested by the UK government for example. Probably will continue to be tested and re-tested for decades to come. Incidentally the use of Snopes is quite restricted. They are used as a source for urban legends., e.g., that one may use aspartame as rat poison. It is not being used as a source for scientific information. My position is that if an urban legend is not sufficiently notable to get coverage beyond Snopes than it lacks notablity and therefore there is never any reason for its use as a source. TFD (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Six Words, what you do or don't do with the EPA story isn't my concern, nor is it what I was addressing. I gave you a lead. I don't care what you do with it. What I'm annoyed with, discouraged by, and yes, a little disgusted at, is the issue that brought me here in the first place. If, in fact, you've done your homework re: aspartame, you already know DORway's part in this controversy, but I get the sense that including DORway is only something you will do after making me jump through hoops, which is a game I refuse to play. The fact is that you need to be fair more than I need you to be fair, and this is not a battle that's worth fighting for me. Admittedly, my tone wasn't the most congenial when I came here, but I find myself disgusted by what I'm seeing/reading/hearing. So while I apologize for that, I can't apologize for one thing more. And, I'm a journalist by trade so you should know that DORway isn't my only medium, but thanks.Writegirl62 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck and Brangifer: Twice I have asked for clarification of what needed to be done. I consider that a request for help. That has yet to be answered, so I'm considering this a lost cause. If you meant that as a genuine offer, there is an email on DORway. I don't plan to continue this very negative experience.Writegirl62 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is simply (which may not be so simple actually...) reading the policies that have been pointed out to you. I say it may not be so simple because there are many policies. It takes a while to get up to speed on them. Your best bet is to start out by reading WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Writegirl62, if you want to re-write the article, here is my advice. Summarize, with references, pp. 205-215 ("Consumer Revolt") of Empty Pleasures.[3] Use other acceptable sources, such as this article about Betty Martini in Atlanta Magazine, this article in That's the way the cookie crumbles, this article in Controversies in food and nutrition. Or use similar sources. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ Or this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ reprinted here: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124 Arydberg (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So? Both aren't about aspartame (don't even mention it). It also goes both ways: if mentality really has a lot of influence, both “pro” and “anti” aspartame findings might be because of the researchers' bias. --Six words (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame is a billion dollar industry. There are zero profits being anti-aspartame? Isn't there a tiny possibility that research put out by the industry may be a slight bit jaded? Arydberg (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not conducting our own research here, we're just summarising existing research weighted by how much they are in the mainstream. I'm not going to play the “what if” game here, but I'll say this much: money isn't the only motive someone can have. The articles aren't about aspartame and as such aren't relevant for this article any more than they are for every other science related article on Wikipedia. --Six words (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And to respond to Arydberg, there IS a lot of money to be made in taking down an established product, if you're invested in an alternative. See also- Andrew Wakefield. It's not fair to present one side as money-soaked cigar-smoking tycoons and the other as worried, selfless humanitarians. --King Öomie 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is probably not relevant either. http://www.reseau-environnement-sante.fr/images/Conf/conference_aspartame.pdf Arydberg (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's completely in French, so I can't... really tell. This is the English Wikipedia; we shouldn't add that without a translation. --King Öomie 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a conference invitation. Even if it were translated, it would not become a reliable source. Once you get to "Communiqué de presse"(press release) it's painfully obvious obvious that posting it, much less translating it, is a waste everyone's time.Novangelis (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, one month ago you posted this. As an edit from a new editor, this is understandable, but it's becoming clear your knowledge of Wikipedia policies has not flourished since then. At this point I would suggest either boning up or leaving this discussion alone. You feel your viewpoint is being squashed and hidden, I understand that. But until you understand WHY¹²³, and that the answer isn't 'we're all getting paychecks from Ajinomoto', we won't be able to have an actual conversation. I'd prefer you didn't continue to sarcastically antagonize us with every link you post, by the way. That would be a start. --King Öomie 19:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I welcome the chance to debate this issue. Here are 3 of my views. 1) There is a public record that clearly shows that the process by which aspartame was approved was corrupt. 2) The argument that aspartame is used all over the world also applies to cigarettes. This argument does not make either aspartame or cigarettes safe. 3) Your have a guiding principle of scholarship. But the real point of health care is the health of the people. Scholarship is a means to this end. If the health of the people is truly being compromised (as it seems) then it is time to consider including other evidence besides scholarship. I look forward to your reply. Arydberg (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of the topic. Talk pages are to be used for direct discussion of how to specifically improve the article, not "debate the issue." It would really help if you would follow our guidelines and policies on behavior and content. Yobol (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On EPA Potentially Dangerous Chemicals list?

"The Environmental Protection Agency is compiling a list of potentially dangerous chemicals. One of the chemicals they're putting on their draft list is aspartame, an artificial sweetener found in sodas and in other foods and drinks."

From here. Maybe only a rumour. TickleMeister (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The story is on "Politics Daily".[4] We need a source explaining why it was put on the list. TFD (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Should wait for such a list to actually come out before acting on this to give proper context. Why would the EPA basically step into the bounds of the FDA on something like this? Aspartame is not "environmental" in the sense of bisphenol A, chlorine, or the like - it's only found in food. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know on what basis this draft was compiled, but I think it's very likely that there are are a lot more chemicals on the draft than there'll be on the final list. I agree we should wait until then to include it (if aspartame actually is on the final list). --Six words (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact it is on the list is important and should be included. Arydberg (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if and when it actually happens. We don't report things before they happen. We don't have any reliable sources yet that place this in context. The first source is just reporting this in a rumor format and is obviously taking the scaremongering side, with a link to a radical fringe website and a dubious site offering "help". Totally irresponsible journalism, and possibly a blog posting by a member. You can sign up and post there! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is another link, http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/EPA-lists-Aspartame-as-dangerous.pdf Arydberg (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reliable source; right now this list is a draft, let's wait until the EPA publishes the list.--Six words (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this ( from the above link) is important. ' "We need to do this, and we need to do it fast," said R. Thomas Zoeller, an endocrinologist and professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, who has served on numerous federal advisory committees. "Right now, one in six children in this country is diagnosed with a neurobehavioral disorder." ' Arydberg (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote isn't even about aspartame; it was about developing an in vitro screening test. This page is for improving an article about aspartame, not concocting aspartame scares by quote mining. Quit soapboxing.Novangelis (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame is a neurotoxin. You nor anyone else knows what is responsible for what problem. Please don't be disrespectful. 72.200.135.180 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Right before that quote is this: "There are too many chemicals and not enough data," Crofton said. "There are literally thousands and thousands of chemicals in use for which we really don't have much information at all." It's good they are concerned. Fortunately aspartame is one of the chemicals for which we have lots of information. It is only mentioned once in that whole article. Yes, in large quantities it's a neurotoxin. So what? Who's using it in such quantities? What anti-aspartame activists fail to understand is that "The dose makes the poison." - Paracelsus. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame is one of the chemicals for which we have lots of information you say. It's also said that Aspartame is "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" This statement is continuously mis-interpreted. Wake up! The reason it is so well studied is because it has caused thousands of medical problems. To my knowledge there are no tests that can duplicate a 20 or 30 year exposure to Aspartame but that is what is being done every day by consumers. The complaints are continuing. Sooner or later this stuff will be history. The only question is how much harm will be done. Arydberg (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you've got that backwards. It has been researched because of complaints, but no problems have been found at the normal doses. The complaints continue because of misguided activists who don't know what confounders are, not because of any harm proven to be caused by aspartame. They think it's the aspartame because activists like yourself and BM tell them so. The more obvious cause of some of their symptoms is things like the huge doses of caffeine, known to cause myriad problems. If one stops drinking beverages filled with these things, it would be natural to connect the dots and identify the "guilty" substance, but anti-aspartame activists have programmed these suffering people (and people who are prone to believe in conspiracy theories) to ignore the most obvious culprits and attribute their symptoms to a substance that hasn't been proven to cause their symptoms. Odd! Their total breakdown in logic and their lack of critical thinking skills is appalling. Some of the most prominent activists exhibit such bizarre behaviors that skeptics have jokingly suggested that their symptoms might be caused by an aspartame abstinence syndrome....;-) What can one do to help them think straight? It doesn't help to cry, so we joke about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer, your speculations on the motivations of editors, and your scorning of their viewpoints, and your personalising of the debate, is just as unwelcome here, I posit, as my ruminations about how some protectors of aspartame are clearly funded by the litigious billion dollar aspartame industry. Remember, this is wp:NOTAFORUM. TickleMeister (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Apples and oranges my friend. Your COI speculations are considered personal attacks. Both you and Arydberg have been warned about NOTAFORUM, and especially you have been warned about personal attacks, so don't act holy. I was responding to Arydberg's concerns and providing some information. Maybe we got a little too relaxed in our conversation and forgot the setting. No great harm done. This thread has stopped anyway. You can see my last comment in the next section. Maybe I should have remembered to come back up here and end this one in the same way. No need to respond. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A comment by Arydberg has been moved to a new section below, with answers. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a victim of it. I make no allegations against anyone, I only what know from personal experience. Floaters, temporary blindness. I was a heavy consumer and the thing that set me off was Fresca. Symptoms were dynamic and fast. Within a few minutes of drinking it a weird kind of tunnel blindness, out of no where. They would pass if I drank heavy amounts of water. I did not know at first what this was until I experimented and discovered the symptoms were tied to even light doses of Fresca. I had never experienced any of this before and was at one point addicted caffinated Diet Dr Pepper ( I didn't know it was actually the caffeine I got addicted to).I've since ended consuming anything with Asparatame in it and never had a single episode since. This article is clearly bias. It is an industry apologist/propaganda page. I understand the financial need given the millions in revenue but ask that Wikipedia consider the potential damage it can cause in propagating untrue statements about this possibly damaging drug. I don't care why people are doing his and yes , I have no doubt there are editors on a company payroll here. On other Wiki sites I know for a fact there are so lets make no pretense about this being an unbias article. The actual facts about this article are important. Try this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP, your personal experiences are not sources. Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Oh and also read WP:AGF, assuming that these rules are in place to somehow help a corporation is a bit much. Please, again, acquaint yourself with the policies I have linked to. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dbrodbeck, I wasn't asking for anything I've said to be used as a source. I haven't even attempted to include my personal information or opinion in the article. This is discussion. Anyone can edit Wiki, anyone. To deny that companies that have millions to win or lose wouldn't is utter nonsense. Again, I made no accusations , just point out the reality. I know or a fact that doctors are editing articles on Wiki directly related to their practice. Wiki because of it's construction is not a source of truth, it is a source of opinion. You accept it's limitations or you don't but saying it isn't a destructive act.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

