![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm just curious. I know some UK supermarkets decided to stop using it in their own brand products, but what multi-national corporations have banned it? Dougweller ( talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it neutral to say that an FDA official who approved Aspartame later took a job with a public relations firm that worked for the manufacturer "fuel[led] conspiracy theories"? The wording is taken from a New York Times article. [1] TFD ( talk) 08:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I want to address myself to the editors who appear to be tag-team reverting my edits. Now I'm not saying you are a tag team, just that it appears to me to be the case. It's clear that no matter how good my sources are, you can always use (abuse?) the woolly provisions of UNDUE and FRINGE to get it excluded, especially on a consensus basis. You are all blatantly ignoring the recommendations contained in both wp:CONTROVERSY and wp:MEDRS (where it says controversies must be explored and the non-review studies I'm using as sources are usable as long as conclusions are not extrapolated). I simply don't have the support here to get what I consider NPOV edits into an article that is clearly (to me) lacking NPOV and pushing a corporate line. The few other editors supporting me appear to come and go from the Talk page, and do not linger to offer substantial backing, whereas my opposition appear (again, this is merely my impression) to be treating the reversion of every one of my edits like a job.
So, here's what I'm going to ask you, a choice:
So no changes from those two then, not surprisingly. The weaknesses of wikipedia are glaringly apparent, with one editor pitted against a billion dollar product. Anyone else? TickleMeister ( talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Having stumbled across the issue yesterday, I find it fascinating, and rather unscientific, that there are no data here on what constitutes a safe level of consumption, i.e. 1 gramm, or 333 mg per day? Does anyone know? I look at my calcium sachets, which say they contains Aspartame but not how much. All products which contain Aspartame (or other synthetic substances for that matter) ought to list the amount - NOT GOOD ENOUGH! I am certainly taking the calcium sachets back to the pharmacy with my request that their supplier provides the amount on the packets or their chain should cease stocking it. 121.209.49.185 ( talk) 02:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've
applied full protection to the article for three days, as a result to the edit-warring over the use of a {{
POV}}
tag. Really, words fail me. I don't like full protection, I much prefer to block editors for edit warring. Hint, hint. Use these three days to resolve your differences. I really do not want to return here in three days time.
TFOWR
09:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes thanks for the tag. One step closer to establishing a neutral article. Jmpunit ( talk) 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As can be seen above there is much discussion as to weather this article is seen as biased or not. Many editors have given specific examples to back up their claims while others have shot down edits due to being overly rigid without providing adequate evidence to support their stance. Here are some of the repeated concerns addressed by editors regarding this article's neutrality:
The term "Conspiracy" is a pejorative term used to discredit opponents. "Controversy" would be a more neutral term. If "the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted" is considered a conspiracy theory then this would make Senator Metzenbaum and his office conspiracy theorists. Since the 60 Minutes report also expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interest the reporters on the show and the CBS Broadcasting Inc. which owns the program are also conspiracy theorists. These are extreme accusations to make.
The "Activism and Internet rumors" section is in violation of the undue weight policy. The "hoax" letter should only be mentioned at most since this article is about the Aspartame Controversy not the controversy surrounding opposition to use of Aspartame. This should be removed.
"The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is perhaps the most blatantly bias statement in the article. Not only are each of the sources used to support this statement dealing with the insignificant "hoax" letter (undue weight) but the statement itself is vague. It needs to be removed or modified to specifics and placed in the appropriate place.
