Rollinsondrs

organic milk

thanks for trying to improve the organic milk article. Please be aware that the article has been fiercely, contentiously edited in the recent past, so much so that the page was locked for all edits due to edit warring. I recommend that you read the Talk page of the article to understand what you are walking into. I will recap it briefly. Basically, advocates for organic wanted to make lots of health claims (essentially, "it is better for you") and other editors responded by saying (rightly) that health claims require sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. The organic advocates did not like this- so an edit war ensued. The compromise we came up with, was to have a section describing chemical differences between organic and conventional milk, that made NO HEALTH CLAIMS, and a separate section about health. Your addition of health claims to the chemical differences section destroys the compromise - no one is going to like that. Also as I wrote when I reverted your edit, the 2007 study you want to cite was handled in the more recent reviews that are already cited, so there is no need for it -- it is redundant information. So please let this go. If you want to discuss, the normal procedure is to bring it up on the Talk page of the article. ThanksJytdog (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the message. I'm not an organic nut, i work in the industry and just noticed the artical is quite heavily biased. I'm obviously not the only one to notice this as ratings show below the entry. The research by Newcastle was relevant and gives a little more balance. Dont you agree?

You are, I think, new to wikipedia. First of all, wikipedia is a community of volunteers. If someone takes time to write to you on your userpage, or to respond to something you write on a Talk page, the first thing you want to do, is actually read what they say, and respond to it. Which you didn't do here. I generally like to help people but that behavior is a big "walk away" sign for me. Happy to talk more, if you want to actually discuss this. Last note - you will get nowhere fast if you throw around broad generalizations like "the article is heavily biased." To actually generate change on heavily watched and contested pages like this one (achieved by reaching consensus via dialogue) you have to point at specific content - actual words on the page - and say how they violate wiki policy (for example WP:NPOV. The only valid grounds for arguing is from policy/guidelines - handwavy statements like "I'm obviously not the only one to notice this as ratings show below the entry." will not be listened to, when you get into real conversations about content.Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes i am new to editing on wikipedia... appologies for any poor etiquette. I am simply trying to edit a biased article. Surely research papers should be allowed in the entry? If i was unfamiliar with the industry, i would draw incorrect conclusions after reading the entry.

You still didn't read what I wrote. The response you are looking for is there. And you continue to call the whole article biased. You ask no questions. I'm done. Good luck! Jytdog (talk)

Its not just the artical that's biased then... it all makes sense now. And i was talking about research paper's in general, not the Newcastle one, if you care to read my response!

Please -- WP:AGF. 1) You didn't actually read the article. Everything in the article is already supported with scientific papers, as per WP:RS and the more stringent WP:MEDRS where needed. 2) As I wrote above, "the 2007 study you want to cite was handled in the more recent reviews that are already cited". If you read WP:RS and the more stringent WP:MEDRS needed for health claims, you will see that publications that are scientific reviews of the primary literature (secondary sources) are always preferred to primary scientific publications. There are two secondary sources that are more recent than the Newcastle article and that incorporate it, so the Newcastle article cannot come in. 3) I (and others) have looked very hard for secondary sources that could support content in wikipedia describing significant differences between the chemical content of organic vs conventional milk, or that could be used to support health claims for organic milk. I couldn't find any. Nor has anyone else. I (and others) want the article to be good and balanced and have worked to see that it is. It is not biased - it reflects the state of our actual scientific knowledge about milk. If you are finding it biased because there are no black and white statements in it saying that organic milk is better than conventional in any way, then here is your recourse -- find a scientific review article that satisfies WP:MEDRS that is as or more recent than those already cited, that shows some significant chemical differences between organic and conventional milk, or any health benefit to organic milk, and bring it to the Talk page. You don't seem to have found the Talk page yet. It is here: Talk:Organic_milk. To get to it from the article, look at the top of the article page, left side, for the tab leads to the Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and info, i will post on the talk pages of the article in future. I am not biased towards organic milk, i simply know the difference through working in the industry. This study is worth a read if you are genuinely interested and want to learn more: http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2810%2900670-3/fulltext All the best

Rollinsondrs, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Rollinsondrs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)