IP, this is a talk page about improving the article. We need reliable sources for that, not opinions. I hope that clears up what I meant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks. Attacking an editor's credibility based on suspicion and speculation can really only be described as such. Whatever your internal rationalization, it has to stop. --King Öomie 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kingoomieiii, please point out the editor who's credibility I attacked? Who?! Making a statement of commonly known fact is not attacking anyone. These are the limits of Wikipedia, not my assumption or opinion. Thanks though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be drawing a line of acceptability between "Accusing editors of being paid shills" and "Repeatedly insisting there's nothing wrong with accusing editors of being paid shills". This is a distinction I don't recognize. If you insist that you're not accusing anyone, why are you repeating your point? Unless you're implying that there are editors HERE who are paid shills, it's not relevant to insist "Hey, there are paid shills elsewhere". Your implication is itself an accusation. --King Öomie 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Approval Process

I would like to look for constructive improvements to the following,

Aspartame Approval Process.

Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by G. D. Searle & Co.

One early study was performed by Dr. Harry Waisman at the University of Wisconsin. It involved giving aspartame to 7 infant monkeys. One monkey died and all the others developed Grand Mal seizures. Later the study was criticized as Dr Waisman had died before the conclusion of the study. <refhttp://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf/ref>

On July 26, 1974 aspartame was approved for human use in limited applications. This approval was based on the initial data submitted by G. D. Searle & Co. which appeared to indicate that lab animals showed no ill effects when fed the equivalent of a 100 fold increase over the expected human exposure. (This dose was of course corrected for body weight. <refhttp://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/244/Nill,_Ashley_The_History_of_Aspartame.html/ref>

This approval was challenged by Dr. John W. Olney, M.D. at the University of Washington at St. Louis. along with others. <refhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/6669992/Dr-John-Olney-Statement-Aspartame-l987/ref>

These objections resulted in a 2 year study by the FDA which produced the 1977 Bressler report which pointed out many problems and discrepancies in the initial studies and application of G. D. Searle and company. <refhttp://dorway.com/dorwblog/history-of-aspartame/the-bressler-report//ref>

On June 1, 1979 a public board of inquiry was established by the FDA. This board put the approval on hold . It’s function was to investigate the controversy regarding aspartame. The board ruled on September 30, 1980 that Nutrasweet should not be approved pending further studies on the incidence of brain tumors in animals<refIn the Name of Science Andrew Goliszek ISBN 0-312-30356-4 First Edition St. Martins Press New York page 190/ref>

On January 21, 1981 President Ronald Reagan was sworn in. One of his first acts was to replace the FDA commissioner with Arthur Haynes Hull Jr. Who overruled the public board of health and approved NutraSweet sweet for dry products on July 15, 1981.

Arydberg (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to replace the existing text with a less thorough, less accurate, poorly sourced version that cherry picks the facts for POV.Novangelis (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This clearly violates lots of policies and guidelines. TFD (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Which sentences are in violation of policies and guidelines? Please be specific. Jmpunit (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The all but the third and fifth paragraphs fail on WP:V (failure to use reliable sources; text does not match content of sources; juxtaposition of facts to create a synthesis (original research); unsourced claims). Given that it was posted using sources that were established to have failed the criteria for reliable sources, the posting could be construed as as talk page violation (soapboxing). Of those, the one that has a reliable source, the second, states cites the 1977 Bressler report as the result of a two year study, but since the FDA decided to investigate in July 1976, the primary source cannot support that statement because it ignores the larger UAREP wing of the study which reported in 1978. The existing article has the thorough content. In the third, the primary source does does not support the uncapitalized sentence fragment "along with others.", but the existing text has the properly sourced details. This leaves one poorly written paragraph (e.g. it's → its) which does not have any overt violations, but offers no new content or improvement of prose to the present article.Novangelis (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope Jmpunit (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Care to expand on this? --King Öomie 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I will, I asked for constructive improvements. What I got was criticism. Over many messages it is becoming clear that Wikipedia will never be critical of Aspartame. The suffering of hundreds of people that attribute their illness to aspartame will never be reported here. Arydberg (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You have had this explained to you many times. Their attributions are not sources. That is quite clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not alone Arydberg. Many editors including myself have been shot down and criticized for trying to make this article neutral. Much of the time when a new source is brought here to help balance the article it is rejected on the grounds that it is not a reliable source. It was taken so far that I was told that a letter published in a medical journal by Dr. Morando Soffritti which defends his own studies was not a reliable source to be used in the section that deals with his research. In other words articles that discredit his studies are a reliable source but his response to these articles are not. This is a classic example of wikilawyering- following an overly strict or contrived interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy. Jmpunit (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly. If we summed up the heartfelt testimony of everyone who thinks they've been probed by aliens, we STILL wouldn't have a source stating human visitation by extra-terrestrials exists, beyond as a completely non-notable lay opinion. Why on Earth is aspartame different, besides the fact that you feel the complaints are legitimate? Shall we marginalize, nay, INSULT actual science by presenting it at the same level as entirely speculative and unscientific accusations made by folks you happen to know? A great number of religious Americans think Evolution is a lie, for various misinformed reasons; I suppose biologists should play second fiddle to whatever those folks would like to say on Wikipedia? And Jmpunit, I have to wonder why your presence on Wikipedia is limited to ONLY this page. --King Öomie 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on writing a paragraph. How does it feel? There is no need to entertain your paranoid rambling though I will say that since I'm not paid to write here I can't be on wikipedia all day. Keep in mind that what you feel aspartame is similar to (aliens, creationism, blah blah blah) is not relevant here which makes your little speech pointless.Jmpunit (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much everybody involved in this talk page discussion has already stated that they're not paid for editing Wikipedia in general and aspartame related articles in particular, so kindly stop suggesting they are. Besides, King Öomie is right: Correlation does not imply causation. --Six words (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my opinion isn't relevant. Which is why I'm not pushing for it to be displayed next to scientific conclusions, unlike yourself. And I guess WP:DUE is an essay in some random editor's userspace. Your continued assertions that editors here are PAID TO VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES ON ADVOCACY are noted. I'll ask you one more time to cut out the garbage before your behavior is brought up at WP:ANI. --King Öomie 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I never accused anyone on this page of being paid to write. Your accusation is based on the assumption that I was making implications. As a matter of fact I was not even speaking to you when I first wrote. It was you Oomie that FALSELY accused me of limiting my presence to only this page, which has NOTHING to do with this article. I did accuse some of wikilawyering and gave an example to support this claim, yet no one has responded to my accusation. If you consider my concerns "garbage" then you should revisit your reasons for being here. This page is for discussing the content of the article not trying to destroy other editors' credibility by making false accusations. I still feel that the paragraph I was referring to makes a lot of good points that can be used in this article.Jmpunit (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

False? You've got a funny definition for that. You have about 5 edits that aren't directly related to this article and its editors, and they're from over a year ago. And for the record, it's your behavior I consider garbage, not your concerns. --King Öomie 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again: under a year. Get your facts straight before you make accusations. Jmpunit (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is part of the public record that officials of the company that invented aspartame were charged with fraud and that they evaded prosecution by hiring the two successive public prosecutors appointed away from the government. This caused the statue of limitations to expire. With this history there is a possibility that the aspartame industry is monitoring and or contributing to this site. We simply do not know and must assume all input is honest and unpaid. Arydberg (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Or just stop talking about it altogether? Any further discussion that isn't directly related to improvement of this article and veers off into speculation about motives of others in violation of WP:TPG, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc should be deleted outright and/or taken up with the appropriate forum to stop this disruption. Yobol (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole article should be reviewed.

Independent research on aspartame http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/recent.html More references to independent research http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm

"conflicts of interest in the studies performed on aspartame and the way in which its approval was obtained is an ongoing controversy. Dr. Robert Walton surveyed the studies of aspartame in the peer-reviewed medical literature. He states that of the 166 studies felt to have relevance for questions of human safety, 74 had Nutrasweet industry (those who make aspartame) related funding and 92 were independently funded. One hundred percent of the research performed by the company who makes aspartame confirmed aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research found problems with consuming aspartame. Other reports of federal employees working for the companies responsible for the testing and distribution of aspartame are cited on all of the sites and books opposing the use of aspartame."