I am reinstating the tag until this dispute is resolved. There is more but this is a good (repeated) start. I remind conformists the following from "NPOV dispute":
In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
All editors acting in good faith will honor this. Jmpunit ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems is that this article deals with one view; that aspartame is completely safe. There is more than just one person who disagrees with this. Tweleve of the sixty-seven scientists that filled out the questionnaire regarding aspartame's saftey as the GAO report states had serious concerns regarding its saftey and twenty-six had some concerns leaving only twenty-nine who believed that it was safe. This means that thirty-eight of the sixty-seven scientists had some doubts regarding aspartame's saftey making those who believed aspartame was completely safe the MINORITY. Instead of quoting the rules and taking down the tag please address our concerns and SUPPORT your claims. Jmpunit ( talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If you label the GAO quote as opinion then its use in this article is debatable. Reading the above you will see that I and others have given multiple examples of how this article is slanted. The fact that we continually bring this up proves that there is a dispute of neutraility hence the tag. Jmpunit ( talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You have missed my point entirely Beetstra. I said that the tag is in place because the neutrality of the article is DISPUTED not that it has been proven to be bias (though I and several others have given a substantial amount of examples to prove that it is). If you do not think the tag is appropriate then by all means start addressing our large lists of concerns. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not refer to the numerous peer reviewed published studies that note problems with aspartame as "fringe". These studies in no way conform to the wikipedia definition of fringe theories. The vast bulk of studies that find aspartame is harmless are funded by the manufacturers, so have much less credibility. The shame of this article is that the industry-funded studies and the industry-funded review of the independent studies are presented as the Truth, even to the extent that the independent studies are excluded from mention. This article really is messed up, one of the worst on wikipedia. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Then by your own definition it is fringe to think that all of the scientific community believes aspartame is not unsafe based on all studies. Jmpunit ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Then it's not scientific to believe that some scientists are fringe theorists for their interpretations of studies. When there are studies with conflicting data those are facts; facts that should be presented in the article (such as this study) as opposed to rumors (beliefs) and urban legends (Internet section). Jmpunit ( talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Hope this explains it a bit better. TickleMeister ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't assume what I think. The claims made against aspartame come from studies not just allegations. Jmpunit ( talk) 08:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your insults do not help your cause. I was speaking of the chromosome article in my previous statement that was taken out of context. This article does appear on the page stating that Walton "alleges". This word needs to be changed as it implies that his conclusion is somehow wrong. If this article is already on the page what are you complaining about? Jmpunit ( talk) 08:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's some friendly advice: When trying to prove your point it is better to leave personal attacks out of your comments as they tend to make other editors defensive. You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Since this is an article about controversy and not a medical article it does not need to be qualified as the section dealing with the hoax letter is not. Also the word "alleges" casts doubt in the reader as to the credibility of Walton's conclusions. It is not the job of this page to persuade one's opinion but rather to present facts from both sides in an even manner so that the reader can make up their own mind. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Continually repeating policy is not engaging in argument. Who are you quoting when you say "study"? I have not called it this. The article is already qualified on this page as should be the section dealing with the hoax letter since it is also not peer-reviewed. Where in the two sources does it say that Walton "alleges"? Jmpunit ( talk) 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of just placing the tag, would people please explain what is "POV" about this article so we can address it? I think it's clear from the RfC above that calling the use of the word "conspiracy" was a spurious one, so what's left? Yobol ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
There are definite "POV" issues with this article as discussed above. Please see sections "POV Dispute", "The neutrality of this article", and "Bias" on this page for details. The tag should not be removed until you make your case. Jmpunit ( talk) 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
To the editors removing the POV tag, again and again: you are going against the stipulations of the use of this tag. There is no consensus on the content of the page, and several editors have flagged POV issues. TickleMeister ( talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A 2010 study found that aspartame induced dose dependent chromosome aberrations "at all concentrations". PMID 20689731 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TickleMeister ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have read the study and believe it to be reliable for inclusion in the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I partially agree with TFD; it can be included in both articles. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Both the FDA approval of aspartame and it's saftey make up much of the controversy. If there is a study regarding it's saftey it is addressing the controversy and is therefore appropriate in this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this study in the article would not create controversy as controversy already exists (this is why the article is labeled "aspartame controversy"). Since there are numerous primary sources on the page I do not see why this one would be any exception. As I explained above the safety of aspartame is a part of this controversy and since this study is addressing this it is acceptable for the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 04:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Or rather: Does this source contribute to the on going debate/controversy of whether aspartame is safe for human consumption? If it does then it is fit for this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Also note that there are more than a few published papers used as primary sources on this page. If by your reasoning TFD we should only include secondary sources used by "defenders and opponents" (which is subjective as most editors on this page would fall into one of these catagories) then most of these primary sources and at least one of the sections (consumption) would need to be deleted from the page. Jmpunit ( talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you refuse to anwer the question. Now you have your answer as to why the tag is appropriate. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
TFD you are not justified in taking down the tag until you ADDRESS the following concerns:
The term "Conspiracy" is a pejorative term used to discredit opponents. "Controversy" would be a more neutral term. If "the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted" is considered a conspiracy theory then this would make Senator Metzenbaum and his office conspiracy theorists. Since the 60 Minutes report also expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interest the reporters on the show and the CBS Broadcasting Inc. which owns the program are also conspiracy theorists. These are extreme accusations to make.
The "Activism and Internet rumors" section is in violation of the undue weight policy. The "hoax" letter should only be mentioned at most since this article is about the Aspartame Controversy not the controversy surrounding opposition to use of Aspartame. This should be removed.
"The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is perhaps the most blatantly bias statement in the article. Not only are each of the sources used to support this statement dealing with the insignificant "hoax" letter (undue weight) but the statement itself is vague. It needs to be removed or modified to specifics and placed in the appropriate place.