Mrlukos (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this before. We do not comb through studies but use reliable secondary studies that analyze the scientific consensus. TFD (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted this before but it is in French. it was disregarded. http://www.reseau-environnement-sante.fr/images/Conf/conference_aspartame.pdf Here is a babelfish translation of the introduction, INTRODUCTION Through this conference, the Network Environment Health and association Future generations wish to clarify the studies carried out by the team of Dr. Morando Soffritti of the research centre on Ramazzini cancer of Bologna, which show a cancerogenic effect of the aspartame. It is the case of the last study published in December 2010, in the review of reference American Journal off Industrial Medicine. These results testify to the need for revaluing the risks related to a substance used regularly by 200 million people in the world. It is also a question of putting in prospect these studies in a broader context, that of the risks related to the sweetening substances. The Danish study carried out near 60.000 expectant mothers indeed underlines a bond between fizzy drink consumption with sweetening substance and premature births. It is also the occasion to put the question of the deontology of the expertises since the studies of the Ramazzini Center were not taken into account by the Agencies Frenchwoman and European of Food safety. Does this meet your terms of reliable secondary sources? I have the complete translation if you wish. 72.200.135.180 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Arydberg (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a conference held by a public advocacy group. Why would you think it qualifies for WP:MEDRS? Yobol (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a secondary source and represents a group of distinguished peer reviewed researchers. Snopes is referenced twice How does it meet WP:RS?Arydberg (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the "RES" is approximately equivalent to the Fluoride Action Network with regards to fluoridation and to the Australian Vaccination Network with regards to vaccination. Personally I dispute this source however even forgetting my opinion (and the rather dubious source of the "reliable" secondary source), when you start finding yourself scratching around for sources, there's a good bet that there isn't a source to support your position. Shot info (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked How does Snopes meet WP:RS? Arydberg (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Following a formal review process (Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Investigation/Snopes), snopes.com was deemed an acceptable source for questions of folklore.Novangelis (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 28 for snopes is about “ant poison” This seems to have been removed from the article. Perhaps because it is WP:OR. “Reference 28” should be removed also. When I clicked on reference 27 I got 5 advertisements for artificial sweeteners. If you wish to run this site you should balance it with others like Dorway. Otherwise you violate WP:NPV. Arydberg (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The rat poison one may be inappropriate in that place, the other one is fine, Snopes is an RS for these types of things, please see above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want Dorway admitted as an RS take it to a noticeboard. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Deja vu....covered above. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is against the stated goals of Wikipedia to use original research. Reference 28 (Which is not referenced in the text) should be removed. Arydberg (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Snopes links don't constitute original research. But now that you've accepted WP:NOR, can you stop demanding we add lay testimony to the article? --King Öomie 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alerted by the discussion at WP:ANI I have had a good look at this talk page, the article, its references and some of the disputed websites. I think I came to this review reasonably impartial, having never edited (or even read) the article before and having no prior view on aspartame. My background is that I work in the UK in the National Health Service and in a University health research department. I am competent to read scientific articles but my PhD is in psychology, not toxicology. You may or may not feel that this background is a good one - I only provide it to be open about where I am coming from.

I found the article itself to be readable, well referenced and reasonably balanced. My only quibble is that as the Aspartame article already exists, this article could have spent more time on the controversy and left some of the science to the main article. For me the article here is interesting on the level of the sociology of the controversy and the strong reactions it occasions. On this basis it is good to see links to the original Martini/Markle letter and also to sites such as Snopes and the Media Awareness network which discuss it. Personally I would not mind seeing a few more links (either as cited sources or external links) to other anti-Aspartame sites, because they give further examples of how this controversy is fuelled. I see the DORway site mentioned above for example, and a video available on Youtube.

My own opinion is that one or two such links would be acceptable because even though not reliable sources they are exemplars of the kind of controversy which rages. Provided that they are not given the status of peer reviewed scientific articles, I think they can be cited as examples of the kind of reaction being discussed. Please note: this is not because I think they make a valid point. I believe they are at best misinformed and at worst dangerously anti-science. But they are examples of the controversy being played out for real, and in an article about the controversy it's reasonable to let readers see what it actually looks like. I think these sources meet most of the requirements of WP:SPS as sources of material on the claims and claimants themselves, but even if not acceptable for citation I think they might be allowed as ELs. I make no judgements here on whether DORway, for example, is the most appropriate exemplar of its type. I certainly don't think there should be more than one sample EL of this sort, and there may be others that are more representative.

I don't intend to edit here but will keep an eye on the article and talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Aspartame situation represents a true dilemma. There is much research that says Aspartame is harmless. Enough to convince many people. There is also enough medical research to show the the premise that aspartame is harmful is broadly supported by scholarship and is not a fringe theory. for example see Dr. John Onley or Dr Adrian Gross or the Pub Med articles I previously posted. Both can not be true. I submit that this is a real controversy and it is beyond the purpose of Wikipedia to choose sides. This subject should be reported with a NPV with both sides receiving equal weight.Arydberg (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The equal weight I cannot agree with. There is currently an imbalance of evidence in favour of Aspartame's safety, and to give equal weight to both sides would be to violate WP:UNDUE. WP relies on the evidence produced by others, and while the balance of that evidence tips in one directoin we must reflect that. This article is not about aspartame however, but about the controversy surrounding it. Therefore there is a place, in my view, for some leeway in citing sources that would not usually be regarded as reliable' They may not be reliable sources about aspartame, but they are, possibly, reliable sources about the controversy! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"This article is not about aspartame however, but about the controversy surrounding it." You know how many times I've said that myself. That this is a real controversy that has roots straight back in the original research in the 1970s, went through two Congressional hearings, continues to be tested by independent scientists who continue to reveal negative findings, and the industry continues with lobbying and reviews or short-term research that shows there's nothing wrong. If it's such a clear cut case, why the continuous research and debates? Why hasn't the industry ever come forward and said "We know this is absolutely safe, let's test this according to the standards of opposing independent scientists and let them decide how we test it." That's never going to happen. And ridiculing the Ramazzini Institute is not going to help either. Immortale (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It should also be emphasized that this controversy also includes aspartame's approval by the FDA. The section dealing with this should be expanded. Jmpunit (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Web citation for DORway

OK so the two sides are not of equal weight. I can accept that. Is this the way to add dorway? misc. text <ref name=dorway>{{cite web|url=http://www.dorway.com}}</ref>Arydberg (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what “misc text” stands for. --Six words (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you both don't mind, but I have inserted a new section break and heading as you will see - the old section was getting long and.... old! Arydberg, I find the best way to test a reference is to paste it into the article then hit preview but not save. That way you can see if it's working or not. Your syntax above seems not to be quite right but I'm not an expert in how to correct it. My best attempt would be to look something like this , which produces a reference looking like this:

Other people may be better than me at providing better syntax - edit this paragraph so you can see what the markup text looks like. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I posted the link under a new section ( Grassroots Efforts) Arydberg (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Improperly. Please read WP:PSTS, WP:EL and the policies discussed in the recommendation. The inclusion of primary sources as exemplars does not exempt claims about them (even the description "grassroots") from reliable sourcing requirements.Novangelis (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:ABOUTSELF gives us a little freedom of manoeuvre here. It says: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field and then gives a list of further requirements. Personally (nailing my colours firmly to the mast here) I think the DORway site is unscientific scaremongering. But as mentioned above I think it's reasonable for us to refer to it in an article about the controversy. Of the two sides, one relies on peer-reviewed sources which fit our WP:RS criteria very well. The other mostly comprises blogs, YouTube videos and scare sites like DORway, which do not fit our criteria. The problem is that if we exclude all reference to the aspartame critics, the average reader (as I saw myself before I started to read this article) is going to read an antithesis without having had any thesis set out!

Arydberg, and others reading this from the anti-aspartame lobby, I hope you'll forgive me being blunt above but at least you know my true opinions and don't have to guess! I hope you'll also accept that I can hold these opinions and still want the article to be better balanced, including some space for reference to sites such as DORway. However the wording introducing the reference was a little wooly if you'll allow me; qualifiers like 'many, 'most' and 'best known' are always best avoided, see WP:WEASEL. May I suggest something like: "The campaign against aspartame use has largely developed outside the scientific peer reviewed literature, for example through the use of blogs, websites and activist-produced videos. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To mention or cite in this context, we really need mention of these cites/movies by independent sources to confirm their place within the controversy. I have no doubt the internet has played a very strong role in disseminating misinformation about aspartame, but we should be using reliable secondary sources that describes the websites/internet/movie's role, rather than citing primary self published sources to do so. Citing one website, while ignoring other anti-aspartame website (why dorway? why not any one of hundreds of other anti-aspartame websites?) seems capricious. Mention of specific websites (or citations to them) really need to be established by secondary sources first. Yobol (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, ideally, independent sources should point the way to and/or comment upon activist-produced material such as websites, blogs and videos. If there are some authoritative independent sources that would be great - I don't know if any of the existing citations are to RS's that would do the trick. However if we cannot find sufficient material reporting on the activist sites, I would fall back (as noted above) on WP:ABOUTSELF. The sites themselves can be cited as reliable sources of information about themselves, and while they are (at least to some degree) the subject of one part of this article it seems perverse to me not to include some mention of key players.

As to which are the key players; well, I'm immediately out of my area of expertise. Knowledgable editors from both sides of the controversy, who know the field, need to make suggestions. I only mentioned DORway and the YouTube video as examples because they had been mentioned already here. As a good rule of thumb, I'd say to the scientists among you "Which site would you most like to shut down forever". To the activists I'd say "Which site is the biggest thorn in the Establishment's side". I suspect you might quickly agree, and maybe that would be the one to go for? NB, I am not suggesting a linkfarm here. A key, central, influential (for good or ill), reasonably stable site or two, not a lengthening list of uncritically spammed links. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is on trial here to see if the rules it sets up are imposed fairly or changed to support one side of this controversy. What we have here could be construed as a delaying tactic. I suggest we go ahead with dorway and sweet poison until something better comes along. Arydberg (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would rather follow policy per WP:CONSENSUS. I also like Yobol's suggestion. Mentioning one of these is fine, if we can find a WP:RS to pick what to talk about re the controversy. Wikipedia is hardly 'on trial', that is a tad much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm at a loss as to why we need to mention any specific website/blog/movie unless an independent secondary source has identified a specific website/movie/etc deserves to be singled out. There are some news sources that mention the proliferation of websites (in general) against aspartame; I'll add them when I have a chance. Yobol (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dorway and sweet poison are good enough for the article. Jmpunit (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing using Dorway to balance Snopes. We have a admin here and I posted what he suggested. I respectfully ask that what I posted be replaced. It should not have been taken down until after the discussion. Far too many people have given up on this article because of poor treatment by some of the editors.Arydberg (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Snopes is an RS. That has been pointed out. I have net read what has been suggested as "balancing out an snopes", perhaps I am mistaken. People have more or less patiently pointed out policy. This is hardly poor treatment. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Snopes is only an RS in matters where an urban legend is discussed in a cultural context. Snopes is not an RS to claim medical facts. This was already discussed at the RS Notice board Immortale (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a strawman. Where is it being used to claim medical fact? Is it making such claims independently or uniquely different than MEDRS sources? Please fix your link so it's specific. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any such thing here:

• "This conspiracy theory has become a canonical example discussed on several Internet conspiracy theory and urban legend websites.[5][27] Although most of the allegations of this theory contradict the bulk of medical evidence,[21] this misinformation has spread around the world as chain emails since mid-December 1998,[5] influencing many websites[27] as an urban legend that continues to scare consumers.[21]"

Does anyone else see that we are using it to make medical claims? (ref 27 is to Snopes) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Snopes is making medical claims on their website about Aspartame, which are not verified or well sourced. You're using Snopes as a jumping board to ridicule ALL critical statements about Aspartame and to push it into a category of conspiracy and legends. Immortale (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several factors that we must remember:

1. DORway has been the subject of discussion many times before and it has always been disallowed. The very idea of including it is a radical departure from previous practice, and as far as I know, our policies haven't changed in any manner that would allow its inclusion.
2. WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. IF DORway had an article about itself, THEN it could be used THERE.
3. If independent RS mentioned it, THEN we would be justified in mentioning it in other places than its own article.
4. WP:ELNO also applies, and both DORway and SweetPoison fail.
5. The persistent and endless repetition of invalid arguments made by POV pushing activists should not cause us to get soft-headed and give in because of weariness with their badgering. (On the contrary, they should be topic banned or otherwise taught a bit about how things work here.) This isn't the checkout stand where small children's badgering gets their mothers to buy them candy.
6. Policies must guide us.
7. Lastly, consensus rules here. There is no consensus for such inclusions.
8. A last resort (causing even more disruption, in fact the most disruptive thing at Wikipedia) is to take this all the way to ArbCom. Now that's really disruptive! It's a huge waste of time, and it would likely result in the blocking of activists. Advocacy is forbidden here, and that's what we're seeing.

Brangifer (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we please return to a little sanity here. 1) The so called “activists” hold a view that is supported by many medical research personnel. There are over 27 articles on Pub Med that support the idea that aspartame is harmful. 2) In the end the preponderance of research that oppose aspartame is all supported by one overriding force. Nutrasweet. They are one company. and should be regarded as such. 3) This is an article about a controversy. 4) Every time the term “activists is” used it biases the discussion. For a long time anything that put aspartame in a bad light was simply not allowed in this article. The question now is will this policy be allowed to continue. Arydberg (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1) So is that 27 secondary sources (review articles)? 2) So we throw out WP:MEDRS because you see a conspiracy? I would much rather follow policy than continue these fruitless and seemingly never ending discussions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly with Brangifer and Dbrodbeck here. The seemingly unending months long POV pushing and constant WP:IDHT with regards to sourcing, NPOV, etc. really needs to stop.Yobol (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I will agree that the term "activist" is slightly personal-attacky. Prefer 'advocate'. --King Öomie 14:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that all this is too much and has to stop. The only problem is the article is full of errors and it is not about the controversy. My letters have improved it. Arydberg (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

By 'your letters' are you referring to the anecdotes that you have collected and been told on a number of occasions do not meet WP:RS? If so, bringing this up again is disruptive, it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the section on grassroots efforts. Do not remove it. And any changes should first be considered here.Arydberg (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Until we come up with something that there is consensus on don't add it, do not just make statements like 'Do not remove it'. That is not how it works here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that injunctions like 'Do not remove it' are not appropriate (and more or less invite the action they seek to prevent!) However I too think the external links as cited are probably appropriate. It is hard as an uninvolved reader to get a sight of what the activist argument actually is. Links such as this (in moderation) are helpful to me - not perhaps for the reason Arydberg would like, but because they let me judge the weak, subjective and anecdotal nature of the activist case. There are, by definition, going to be few or no sources on the activist side as reliable as those on the scientific side. Therefore if there is going to be a sensible article on the controversy, it is appropriate to have different standards for what we cite for either side. The quality of the external sites will be plainly obvious to anyone who clicks through to them. At present the article looks like a shadow-boxing match - we can only see one opponent. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How, then, do we choose which except by looking at those that have been mentioned in reliable sources? There are many fringe sites out there, but which are notable? If they are not mentioned in a RS I don't see how we can choose. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think (but haven't actually rechecked) that we can establish that websites, collectively but not individually, can be established as notable to anti-aspartame advocacy by reliable sources. If we are going to pick one website as an exemplar, why not Betty Martini's? At least she has coverage in reliable sources. As for videos, I'm not sure that any reliable source has mentioned them as significant.Novangelis (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to: “It is hard as an uninvolved reader to get a sight of what the activist argument actually is” The activist argument is that we place the emphasis on the medical experiences of people over the reports of the researchers. If in fact these reports conflicted with independent research my cause would be weak but as many ( if not all) of the reports that claim aspartame is harmless are paid for by a billion dollar industry they are suspect. Here is a web site i put up. http://www.aspartametestimonials.com/ I know it cannot be used as a source but it illustrates the reason many people have for suspecting aspartame as being the cause of their ills. . and some others. Current research: http://www.reseau-environnement-sante.fr/images/Conf/ppt_prsentation_soffritti.pdf 60 minutes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5805190307148690830# I hope this helps. Arydberg (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me fix this for you, because at this point you're not listening any more. You take lay person's perceptions of the causes of medical problems, generated solely through what amounts to superstition, as opposed to some kind of formal instruction, as gospel truth, over the research of actual experts. Well, unless those experts are the few who agree with you. --King Öomie 14:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I say it is damn poor science when all the researchers are paid by the industry they are researching. Arydberg (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a disagreement to have with the scientific community, because Aspartame is hardly alone in this regard. You think it should be done differently, that's fine. But it's not a fact, it's what you think, and we can't go changing articles to fit it. --King Öomie 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

no assumptions

I propose removing the following from the History of Approval and Safety section.“an unidentified anti-aspartame activist “ and replacing it with “someone” No one knows who posted these e-mails. It could be an activists or it could be someone in the industry in an effort to undermine the anti-aspartame group. We have no reason to assume it is anti-aspartame people. This is WP:SYN Arydberg (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! There are too many Weasel Words as well, and too many other assumptions. Immortale (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All sources agree it was an anti-Aspartame activist, and some come right out and state it was Betty Martini herself who falsified it. We are actually gentle here. Do you want us to actually say that here? Even Betty Martini, the first person known to have ever published that content on the internet (or anywhere else) claims it was someone who (obviously!) shared her POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One source that connects Markle and Martini is an article in Atlanta Magazine. It provides some insights about Martini's role in the Nancy Markle hoax email. It states that the Markle email was traced back to Martini. (Lots of us close to the case back then have always suspected that to be the case, since there is no evidence that Nancy Markle is a real person, and its appearance and language were just too "convenient" at the time. It reads like a Martini production.) It also states that Martini is glad for the publicity provided by that email. I can understand why, because it has been her best form of advertising for her cause. The journalist who interviewed her and visited her in her home also experienced what I have experienced when contacting her (and I've exchanged dozens of emails with her). One gets bombarded with super, super long emails and links, and no matter what one says, one gets the same long canned reply back, that usually doesn't address one's questions. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To remind you, personal grudges against individuals have no place in a Wikipedia article. Betty Martini denies on her website she's Nancy Markle. Case closed. Suspicions and backstreet gossip won't do it. The Markle email has very little significance in the Aspartame controversy anyway. And if you copy and paste text from a person's articles, of course you tend to agree with that person, but that doesn't mean you are the person. In Wikipedia we deal with facts, not hearsay. Immortale (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And Ajinomoto denies on its website that Aspartame is harmful. Case closed? Yeah, we're not in the habit of taking someone's claims about themselves as gospel truth, especially in the face of reliable sources to the contrary. You'll notice the articles on most criminals don't say "X is a falsely-imprisoned..." She says she isn't, refs say she might be. As you say, we report on the controversy, not just her official position. --King Öomie 14:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is proof she is the author I will withdraw my request but I would like to know what the proof is. Arydberg (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't suggest she's the author. Since when do we need sources for something we're not saying? --Six words (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are of course right. The article says that it was a anti-aspartame activist that circulated the letter. If there is no proof of this it is WP:SYN. Arydberg (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's WP:SYN to post a reference that says a thing, in support of that thing, then you don't have the slightest clue what literary synthesis is. Multiple sources are quoted as saying the letter came from an anti-aspartame activist. We're not combining disparate points of fact from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not laid out in the sources. I suggest reading policies before you try to smack us with them. --King Öomie 19:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only are these weasel words but the phrase "unidentified anti-aspartame activist" does not appear in the reference. "Someone" or "Person" would be more neutral. Jmpunit (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer is simple; we should note that sources have identified her as the author, and she denies it. We were doing her a favor by not identifying her as the author, if people are going to kick up a fuss, let's just go with the sources. Yobol (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is simple; if the phrase "an unidentified anti-aspartame activist" is not in the reference it shouldn't be in the article. Jmpunit (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

King Oomie “Multiple sources are quoted as saying the letter came from an anti-aspartame activist” And what sources are these? Arydberg (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Food Processing, Volume 69 via Google Books. Can't see the entire text, but they provide a snippet- 'One of the most sinister e-mail chain letters circulated in the UK recently is that from Nancy Markle (an alias for Betty Martini founder of Mission Possible...'