I remind you that the tag CANNOT be removed until this dispute is resolved. And what's not reliable about this source? Jmpunit ( talk) 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A superficial response will not be sufficient in dismissing these concerns. Please justify the following:
1. Dictionary.com defines Conspiracy as "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." This hoax letter (which is given an enormous amount of weight in this article) was written by ONE woman.
2. A hoax letter is not the main source of this controversy. As I said numerous times the controversy centers around the FDA approval and safety concerns. The controversy was in full steam years before this letter was published. Also, how many other hoaxes were there besides this letter? The beginning of the article uses the term "hoaxes". Please refer to them here or it will need to be changed.
3. Even if there was a scientific consensus that aspartame is safe (the scientists in the GAO report excluded). The statement, "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." needs to say WHO has examined these claims and WHO has dismissed them. The following is taken from wiki:Manual of Style, unsupported attributions section, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed."
Again the three sources that are used here are misleading as they are dealing with the hoax letter and not the whole scope of the controversy as the quote deceptively implies. This MUST be changed.
Also the word "alleged" needs to be removed from this article. The following is from WP:ALLEDGED
Expressions of doubt ... supposed, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...
Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.
4. You do not get to decide which concerns of this article are valid or not (especially when you refuse to thoroughly respond to the above questions). ALL questions must be thoroughly addressed. For all concerns that remain unanswered CONSENSUS WILL BE ASSUMED. DO NOT remove the tag again until the dispute is RESOLVED. Jmpunit ( talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Your shallow one liners do not answer the specific concerns. Here is a summary of them:
1. If you are going to use the term "conspiracy theory" you need state who is claiming this and who is directly involved in it (by definition two or more people).
2. The hoax letter is given too much weight in this article. What are the other "hoaxes" aside from the letter?
3. "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." This sentence must state who has dismissed the claims and the sources must verify this. The term "alleged" must be changed to a more neutral term.
4. I will agree that there is no compromise here. Part of having a rational discussion is addressing specifics of the dialogue and not repeating general statements to avoid questions. I will continue to post these questions as much as needed. If you refuse to address them then revisions will be made. Jmpunit ( talk) 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
No the controversy exists because of aspartame's questionable approval by the FDA in the U.S. and because of the safety concerns expressed by scientists who are very familiar with the scientific method. To imply that people who think aspartame has safety issues are fringe and/or conspiracy theorists is outrageous. Scientists would not continue to come out with studies on the effects of aspartame if they did not have some concerns as to its safety. If you don't think Betty Martini should be given equal weight as scientific opinion then you should have no problems with reducing her mention in this article in favor of the chromosome studies. Also please note that you have not answered any of the above questions. Jmpunit ( talk) 00:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No. The controversy predates interpretation of the studies. The studies were done because of the controversy (safety concerns). Jmpunit ( talk) 00:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes unomi I agree that we should expand the opposition in the article to give a more balanced viewpoint. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
His hypothesis was rejected by some but scientists still continue to study aspartame as they share the same concerns that he had. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Science is the exercise of disproving, when doing safety testing the presumption is generally that its is not safe and then you go about disproving that hypothesis with soundly designed and implemented experiments. The problems with the 3 (three) brain tumor experiments submitted to the FDA were grave enough to warrant the PBOI and the specialist panel to warn against the presumption of safety and recommend further study. Regardless, it is our job to present the information surrounding the article as best we can, do you agree that our article seems to offer fairly superficial coverage of the opposition? u n☯ mi 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I will agree that we should not engage in original research but primary sources can be used as they already are in this article. The policy permits this. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Remove what? Some unscrupulous actions have caused this page to be locked. Please tell me, what theories have I been promoting? Jmpunit ( talk) 08:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
. I'm surprised you describe the protection request as "unscrupulous":
you appeared quite grateful when I last protected the page. Is there a particular aspect to the request that you feel was inappropriate?
TFOWR
09:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Yes. I believe that it was unscrupulous for kingoomieiii to delete the tag without discussion or justification and immediately request for protection knowing that the page would be protected without the POV tag (it was less than 30 minutes between his removal of the tag and the lock). As can be seen above I and others have raised numerous detailed concerns which continue to be ignored and labeled invalid. I do think it has been unjust for others to remove the tag without truly addressing our concerns even though the tag itself says that it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved; which clearly it is not. Jmpunit ( talk) 10:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
RFPP can take anywhere from 30 seconds to an hour or more to lock a page, but I guess you can chalk the lock up to me being in on the coverup. Oh, look, my Ajinomoto check has arrived. I removed the tag because apparently, some folks here think it's valid until their concerns are not only address and dismissed, but accepted. My bad, I guess. -- King Öomie 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
When the page becomes unprotected, I propose a significant overhaul of the Safety section as most of it is in violation of WP:MEDRS. Most of the studies are primary (are we seriously citing an anecdotal report from 1992 about flight safety?) and need to be removed. I will be compiling and going through a list of reviews and basically doing a complete overhaul of the section. I suggest we limit the vast majority of the sources to reviews published in high quality journals in the past 10 years. Obvious exceptions to the limitation to primary studies are notable ones like those from Ramazinni that have had extensive publications done about them (and it should probably have its own sub-section). Any other suggestions? Yobol ( talk) 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS specifically names
WebMD as a RS, and WebMD carries an article that publishes the views of a well known public figure§ who calls into question the independence and reliability of the review panel, on whose review study contents this entire article has been slanted. You appear utterly deaf to this happenstance.
§ Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) TickleMeister ( talk) 03:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You keep stating that primary sources are not allowed. Where does it say this in the policy? Jmpunit ( talk) 09:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, fringe theories are opinions. There have been studies done that show there are problems with the sweetener. Just because some people selectively dismiss these as faulty does not mean this is true. You might claim consensus in the scientific community but you can not ignore the significant minority. The studies themselves can not be labeled as fringe and should therefore be given more weight in this article. Again if it can not be shown in the policy that primary sources are not allowed they are allowed though with care. I also propose that changes should be made to this article: The language needs to become more neutral. There needs to be given more weight to the opposition of aspartame. The sources must verify the claims made by the preceding statements. The section headings need to become more neutral as to more accurately define what the section is about. If you need specifics please see above as I have posted them numerous times. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I reject your characterisation of my position as one that urges the flouting of policy. We seem to have little left to say to each other, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from making comments like this in future, because this is just a hair's breadth from a personal attack. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to entertain questions not related to this article as you continue to refuse to respond to SPECIFIC CONCERNS that I have posted. If you have a desire to discuss the safety of fluoride I suggest that you go to that talk page and inquire there. As I have already stated, the studies that find problems with aspartame are not opinions and are not fringe, therefore those who read these studies and do not find fault with them are not fringe theorists. Jmpunit ( talk) 00:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Are these authors fringe theorists? [ [4]] [ [5]] Jmpunit ( talk) 07:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If the consensus is that the majority of scientific evidence supports that aspartame is not unsafe and there is as the first article points out "a wealth of evidence" that conflicts with this then yes that is a challenge to the consensus. Furthermore if the studies are not fringe theories and one looks at this wealth of evidence and comes to the conclusion that aspartame has safety concerns then they are not fringe theorists. Another good point from the first article is that "although 100% of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies conclude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects." Give me one good reason why these specifics should not be in the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You are just conveniently ignoring the relevance of this article. As you know the BMJ is one of the most respected medical journals in the world; it would not publish an article making such claims if it was not supported by facts. You have yet to give a good reason why this should not be on the page. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Walton though I am still asking where does it say in the two sources that he "alleges"? If you read above you will see that I'm referring to this artice [6] Jmpunit ( talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If you read the above I would not have to continually repeat myself. If you read the article correctly you will see that there more references to this article than just Walton. If you read the question I would have gotten a response by now. Don't touch my postings on this page as it's vandalism. Jmpunit ( talk) 02:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What I want is none of your concern so let it be; officious behavior is disruptive. If you look at the references section it only lists Walton for two of the five sources. Even if there are letters disagreeing with this it should still be posted as the BMJ is a reliable source. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we see eye to eye on this one especially since you so passionately defend the use of another BMJ letter in this article. To disagree with the use of this one would contradict your actions. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What is really odd is that you would prefer to quote from a newspaper than a medical journal. The following is from Medrs:
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results.
Also interesting is that you wouldn't mind using one BMJ letter that refers to Walton but refuse to use another BMJ letter that refers to him? Seems very selective to me. Jmpunit ( talk) 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that you say you refuse to waste anymore of your time since you say this often, usually citing policy, accusing others of violating wp:idht and ending with a delightful "Cheers". If you think it okay to use the BMJ letter that you refer to below then there is no reason why this one [7] should not be used. Jmpunit ( talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No one thinks it's "nice" to be accused of having faulty allegations. Show me where it says that he "alleges" in the two sources? Also if you read above you will see that we were not discussing Walton rather an article in the BMJ. Jmpunit ( talk) 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If you think it's nice for you to be accused of having faulty allegations then good for you. All I have to prove is that the words "Walton alleges" are not in the article and should not be used in this page. Prove me wrong if you disagree. Jmpunit ( talk) 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
All you have proven is that a textbook says that Walton left out some studies and other "studies" were not actual studies. It doesn't change the fact that there are still studies out there that have shown adverse effects from consumption of aspartame. Also the letter that I have been referring to which uses Walton as a reference would seem to disagree with this as it was published a few years after the textbook in the BMJ which is a reliable source. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As for using exact words in a source; this is not the problem. The problem is using words that promote doubt which are not used in the sources. Even if you find one source that disagrees with this it does not mean it is "proof" as reliable sources continue to use the supposedly "faulty" source in reference. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's also mentioned in the BMJ which is a reliable source. Jmpunit ( talk) 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has become a battleground where one group of editors is fighting to exclude data from one side of the controversy, which this group regards as "fringe" and "wrong" (i.e. repugnant), from the article. This position betrays a basic misunderstanding of wikipedia's tenets. So let's go back to basics.