A publication from the Food Processing Industry by a dodgy publisher, that doesn't exist anymore, without sources? This violates almost every wikipedia rule. Immortale (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down please everyone, this is not a matter of life or death. Yobol (or ally), why don't you post here a draft of a form of words, including a reference, that cites some proven or assumed identity for the author? Arydberg (or ally) why not post here a form of words you would support? Each side proposing a positive form of words, rather than attacking the other, would help here. Then a measured response from either side would go a long way towards a collaborative atmosphere. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your efforts but there is no common ground. People like me ask who has benefitted. We see the industry and think “dirty tricks” People like Yobol look at foolish anti-aspartame people and see the letter as confirming their stupid outlandish behavior. However we are not writing for ourselves. We are writing for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is looking for facts. As long as there is no proof one way or the other Wikipedia is duty bound to maintain a neutral stance. Here is my form of words. “While many in the media have expanded on the chain e-mail presumedly written by an anti-aspartame advocates others see this letter as a dirty trick invented by the aspartame industry to damage the cause of the anti-aspartame group. Both scenarios are possible as he true origination of this letter is unknown”. Arydberg (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources for either or both hypotheses, something like that looks reasonable. Without sources, it's speculation and probably not appropriate. Do you have anything you can cite? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is one http://thecriticalthinker.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/the-aspartame-scare-“sweet-misery-a-poisoned-world”/ And another on the subject in general http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/magazine/03wwln-safire-t.html?_r=1 But the point is we cannot be sure of the source of the e-mails. They could be either side and that is what we should report.Arydberg (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything in either source suggesting that the Martini email was a dirty trick played by the manufacturers. Am I missing it? (I'm not certain the first counts as a RS anyway, I'm afraid, though the nytimes one is obviously OK. ) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, none of the two has anything to do with the “Nancy Markle letter” at all! --Six words (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@Kim: do you really think a NY Times article with no mention of aspartame, artificial sweetners or at least suggesting FDA approval processes are sometimes questionable qualifies as a reliable source for this article? --Six words (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think Kim means the NY Times is in general reliable while the other (wordpress.com) isn't, regardless of whether there is any pertinent information contained in those sources. Obviously sources need to have relevant information to be reliable for information provided.Yobol (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question. No i have no real sources that the letter was a dirty trick The best I can do is to show that dirty tricks do indeed exists. Your approach puts me in the position of an accused person having to prove they are innocent. You are assuming the letter was sent by activists and I have to prove it is not. You are the ones that need to prove that the letter was an activists action. Anything else is very poor journalism Arydberg (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this is encyclopedia that does not operate on original research. To call it a "dirty trick" in the article, we have to source it to something. We don't originate new ideas. We have sources that tie it to Martini. Please review our policies and guidelines again. Yobol (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are RSs that cite Martini as the author, but there are no sources citing the industry's "dirty tricks" departments, then we can cite one but not the other, obviously. For my money, an activist website asserting dirty tricks would be sufficient to use as a source for something like "some activists assert that the email was in fact faked by the aspartame industry to discredit the campaign." This could follow (or precede) something like "Activist Betty Martini acknowledges that her original email was the source of the plagiarised (modified?) "Markle" email which became an internet meme. She states that she does not know Markle's identity, but approves of their actions." Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Any random website could theoretically be a RS for the opinion of the owner of the website; how much weight we give to such an opinion, if any, should be determined by the coverage in secondary sources. If no independent secondary sources cover this "dirty tricks" angle, it really isn't prominent angle and probably shouldn't be included. (As an aside, does anyone else find this "dirty tricks" angle peculiar? - on the one hand, according to anti-aspartame activists, Monsanto/G.D. Searle/the food industry is smart/devious enough to get a dangerous substance approved in 100 countries for use and completely hood-winked the scientific community for 30+ years, but they would also intentionally spread health lies straight from the mouths of one of their fiercest critics across the internet that cost them years of bad publicity? The unlikeliness of this happening makes me even more sure we need secondary sources covering it to include in this article). Yobol (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There's also a semantic consideration. Email can refer to the text or the whole transmission mode (just as letter can refer to everything including the envelope and stamp or just the contained pages. It might be simpler to say something like: "The text was traced back to usenet* posts by Betty Martini, but she denies originating the email."

*I'm pretty sure it was usenet. That would have to be checked.

Other than the weasel words aspect of "some activists say", I don't like the thought that all you need to do to is add a little text to a site and create a source for whatever you want to add to the article. Such inclusionism is the ultimate lever for undue weight. I don't mind the idea of using examples where a concept has been noted, but none of the examples is. If idea has not been noted in reliable sources, Wikipedia should not get ahead of them.Novangelis (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets cut to the chase. Wikipedia states, “an unidentified anti-aspartame activist” I am asking for a source. How do you know this? The article in Atlanta magazine is fine if it points somewhere but it does not. Why is it so hard just to get a source for a stated fact? Arydberg (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have put the information in chronological order, placed "Markle" in quotes (as her existence and name have never been confirmed), made copy edits to make it all flow and remain an accurate representation of events in the order they occurred, all backed by the sources. Even though I didn't have some of these sources while these events were unfolding, they do back up my recollection of them. The one thing I haven't done is to examine all versions of Martini's emails from my harddrives and Usenet archives to see if I can identify the closest version. It wouldn't surprise me if I could find an exact copy, but with Martini's name on it. Betty has changed her story slightly over the years and many don't believe her claims that a "Nancy Markle" existed and did anything Martini claims.

I haven't yet touched the "an unidentified anti-aspartame activist" wording yet as I'm still uncertain how to fix it. Technically it doesn't need much fixing since it's accurate, but might be worded better by harmonizing the language with the changes I've just made. I'll look at it. Currently it seems to imply something that's not true.... that "Nancy Markle" (the unidentified woman) actually wrote something, when actually it's just a version of Martini's thousands of emails to Usenet groups, possibly with a few words changed or moved. (It's a wonder that Betty didn't single-handedly crash their servers, since her mails are very long.)

According to Martini, "Markle" made small changes... but the "Markle" mail is still substantially identical to Martini's originals, which appear in several versions. There's nothing really new in the "Markle" version: It's the same list of claims, diseases, symptoms, conspiracy theory, and wordings as Martini's. The hoax email served as a vehicle to give Martini's message more circulation, something for which Martini has expressed her gratefulness. IIRC, Martini is the first person known to have circulated the mail under the "Markle" name. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Markle" mail is substantially identical to Martini's originals but there is no proof that an activists modified some of Martini's e-mails. Like wise there is no proof that a dirty tricks campaign to put the activists in a bad light modified some Martini originals. We simply do not know the source of these letters. The article should reflect this unless we do have a source. In that case the source should be included. Arydberg (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

FDA Officials

In the lead we can read :"with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut"" This statement comes from a small online publication from the FDA that lived a short life, written by a freelance journalist without credentials. He doesn't mention which FDA officials described this. On the other hand, we have sworn testimony from several FDA inspectors, on legal records, who are convinced the safety protocols on Aspartame were jeopardized and that there are severe health hazards through consumption of aspartame. This proves that even within the FDA there was a controversy and serious difference of opinion. This should be mentioned in the lead. Immortale (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A sidetrack

But... including any mention of that might raise doubts as to the safety of aspartame and affect sales. We all know that the vast majority of contributers here would hate that.КĐ♥ 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you implying that there are editors here who have a motive for editing directly related to artificial sweetener sales figures? Because it really seems like that's what your saying. --King Öomie 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Yes. I am saying there are severe issues of ownership of articles, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, censorship and conflicts of interest going on here.КĐ♥ 19:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Then file notices on the appropriate noticeboard(s) with appropriate evidence. If you do not file, please redact your accusations as they do not belong on this page under any circumstances.Novangelis (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC) It's coming, I am currently in the long process of gathering evidence.КĐ♥ 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I for one am quite tired of having to every couple of months prove my innocence in this regard. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Yeah, no kidding. --King Öomie 20:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) There's no smoke without fire.КĐ♥ 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) If you have proof, then it should be provided on a noticeboard. Making such accusations is a rather serious breach of WP:AGF. I have said this many times, I have no connection to this industry. It is quite clear what I do for a living when you look at my user page, indeed, my name is listed. Please stop this nonsense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I will respectfully point out that the smoke resides entirely in your mind. I'd suggest a bucket of ice water to put out that fire. --King Öomie 21:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Immortale, how old are these sworn testimonies? --Six words (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Immortale's actual claim above: according to FDA Consumer, FDA Consumer didn't really have a "short life" as it was published for 40 years. The source itself states "John Henkel is a staff writer for FDA Consumer", suggesting that "freelance journalist without credentials" is understating the source's validity for making claims on behalf of the FDA. Our current selected quotes from the source ("one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and "clear cut [safety]") are attributed to "FDA officials"--while this is vague, there are named FDA officials cited in the piece. Immortale's description of the source is remarkably uncharitable... — Scientizzle 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know that. What I was getting at with my question was whether this source is older or newer than the testimonies that there are severe health hazards associated with aspartame consumption. --Six words (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be important to know. While I think it's been established that there was some academic disagreement on the approval of aspartame as it was under FDA review, I question whether concerns of "severe health hazards" (emphasis mine) accurately describes the concerns of "several FDA inspectors" in the early 80s. Whether these yet-to-be-cited opinions should be presented in the lead depend highly upon the context of these disagreements (e.g., were these minority opinions, were many of the concerns later addressed) and their relevance today (considering 30 years of further research). More likely, if these opinions can be properly cited, they may have a place in the "Government approval" section. — Scientizzle 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The online publication of FDA Consumer Magazine lived a short life. Though Henkel is mentioned as a staff writer, in other articles in the same magazine he's described as "John Henkel is a member of FDA's website management staff." He's not even a journalist. Where can I verify which FDA officials have said that its safety is "clear cut"? In wikipedia it's all about verification and there's none here. Also the link in the aspartame controversy article to Henkel's article is dead. Here it says :"This article contains revisions made in December 2004. It is no longer being updated and may contain information that is out of date." Not a very good source to have in the lead. The sworn testimonies of the FDA Toxicologists and FDA Inspectors are from the two Congressional Hearings. Immortale (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: "Where can I verify which FDA officials have said that its safety is 'clear cut'?"--You don't have to. The sentence FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut".^[ref] is a perfectly accurate and appropriate use of an FDA source. WP:V requires proper attributions of opinions, done correctly in this case.

Henkel's credentials are a nonstarter as is the lifespan of the online version of the FDA magazine. It really doesn't matter. For an official FDA stance, an article from the FDA's own official magazine quoting FDA officials is a reasonable source. And the fact that a 1999 publication "may contain information that is out of date" isn't really a surprise is it? Don't you think the testimonies from 1975 and 1980 might also be a little out of date?

All that said, I think the lead should be re-worked some...the irregularities in the approval needs to be separated from the health claims as they're now rather independent topics (with the science having moved on 30 years). We have them intermingled and the effect is to downplay the drama surrounding the FDA approval. — Scientizzle 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That the article is re-written 5 years later is already Orwellian. Henkel's statements cannot be verified. Maybe he made it up. If you want to keep it, mention him as the source, like "According to a staff writer of the online FDA Consumer magazine..." That's according proper Wikipedia guidelines. Where does it say that Henkel is the official spokesperson of everything that goes on inside the FDA? Immortale (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not apparently understand WP:V. A claim in Wikipedia must be verifiably attributable to another source. It does not mean that Wikipedia and its editors are to be charged with the task of assessing the veracity of all of a source's claims--this would be an infinitely iterative process that is simply unwise and unachievable, and more importantly a clear WP:NOR violation. "Where does it say that Henkel is the official spokesperson of everything that goes on inside the FDA?" is a flatly stupid straw man of what I've argued, which is more accurately described as an official FDA publication states within its text that "FDA officials" consider the safety of aspartame "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". Direct quote:

While questions about saccharin may persist, the safety of another artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.

You don't have to agree with the FDA claims (you're quite free to think they're colossally corrupt ignoramuses), but this is an accurate presentation of the source!

Furthermore, a vague "he could have made it up" is a completely vapid critique. Would you accept "(s)he could have made it up" as a valid criticism against the inclusion of any source you'd present on Wikipedia for consideration? [It's possible someone in the sworn testimonies may have stated inaccurate or false info as well, right?] Hell, there are examples within the article of claims that were clearly made up against aspartame (there's no legitimate research on a connection between aspartame and lupus or gulf war syndrome, for example). If a claim is in a good source, it's fair game for use. Quit wasting our time on these farcical criticisms. — Scientizzle 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened to WP:AGF, or does that only count to one side of this editing struggle? You can't hand pick quotes from random FDA people to make a general assumption and put it in the lead. There are other FDA people that have made opposite claims. You're using Henkel's article as a jumping board through wikilawyering to present it as a hard fact. And talking about straw man, why are you babbling about lupus and gulf war syndrome. I haven't made such claims. Quit the ridicule for once. Immortale (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Immortale, it's rather ironic that your statement violates AGF, thus causing you to make a nonsensical statement and personal attack! Scientizzle wasn't referring to you but to the actual inclusion of Martini's unproven claims about lupus and GWS. Your constant assumptions of bad faith cause you to create conflicts and confusion when it's not necessary. This stuff is confusing and we're all trying to figure it out. You should be thankful that a scientifically qualified admin like Scientizzle is willing to come to this cesspool and try to help us. You owe him an apology. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the present official stance of the FDA on the approval and safety of aspartame? Is it substantially different than the FDA Consumer Magazine source? If so, please provide the direct citation. — Scientizzle 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What Wikipedia says in the first paragraph: "Critics allege that conflicts of interest marred the FDA's approval of aspartame," What really happened: Aspartame was first approved, then many complaints resulted in a public board of inquiry. The board rejected the approval. Then Ronald Reagan replaced the head of the FDA who overrode the rejection and approved aspartame. The word allege is used to misrepresent what really happened, There was no conflict of interest there was sincere belief that aspartame was dangerous. This is all public record. Arydberg (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a separation you're missing between there BEING a conflict of interest and that COI MARRING the approval. And as usual, you're grossly over-valuing statements you agree with, to the detriment of the actual balance of opinions. --King Öomie 07:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain further. Arydberg 14:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI does it nicely, actually. It's possible to have a conflict of interest and still work constructively, it just takes more care. Until there's a reliable source to the contrary, the idea that the public-record conflicts of interest involved MARRED the approval process are allegations. --King Öomie 14:31, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

There were charges of fraud brought against the principles of Searle. Is this enough. See,

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7081EFE3F5F117A93CAA9178FD85F428785F9&scp=5&sq=G.+D.+searle+++aspartame&st=p

Arydberg (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Grand jury probe

While making some edits and looking at the sources I ran into a couple unsolved problems. I made this edit, leaving a note and quote for other editors to sort out.

We state two mutually exclusive things as fact: that the DOJ "instituted grand jury proceedings against Searle for fraud in one of its drug studies" (I have requested a source for that) and that "a grand jury was never convened".

We also contradictorially mention it was for one study and then for two studies. Which is it? Were there two grand juries, one which was convened and one which never got off the ground? Did one investigate allegations against one study and the other against two studies? Note that a "grand jury" is mentioned several times in two different sections. I fear that we're confusing a "request to convene" with actually starting a grand jury. They're not the same thing.

This is confusing! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I'll try to come back with more later: AFAIK it was about one study on aspartame and one on “Aldactone” (medication for high blood pressure) and the Aldactone one was examined by a grand jury. I need to look for the source of that though. --Six words (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I had a better source, and I think it's buried somewhere in the archives either here or Talk:Aspartame.Novangelis (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The other source was not better; it was about aldactone and did not cover the story to the end.Novangelis (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find my source, but I'll keep on looking for it. --Six words (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the NY Times (emphasis mine):

In response to the report, the F.D.A. asked the Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation into whether two of Searle's aspartame studies had been falsified or were incomplete. In a 33-page letter in 1977, Richard A. Merrill, the F.D.A.'s chief counsel at the time, recommended to Samuel K. Skinner, then the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, that a grand jury investigate the company, which was based in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, for "concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of the drug Aldactone and the food additive aspartame."[5]

— Scientizzle 21:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the same NY Times article we're using in the article. There's a difference between "asked....to open" and actually doing it. There's also a difference between saying they DID something wrong, and asking a grand jury to "investigate" whether they did. Anyone can make "allegations", even on this page, but we shouldn't write it if it wasn't an actual legal charge in court. At least we need to be careful how we word this. If they were formally charged, then by all means write it, otherwise use caution. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to get this matter fixed. Immortale has now had an addition to the lead reverted for probably the 4th or 5th time, and I've left an edit summary for them to come here and discuss it. The edit warring needs to stop. This descrepancy is blocking progress. When it's fixed, it might be possible to justify addition of Immortale's content to the lead, but not before then. It must be developed in the body first, per the rules for LEAD. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

History of aspartame by student at Harvard

This link is one of the better articles on the history of aspartame. It was written to graduate Harvard Law School. http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/244/Nill,_Ashley_-_The_History_of_Aspartame.html Arydberg (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I know students in the US graduate earlier than they do here, but are they really graduating as third years? I'm not saying that this source is inaccurate, but it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia as it's pretty much a self-published source without peer-review. --Six words (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this self published paper back in December. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aspartame_controversy&oldid=404825360#history_section . There was no consensus to include it then, and I doubt there will be now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to access the references in the Harvard Law School paper that refer to the congressional record of 1977. Does anyone know how to access these. All I can do is find articles for the last 10 years or so. Arydberg (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., law school is a three year undergraduate programme following a bachelor's degree. So the writer is a final year law undergraduate. TFD (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Six words (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical sources

Here are many scanned articles mostly from the New York Times and other major newspapers, describing the real controversy of aspartame in the 1970s and 1980s, long before internet. This should be better described in the history section of this article. Some editors have claimed that there never was a controversy and that Betty Martini started it all. Immortale (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

She definitely didn't start it. I don't know of anyone who believes that, unless they haven't studied this subject very well. In that case it could easily happen since all modern objections trace back to her activism, IOW thousands of complaints count as one because of her activism.

She's the one who has revived and maintained it in the face of many RS stating that there was no danger with normal doses. Without her the controversy would have died out by now because there would be few or no complaints. She scares the heck out of myriad ignorant people. She's a one-woman super-activist army. It's interesting that her original mass emailings, including the Nancy Markle version (which she also circulated), omit the one proven danger to a very small group of people. In fact, a RS notes this fact and I forgot to add it to the article. I need to get that done. That's a very telling omission by her. She makes myriad sins of commission by making such a long, unproven, laundry list based only on anecdotes, and makes a gross sin of omission by leaving out the ONE proven danger. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get it, you don't like Betty because, as you once said, she's a Jehova's Witness and you don't like those kind of people. The controversy wouldn't have died out without her. Do you really think the Ramazinni Institute would spend millions based on conspiracy emails about Aspartame? Not to mention all those other independent scientists... Immortale (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One Sided

This article is one sided. The controversy over aspartame has come about because of thousands of people that claim their health has been adversely affected by foods containing aspartame. This side includes many medical researchers who believe aspartame is a threat to public health and that the majority of the research that approves of aspartame is biased as it is paid for by the aspartame industry. The other side Is trying to prove a negative. That aspartame is “safe” This if course is impossible so what they do is to is to discredit the research that contests the safety of aspartame. This article does not present a balanced approach to these two sides. The grassroots side of the issue is totally ignored. The article sides with the majority of research but does not allow for the fact that this research is paid for by the industry. People that profess to believe aspartame is harmful usually leave in disgust. Then on debates a consensus is taken of those remaining which of course are those following the party line prevail. Arydberg (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum, opinions do not matter much. Sources do. You have been told this many many times. What 'thousands of people claim' is irrelevant. Thousands of people claim that Elvis is alive. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is something you ought to read. Bringing the same thing up, which has been rejected by the community over and over again is disruptive. If you have read it before, read it again please. We don't do balance, we do sources, and I for one am not going to apologize for going along with what the science says, or as you said above 'the article sides with the majority of research'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please review WP:UNDUE again. Our article says aspartame is safe because that is what the reliable sources for medical claims say. If you have any sources that meet the stringent criteria for medical claims here, please provide them, otherwise continually making general claims that have been discussed and rejected before without providing new sources is generally considered disruptive. Yobol (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

More fringe bad sources: But Snopes is OK http://med.miami.edu/news/miller-school-researchers-link-diet-soda-and-salt-to-cardiovascular-risk Arydberg (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, please review the sourcing requirements. Press releases don't satisfy those requirements. Scientific literature reviews such as those that find aspartame to be safe are the preferred sources. As for Snopes and similar websites, they should not be used to support statements about medicine. However, reviewed on a case-by-case basis, they may be considered reliable on the sociology and history of the aspartame conspiracy theories. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific literature reviews such as those that find aspartame to be safe are the preferred sources." I'm sure that's what you prefer, but at Wikipedia we give both sides of a controversy, so scientific reviews that find aspartame to be unsafe, are important to be mentioned. Immortale (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1) Likely can't be used per WP:MEDRS as it is a primary study.