I quote from WP:CONTROVERSY: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy."
This snippet of commonsense is being ignored by editors seeking to exclude one side of the debate from the page.
Each and every claim by the opposition to aspartame should be aired, including all the studies that find a problem with it, since these studies are named in multiple websites and in the Walton review. It does not matter, for purposes of an article on a controversy, that this review was not published itself in a peer reviewed journal. It is cited in multiple RSes, so it (and the studies it cites) are appropriate on the page.
CONTROVERSY also warns about the use of weasel words like "alleges", which is used inappropriately in the article. TickleMeister ( talk) 06:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not be obtuse. The purpose of reporting a controversy on wikipedia is not to state which side is winning and then suppress the other side's views. Can you understand that? As for the FDA, another fact that is suppressed off the page is the fact that by 1998, aspartame products were the cause of 80% of complaints to the FDA about food additives. There were so many complaints that the FDA had to install a new computerised complaints monitoring system. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an exaggeration to call studies that find problems with aspartame "alternative science". These studies base their conclusions on the same methods used by other "mainstream" science. Why would these dissidents be published in reliable sources if they were promoting "fringe theories"? Since they are in mainstream publications this means that they have a significant minority. I find it more than interesting that thousands of people are attributing illnesses to aspartame. To dissmiss them as hypochandriacs and in denial of serious conditions is ignoring their concerns. I also don't see why these complaints shouldn't be in the article since it would seem that this is related to the controversy and that these people would represent at least some of this significant minority that is being ignored in this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? There are numerous excellent studies that make the connection. TickleMeister ( talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
|
This shows that there is not a universal acceptance in the scientific community of Magnuson's review (see citation 11) [9]. There is no reason for this not to be in the article. Also can you please provide a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal that states that "the validity of these claims (that aspartame can cause numerous health problems) have been examined and dismissed" since it says this on the page? Jmpunit ( talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't dodge my question. Also the 2002 review you cite was done by NutraSweet's Harriett Butchko where it says on the bottom that if there are any questions to contact her at harriett.h.butchko@nutrasweet.com. Do you have any other independent studies or reviews rejecting the above that might not be marred by conflict of interest? Jmpunit ( talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you telling me that if you wrote a letter to the BMJ it would be published and not dismissed as outrageous? Jmpunit ( talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also I am still asking for you to give me a reason why this [17] should not be in the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, writing of ufos, 9/11, and world government conspiracies is not relevant to this article. The beliefs that you accuse me of having are also not relevant to this article as the accusation itself is not. As you said above the BMJ would publish you if you were responding to an article critical of them. This is to give both sides a voice so that the reader can decide for themselves. The same is true for this page: Since a review that implies that Soffriti's findings are invalid are stated on this page it is ESSENTIAL to give his reply a voice so that the reader can decide for themselves who to believe. To not allow this in the article would not allow the reader to make a fair judgment based on BOTH points of view. The article does not have to say "Soffriti has PROVEN that Magnuson's review is faulty based on X,Y,and Z." but rather "Soffriti REPLIED to Magnuson's review STATING it is faulty based on X,Y, and Z." There is no reason why the latter would not be fit for this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
So, all I see on this Talk page is smoke and mirrors, obfuscation and sophistry, and no honest or fair-minded attempt to improve the article to wikipedia standards of NPOV. TickleMeister ( talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Lajtha et al., 1994 noted some changes in neurotransmitter levels in rodents who were given aspartame orally.
Reilly and Lajtha 1995 found that reductions in glutamic acid levels in both brain regions and of aspartate in the hippocampus were noted when rats were given aspartame through drinking water.
Walton et al., 1993 Concluded that aspartame (30 mg/kg bw/day for 7 days) increased the frequency and severity of adverse experiences in individuals who were already depressed.
Trefz et al., 1994 found that headaches were among the mild adverse symptoms reported by subjects that were given aspartame (15 or 45 mg/kg bw/day)
The results of a questionnaire-based study (Lipton et al., 1989) and two double-blind out-patient investigations (Koehler and Glaros, 1988; Van Den Eeden et al., 1994) employing daily doses of up to 30 mg/kg bw/day indicated a potential association between aspartame intakes and headache. Schiffman et al., 1987 is this reports sole source for dismissing evidence that aspartame might cause headaches though this study has been criticized for using tightly controlled experimental conditions which did not mimic normal life (Edmeads, 1988)
Wurtman 1985 indicated that the administration of aspartame, due to an increase in phenylalanine absorption in the brain, could affect the synthesis of catecholamines or serotonin and cause seizures. He based his findings on three examples of heavy consumers of ”diet” drinks and on experimental studies on animals demonstrating that the consumption of aspartame reduced the threshold of sensitivity to chemically induced seizures (Maher et al., 1987; Guiso et al.,1988; Pinto et al., 1988).
Camfield et al. (1992) demonstrated that aspartame could increase the duration of certain types of epileptic seizure in children.
Once AGAIN, this is all beside the point, the point being that the article is not fully representing arguments from both sides of the aisle. Getting ourselves enmeshed in the minutiae is unnecessary. We are not here to argue the cases for and against. We are here to edit an article on a controversy to a higher standard than that in which it currently exists. It is completely futile to start hand-waving about how one side has won, governments are happy with the safety issues, reviews all are positive. That can be reported in the article, not argued here as a reason to exclude one side of the controversy. TickleMeister ( talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Ticklemeister:
TFD ( talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm just curious. I know some UK supermarkets decided to stop using it in their own brand products, but what multi-national corporations have banned it? Dougweller ( talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it neutral to say that an FDA official who approved Aspartame later took a job with a public relations firm that worked for the manufacturer "fuel[led] conspiracy theories"? The wording is taken from a New York Times article. [1] TFD ( talk) 08:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I want to address myself to the editors who appear to be tag-team reverting my edits. Now I'm not saying you are a tag team, just that it appears to me to be the case. It's clear that no matter how good my sources are, you can always use (abuse?) the woolly provisions of UNDUE and FRINGE to get it excluded, especially on a consensus basis. You are all blatantly ignoring the recommendations contained in both wp:CONTROVERSY and wp:MEDRS (where it says controversies must be explored and the non-review studies I'm using as sources are usable as long as conclusions are not extrapolated). I simply don't have the support here to get what I consider NPOV edits into an article that is clearly (to me) lacking NPOV and pushing a corporate line. The few other editors supporting me appear to come and go from the Talk page, and do not linger to offer substantial backing, whereas my opposition appear (again, this is merely my impression) to be treating the reversion of every one of my edits like a job.
So, here's what I'm going to ask you, a choice:
So no changes from those two then, not surprisingly. The weaknesses of wikipedia are glaringly apparent, with one editor pitted against a billion dollar product. Anyone else? TickleMeister ( talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Having stumbled across the issue yesterday, I find it fascinating, and rather unscientific, that there are no data here on what constitutes a safe level of consumption, i.e. 1 gramm, or 333 mg per day? Does anyone know? I look at my calcium sachets, which say they contains Aspartame but not how much. All products which contain Aspartame (or other synthetic substances for that matter) ought to list the amount - NOT GOOD ENOUGH! I am certainly taking the calcium sachets back to the pharmacy with my request that their supplier provides the amount on the packets or their chain should cease stocking it. 121.209.49.185 ( talk) 02:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've
applied full protection to the article for three days, as a result to the edit-warring over the use of a {{
POV}}
tag. Really, words fail me. I don't like full protection, I much prefer to block editors for edit warring. Hint, hint. Use these three days to resolve your differences. I really do not want to return here in three days time.
TFOWR
09:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes thanks for the tag. One step closer to establishing a neutral article. Jmpunit ( talk) 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As can be seen above there is much discussion as to weather this article is seen as biased or not. Many editors have given specific examples to back up their claims while others have shot down edits due to being overly rigid without providing adequate evidence to support their stance. Here are some of the repeated concerns addressed by editors regarding this article's neutrality:
The term "Conspiracy" is a pejorative term used to discredit opponents. "Controversy" would be a more neutral term. If "the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted" is considered a conspiracy theory then this would make Senator Metzenbaum and his office conspiracy theorists. Since the 60 Minutes report also expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interest the reporters on the show and the CBS Broadcasting Inc. which owns the program are also conspiracy theorists. These are extreme accusations to make.
The "Activism and Internet rumors" section is in violation of the undue weight policy. The "hoax" letter should only be mentioned at most since this article is about the Aspartame Controversy not the controversy surrounding opposition to use of Aspartame. This should be removed.