2) Wrong article, any discussion would have to belong to the artificial sweetener article as it did not look at aspartame specifically.

3) This will be the 3rd time you have been warned that use of sarcasm is not conducive to a collaborative environment (first here, 2nd here). Please adjust your behavior to collaborate. Yobol (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Even beyond MEDRS issues...

"In the first study, the scientists found that if you drink diet soda – instead of the sugar variety – you could still have a much higher risk of vascular events compared to those who do not drink soda." ... "In the soda study, investigators also lacked data on types of diet and regular drinks consumed, preventing analysis of whether variations among brands or changes over time in coloring and sweeteners might have played a role."

...This study is analytically useless for much of anything, let alone showing a specific risk for Aspartame. They say diet soda isn't BETTER on the heart than non-diet; I see nothing indicating it was WORSE, which really makes it sound like the sweetener used, whether it be pure, natural cane sugar or gross ol' aspartame, wasn't a factor. And no information on the specific drinks used? No information on diet? What the hell did they publish, JUST their abstract? --King Öomie 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Immortale, above, I'm not aware of quality scientific reviews that find aspartame to be unsafe. Quality reviews say it is safe or, at the worst, controversial. The most comprehensive recent review of the literature in a high-quality journal found no evidence that aspartame is unsafe. Of course, there are comprehensive reviews and then there are the op-ed style reviews where authors review their own work. Needless to say, these are not as reliable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To just pick one out of my long list: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/abs/1602866a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a comprehensive review of the literature. This is a description of various amino acids and metabolites and what might be and what may have this or that effect. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a scientific review in a high-quality journal and now you're coming with the argument that it's not a "comprehensive review"? I suppose you mean with "comprehensive review", the Burdock/Ajinomoto review. (BLP vio removed.) Burdock did the same for the Tobacco industry. Got good money for it as well. And when it comes to food, I don't want to hear "may" or "may not", I don't want to have any doubt in my food. Immortale (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) (BLP vio removed per policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

See MEDRS. A 99-page review of almost 400 articles is far more authoritative by these standards than a short, opinion-type review with 35 or 40 references. As far as a "classic example" of manipulation, be warned that you're venturing into dangerous territory re: corporations and BLP. Unless you have a very good source proving that this is the case, please redact your statement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We do cite Humphries et al. already. It's published in a second-quartile journal, but the EFSA and a letter to the journal by a researcher apparently repeatedly mis-cited by Humphries et al. (PMID 18231118) make a case that there are some fundamental flaws in that review. Still, it qualifies for MEDRS and I'm open to hearing tangible suggestions of article content citing this work. It'd be infinitely more productive than railing against corporations. — Scientizzle 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On one-sidedness

Because it probably needs to be explored and explained periodically, let's examine the how this Wikipedia article is supposed to look...There are two main components to this controversy article:

1. the messy FDA approval process, which involved scientific claims but is more of a political story
2. the present state of scientific and medical evidence regarding the safety of aspartame

Those are the two basic things to cover. The former is probably best treated as almost entirely historical-political as the science of the time (while clearly a major component of the FDA debate) has been largely superseded by three decades of further research. Treating it this way has the added benefit of lowering the source bar a bit and allowing a better feel for the cultural relevance of the events that occurred.

The latter, however, is clearly a scientific topic and needs to meet WP:MEDRS standards. The next important thing to consider is the weight of the presentation of the various "sides". WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE make a clear case that minority opinions need to be represented fairly, but with due care given to their prominence. Because this is an article specifically on the controversies, greater attention can be paid to the minority opinions. However, we must always frame the discussion such that the mainstream perspective is always crystal clear and unambiguously presented as the majority stance.

The obvious question: what is the mainstream stance and how much of a majority is it really? I think the clearest answer is found in the lead of the article, that aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide. The widespread approval and consumption of aspartame is a clear indicator that the mainstream opinion is not overly concerned with aspartame consumption (within prescribed limits) posing much of a health risk. Whether this should be the case is immaterial; whether this will change we cannot know.

If we can all work from this same frame of reference, I'm hopeful that further discussions will be more productive. — Scientizzle 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The "science" section gets the weight right from my standpoint (well, since I re-wrote that section, I would think that...) with regards to exposing the reader to the "controversy"...we cover the major sources of supposed safety issues (Olney and his excitotoxicity and brain tumors, Ramazzini studies, metabolites as poison, etc). The "one-sidedness" people seem to be complaining about comes not from the lack of description of these theories, but that we are emphasizing (correctly, per UNDUE) that the mainstream rejects these ideas.

As an aside, I was the one who added Humphries, et al. to the article (a curious thing for a shill like me to do), and it deserves no more coverage than what is already there. It has not affect any other later reviews like the EFSA experts to change their opinion of the data, so any more discussion about Humphries would be UNDUE.Yobol (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You both make good points. Scientizzle's analysis seems to take account of the relevant policies and MoS concepts. Now are there any particular points that need tweaking or improvement based on those thoughts? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep wondering what the fixation with the FDA and it's process(es) is/are. The rest-of-the-world (ie/ the bits outside of the US) has given approval to Aspartame, so the hows/whys to some breakdown in process in the US, is irrelevant. Shot info (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because this specific controversy is mostly generated by people in the USA. There are plenty of other "controversies" involving, say, Directive 2004/24/EC, or the MHRA (though they don't generate many wikipedia edit wars), or regulations & regulators in other countries... but controversies are often local or national rather than global. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Way to go, prove somethings irrelevancy by invoking something even more irrelevant. Shot info (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We've established that the majority of the "evidence" freaking people out about aspartame is COMPLETELY irrelevant. This article is ABOUT that irrelevant stuff, the sum of which is notable. --King Öomie 01:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this his last stratement is not true. Wikipedia has many articles about controversies. All these present both sides of the controversy and let the readers make their own conclusions. This article is different. Rather than present both sides it makes an argument for one side only. A small amount of attention is paid to the minority side but this covers only the flawed approval process. The bigger issue, that of thousands of web pages attesting to negative experiences from the use of aspartame, is totally ignored. Regardless of the truth or falsity of these claims they make a powerful statement about public health. They do, in fact, represent one aspect of the public’s view of this subject and deserve to be given exposure. Arydberg (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT about testimonial evidence. Seriously, drop the stick already. Yobol (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Christ, honestly. Arydberg, I'd suggest you read this, this, this, this and this. Lay testimony has no more place in this article (or ANY article) than a series of bad puns. --King Öomie 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, and I have tried very hard to assume good faith, in the face of accusations of being a shill and in the face of misplaced sarcasm. This is disruptive editing. I do not say this lightly, as AGF is really important to me. Please stop this Arydberg. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And you please read this.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy Arydberg (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

King please do not be offensive. This article is titled "aspartame controversy" but it does not describe a controversy. It describes a one sided argument that does not allow anyone of differing views. People are threatened, insulted, and run off. Meanwhile the fifth pillar declares that “Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule” You people apply the principles of Wikipedia with a whip to get what you want with no regard for a balanced article. Sir, there are others out there and their part of this subject is essential to a balanced article. Arydberg (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, I have tweaked the lead to meet your concerns, all backed by our existing content and sources, with this edit summary: "Meeting Arydberg's concerns. We can't duplicate their repetition of BM's lies, which are described in this article quite well, but we can mention that the websites exist."

There is no way that we can so grossly violate Wikipedia's policies as to allow the duplication of anecdotes, even if there were billions of them, as content here. We can mention they exist, but they have absolutely no weight in any scientific discussion. At best such anecdotes often, and I mean that, serve as inspiration for research. It is that research which is considered a reliable source here. Since it totally goes agaist the frenzy of websites created as a result of Betty Martini's health scare and hoax emails, we can't give them any voice here.

Don't ever make this appeal again. Take the matter to WP:RS/N. If they say that we can consider anecdotes as RS here, then we can look at it again, but not before then. Just quit bring this up again and again and again and again and again! We cover the position of critics quite well. Readers are in no doubt that a controversy exists and the nature of that controversy. Reliable sources say that your position is wrong. WE CANNOT CHANGE THAT FACT! The article is not going to make your position sound like anything other than the misguided personal opinions that they are. If RS and good research change this situation, then, and only then, will the article change to make your position look correct. You can't treat this article like a personal blog. You're welcome to start a blog or website (even I have one) where you can slant things the way you want. That's perfectly alright. We have the freedom to do that. The existence of thousands of websites repeating BM's lies is proof of that. You're welcome to join them, but leave us alone with your push to include nonsense as a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You know I am not asking that it be included as WP:RS. I am asking it be included as folklore or whatever you want to call it and qualified as such but it is a major part of this controversy and to omit it is poor journalism. Arydberg (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no reasonable interpretation of policy that would allow us to add a bunch of crap to an article, with the disclaimer that "none of it is reliable". When information isn't reliable, it is removed. The answer is no. (also, it should maybe indicate something to you that a 'major part of this controversy' is completely unreliable and scientifically useless.) --King Öomie 14:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

Resolved

A complaint has been filed by Immortale at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice here as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: Immortale blocked and topic banned, and others strongly warned. Do I hear a boomerang whistling through the air? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"aspartame disease" and "aspartame poisoning"

For some reason we don't use those phrases so common in anti-aspartame circles. Here's a typical situation where the deluded/misled patient meets a doctor who has never heard of such a thing. These are not recognized diagnoses, just as Morgellons isn't a recognized diagnosis. Should we mention them? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This article could be a good resource for medical doctors who want to understand their patients' concerns. TFD (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Minority view

I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that the anti-aspartame view is a "minority view", in fact an extreme minority view held only by a small handfull (less than "five" fingers?) of doctors and scientists, most of whom are retired and self-publishing their own weird POV, some of which are also pseudoscientific, fringe and even illegal quackery. (You see, people who are odd enough to hold one fringe view often hold many other fringe, pseudoscientific and quackish views, and they often cross the line into what is actually illegal.)

There is no controversy in scientific circles at present, with the lone exception of Soffritti, whose self-published work at his own Ramazzini Institute has been severely criticized. No, the real controversy died out a long time ago. All of the activism and publicity that exists is internet activism fueled by Betty Martini and a couple retired doctors, and their thousands of lay syncophants and SPAs who edit here. It has basically created a situation extremely similar to Delusional parasitosis ("aspartame disease"), where the effect of Martini's activism through the internet is similar to this: Morgellons#Role of the Internet. In fact, that section might serve as a model to use here, but in a modified form. That's what's happening in the real world.

Since the article never mentions any of these descriptions (pseudoscience, fringe, minority), but maybe we could still describe it as a minority view. The problem with doing that is that it gives undue weight and legitimacy to it. A "significant" scientific minority view would indeed be worth noticing, but when the scientific "minority" is literally "infinitisimal", it's not significant enough to be worth wasting the bytes, or is it? To be accurate, we would have to qualify "minority" by mentioning exactly how few ("a small minority of 4-5 (mostly retired) doctors and scientists"). That would be a pain, because it would mean we'd have to then give them undue weight compared to the enormous silence in the literature. WP:FRINGE then comes into the picture for how to deal with such minority views.

What think ye? Should we add "minority view" somewhere in the article? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We have articles about people who hold minority views - in fact most political and religious movements meet that description. I made suggestions above that we should write the article similar to the section "Nutrasweet syndrome and consumer revolt" in Empty pleasures.[6] TFD (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I of course am in favor of a minority view. As to "five fingers" here is a Dorway site. http://www.dorway.com/doctors.html

• As for the “lone exception of Soffritti” consider Science 6 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5834, p. 29 DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5834.29c Prev | Table of Contents | Next SCIENCESCOPE Fearful it causes cancer, 12 U.S. environmental health experts and activists last week asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review the potential health risks of the artificial sweetener aspartame, which appears in everything from medicines to diet sodas. A study published last month in Environmental Health Perspectives found somewhat more leukemias and lymphomas in male rats receiving less aspartame than the recommended maximum for humans; at higher doses, the rats had a marked increase in cancers throughout the body. Pregnant rats were fed the sweetener, and animals received it once they'd been weaned. The work, by scientists at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy, is "more sensitive and more realistic" than earlier aspartame studies, says James Huff of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who signed onto the FDA letter drafted by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest. But because the study conflicts with earlier work, FDA spokesperson Michael Herndon says that the agency finds the study unpersuasive and that "aspartame is safe." FDA's European counterpart has not responded publicly to the study.
• As for “A "significant" scientific minority view would indeed be worth noticing, but when the scientific "minority" is literally "infinitesimal", it's not significant enough to be worth wasting the bytes, or is it?” Please bear in mind that almost all real advances in science are made by one lone voice without the benefit of a large following.
• In the long term aspartame has nothing to do with it. It is all about how good is wikipedia at presenting both popular views as well as unpopular. Is it important to rely on readers to make decisions for themselves or should we cherry pick what they “really” want to read. I vote for an article about a controversy to include both sides.

Also There are a lot more sources out there.

Arydberg (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The lone voice, is not important. Yes I know, they laughed at Gallileo, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Presenting minority views are fine, but these views are so vanishingly unimportant, that, I just am not sure what ought to be in here, if anything. There are no recent secondary sources that corroborate these fringe views. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I differ on the lone voice. It has changed science countless times. Gallileo is a town. You mean Galileo. They did not laugh at Galilo They placed him under arrest for his views. Secondary sources are only important to confirm the majority views. I am asking to state that these views exist. Arydberg (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And the lone voice has fallen silent, debunked and ridiculed, an order of magnitude more. WP:CRYSTAL. When (if) this lone voice changes science, we'll talk about it. Not before, not because you think it might. It is stated in the article that the views exist. What you're ASKING for, and not going to get, is an itemized list of complaints, and the people that have them. --King Öomie 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When we write about minority views we need must use reliable secondary sources. We should seek neither to advocate for them or denigrate them, but must be clear about the degree of acceptance of their views by the scientific community. TFD (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the internet's role in this ‘controversy’ is quite similar to its role in Morgellons, but do we have sources describing that? If we don't there's no way to include a section on that without violating WP:NOR. The same is true for the description as ‘minority view’ - without sources describing it as such I wouldn't want to call it that, and without sources saying there are five (or fifty or whatever number) scientists seeing aspartame as (potentially) dangerous food additive putting that information in the article is OR, too. --Six words (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well there are reliable sources for the anti-aspartame movement, including Empty pleasures, that I just mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying there aren't sources describing the anti-aspartame movement, I'm just saying for every statement that is likely to be contested (and I have no doubt that what Bragnifer suggests will be contested) we need sources (or at least one very good source) actually saying it before we add it. If ‘Empty Pleasures’ describes the internet's role in this in detail I'm fine with including it. If says there is a small minority of four to five doctors and scientists holding that view, by all means add it. As long as we go with what our sources say I'm fine with it, just don't add something because it seems obvious. --Six words (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The book is published by the University of North Carolina Press and briefly mentions internet activism. (The author is a professor of American studies.) But I am sure there are other sources of the same quality. TFD (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

reference number 66 is one Here is another http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=125748 Arydberg (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, this study was discussed already, less than a week ago, 2 sections above this one. And rejected. Stop bringing up the same thing over and over again. Yobol (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus rarely changes in a few days Arydberg, please refamiliarize yourself with policy. Again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MedicineNet.com is not a reliable source. It has been accused of "selling bogus health advise in order to sell more prescriptions". We are not here to support the pharmaceutical industry, but to provide reliable information to readers. U.S. senators found the "site was largely sponsored by pharmaceutical companies in order to fool unsuspecting visitors into thinking they had a medical condition". TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This story was carried in many many publications. Here are 8 of them. Hutzel.org Healthfinder ClinicalConnection.com Healthonnet.org AltitudeFilms.com Daysnews.net Myoptumhealth.com Healthscout.com Also it is important to note the results were unexpected. Also note what you rejected was a separate poorly written version Arydberg (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the disruptive editing, we have told you why that primary source will not be included, it, in fact, is explained to you above. go off, again, and read WP:MEDRS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop this time wasting. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Cleaning up links) This article (and it IS just one, they're all reprints of the same text) isn't about aspartame. It's about diet soda. The people questioned say the cause is "unknown", so to toss it here as evidence against aspartame itself is WP:SYNTH (using two sources, this and "aspartame is in diet soda", to reach a conclusion not made by either source). Cut it out. --King Öomie 14:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets back up a little. We are looking for sources to support a minority view. This 10 year research study indicates that drinkers of diet soda have a 60 percent greater risk of having a stroke than those that drink non diet soda. This means that one in 3 strokes can be avoided. And Wikipedia is arrogant enough to reject it. Why? Because one of 9 publications that published it is suspect? This makes no sense. Also it is common knowledge that aspartame is used in diet soda. Arydberg (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The study has not been published. It was presented as an abstract at a meeting. The leap of interpretation from association to causation is not supported by sources, and the flash in the popular press is Recentism.Novangelis (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's common knowledge. You can't just declare it's the cause.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. -WP:SYNTH

And again we have Arydberg imploring us to abandon policy because he thinks the information is important. This really needs to stop. --King Öomie 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On this source, http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=649733 This story is important. Firstly the results reported were not intended. The authors themselves are looking to verify it. This is a 10 year epidemiological study done on people, not rats in a box. You have charged this subject is pseudo science You were wrong. You have charged that it is fringe. You were wrong. This article was carried by many many publications and you reject it. Yet you allow conclusions from a restaurant magazine (15). How much editing occurs for a restaurant magazine? Wikipedia is being hoodwinked. Arydberg (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, the story you are linking is not about Aspartame - I don't think it even mentions the substance. The text is also littered (quite correctly) with warnings that correlation does not imply causation. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in an article about Dangers of diet soda, but not here I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article neither says anything about aspartame specifically, nor does it say that the study (which hasn't been published yet) proves there's a causal relationship between diet soda and increased stroke risk. --Six words (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, I am quite simple at my wit's end with the sheer amount of WP:IDHT that pours from everything you write. You've repeated the same argument THREE TIMES in just this section of the talkpage. WP:COMPETENCE may be coming into play here. --King Öomie 21:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And... I am still waiting for your response on the restaurant magazine article. Aspartame is not the issue. It is basic fairness. Arydberg (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta isn't a restaurant magazine, and it's really quite simple: if you want to make a medical claim, your source has to comply with WP:MEDRS, for other information it's sufficient if the source is considered reliable per WP:RS. --Six words (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again Arydberg, read WP:MEDRS. This is not supposed to be about fairness, this is not a democracy, it is an encyclopedia that relies on real sources, again read [WP:MEDRS]] and honestly, this is beyond disruptive editing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg has been topic banned for three months. Maybe now we can get back to doing constructive things. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)