"The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is perhaps the most blatantly bias statement in the article. Not only are each of the sources used to support this statement dealing with the insignificant "hoax" letter (undue weight) but the statement itself is vague. It needs to be removed or modified to specifics and placed in the appropriate place.
I am reinstating the tag until this dispute is resolved. There is more but this is a good (repeated) start. I remind conformists the following from "NPOV dispute":
In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
All editors acting in good faith will honor this. Jmpunit ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems is that this article deals with one view; that aspartame is completely safe. There is more than just one person who disagrees with this. Tweleve of the sixty-seven scientists that filled out the questionnaire regarding aspartame's saftey as the GAO report states had serious concerns regarding its saftey and twenty-six had some concerns leaving only twenty-nine who believed that it was safe. This means that thirty-eight of the sixty-seven scientists had some doubts regarding aspartame's saftey making those who believed aspartame was completely safe the MINORITY. Instead of quoting the rules and taking down the tag please address our concerns and SUPPORT your claims. Jmpunit ( talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If you label the GAO quote as opinion then its use in this article is debatable. Reading the above you will see that I and others have given multiple examples of how this article is slanted. The fact that we continually bring this up proves that there is a dispute of neutraility hence the tag. Jmpunit ( talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You have missed my point entirely Beetstra. I said that the tag is in place because the neutrality of the article is DISPUTED not that it has been proven to be bias (though I and several others have given a substantial amount of examples to prove that it is). If you do not think the tag is appropriate then by all means start addressing our large lists of concerns. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not refer to the numerous peer reviewed published studies that note problems with aspartame as "fringe". These studies in no way conform to the wikipedia definition of fringe theories. The vast bulk of studies that find aspartame is harmless are funded by the manufacturers, so have much less credibility. The shame of this article is that the industry-funded studies and the industry-funded review of the independent studies are presented as the Truth, even to the extent that the independent studies are excluded from mention. This article really is messed up, one of the worst on wikipedia. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Then by your own definition it is fringe to think that all of the scientific community believes aspartame is not unsafe based on all studies. Jmpunit ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Then it's not scientific to believe that some scientists are fringe theorists for their interpretations of studies. When there are studies with conflicting data those are facts; facts that should be presented in the article (such as this study) as opposed to rumors (beliefs) and urban legends (Internet section). Jmpunit ( talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Hope this explains it a bit better. TickleMeister ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't assume what I think. The claims made against aspartame come from studies not just allegations. Jmpunit ( talk) 08:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your insults do not help your cause. I was speaking of the chromosome article in my previous statement that was taken out of context. This article does appear on the page stating that Walton "alleges". This word needs to be changed as it implies that his conclusion is somehow wrong. If this article is already on the page what are you complaining about? Jmpunit ( talk) 08:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's some friendly advice: When trying to prove your point it is better to leave personal attacks out of your comments as they tend to make other editors defensive. You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Since this is an article about controversy and not a medical article it does not need to be qualified as the section dealing with the hoax letter is not. Also the word "alleges" casts doubt in the reader as to the credibility of Walton's conclusions. It is not the job of this page to persuade one's opinion but rather to present facts from both sides in an even manner so that the reader can make up their own mind. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Continually repeating policy is not engaging in argument. Who are you quoting when you say "study"? I have not called it this. The article is already qualified on this page as should be the section dealing with the hoax letter since it is also not peer-reviewed. Where in the two sources does it say that Walton "alleges"? Jmpunit ( talk) 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of just placing the tag, would people please explain what is "POV" about this article so we can address it? I think it's clear from the RfC above that calling the use of the word "conspiracy" was a spurious one, so what's left? Yobol ( talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
There are definite "POV" issues with this article as discussed above. Please see sections "POV Dispute", "The neutrality of this article", and "Bias" on this page for details. The tag should not be removed until you make your case. Jmpunit ( talk) 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
To the editors removing the POV tag, again and again: you are going against the stipulations of the use of this tag. There is no consensus on the content of the page, and several editors have flagged POV issues. TickleMeister ( talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A 2010 study found that aspartame induced dose dependent chromosome aberrations "at all concentrations". PMID 20689731 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TickleMeister ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have read the study and believe it to be reliable for inclusion in the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I partially agree with TFD; it can be included in both articles. Jmpunit ( talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Both the FDA approval of aspartame and it's saftey make up much of the controversy. If there is a study regarding it's saftey it is addressing the controversy and is therefore appropriate in this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this study in the article would not create controversy as controversy already exists (this is why the article is labeled "aspartame controversy"). Since there are numerous primary sources on the page I do not see why this one would be any exception. As I explained above the safety of aspartame is a part of this controversy and since this study is addressing this it is acceptable for the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 04:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Or rather: Does this source contribute to the on going debate/controversy of whether aspartame is safe for human consumption? If it does then it is fit for this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Also note that there are more than a few published papers used as primary sources on this page. If by your reasoning TFD we should only include secondary sources used by "defenders and opponents" (which is subjective as most editors on this page would fall into one of these catagories) then most of these primary sources and at least one of the sections (consumption) would need to be deleted from the page. Jmpunit ( talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you refuse to anwer the question. Now you have your answer as to why the tag is appropriate. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
TFD you are not justified in taking down the tag until you ADDRESS the following concerns:
The term "Conspiracy" is a pejorative term used to discredit opponents. "Controversy" would be a more neutral term. If "the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted" is considered a conspiracy theory then this would make Senator Metzenbaum and his office conspiracy theorists. Since the 60 Minutes report also expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interest the reporters on the show and the CBS Broadcasting Inc. which owns the program are also conspiracy theorists. These are extreme accusations to make.
The "Activism and Internet rumors" section is in violation of the undue weight policy. The "hoax" letter should only be mentioned at most since this article is about the Aspartame Controversy not the controversy surrounding opposition to use of Aspartame. This should be removed.
"The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is perhaps the most blatantly bias statement in the article. Not only are each of the sources used to support this statement dealing with the insignificant "hoax" letter (undue weight) but the statement itself is vague. It needs to be removed or modified to specifics and placed in the appropriate place.
I remind you that the tag CANNOT be removed until this dispute is resolved. And what's not reliable about this source? Jmpunit ( talk) 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A superficial response will not be sufficient in dismissing these concerns. Please justify the following:
1. Dictionary.com defines Conspiracy as "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." This hoax letter (which is given an enormous amount of weight in this article) was written by ONE woman.
2. A hoax letter is not the main source of this controversy. As I said numerous times the controversy centers around the FDA approval and safety concerns. The controversy was in full steam years before this letter was published. Also, how many other hoaxes were there besides this letter? The beginning of the article uses the term "hoaxes". Please refer to them here or it will need to be changed.
3. Even if there was a scientific consensus that aspartame is safe (the scientists in the GAO report excluded). The statement, "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." needs to say WHO has examined these claims and WHO has dismissed them. The following is taken from wiki:Manual of Style, unsupported attributions section, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed."
Again the three sources that are used here are misleading as they are dealing with the hoax letter and not the whole scope of the controversy as the quote deceptively implies. This MUST be changed.
Also the word "alleged" needs to be removed from this article. The following is from WP:ALLEDGED
Expressions of doubt ... supposed, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...
Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.
4. You do not get to decide which concerns of this article are valid or not (especially when you refuse to thoroughly respond to the above questions). ALL questions must be thoroughly addressed. For all concerns that remain unanswered CONSENSUS WILL BE ASSUMED. DO NOT remove the tag again until the dispute is RESOLVED. Jmpunit ( talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Your shallow one liners do not answer the specific concerns. Here is a summary of them:
1. If you are going to use the term "conspiracy theory" you need state who is claiming this and who is directly involved in it (by definition two or more people).
2. The hoax letter is given too much weight in this article. What are the other "hoaxes" aside from the letter?
3. "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." This sentence must state who has dismissed the claims and the sources must verify this. The term "alleged" must be changed to a more neutral term.
4. I will agree that there is no compromise here. Part of having a rational discussion is addressing specifics of the dialogue and not repeating general statements to avoid questions. I will continue to post these questions as much as needed. If you refuse to address them then revisions will be made. Jmpunit ( talk) 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
No the controversy exists because of aspartame's questionable approval by the FDA in the U.S. and because of the safety concerns expressed by scientists who are very familiar with the scientific method. To imply that people who think aspartame has safety issues are fringe and/or conspiracy theorists is outrageous. Scientists would not continue to come out with studies on the effects of aspartame if they did not have some concerns as to its safety. If you don't think Betty Martini should be given equal weight as scientific opinion then you should have no problems with reducing her mention in this article in favor of the chromosome studies. Also please note that you have not answered any of the above questions. Jmpunit ( talk) 00:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No. The controversy predates interpretation of the studies. The studies were done because of the controversy (safety concerns). Jmpunit ( talk) 00:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes unomi I agree that we should expand the opposition in the article to give a more balanced viewpoint. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
His hypothesis was rejected by some but scientists still continue to study aspartame as they share the same concerns that he had. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Science is the exercise of disproving, when doing safety testing the presumption is generally that its is not safe and then you go about disproving that hypothesis with soundly designed and implemented experiments. The problems with the 3 (three) brain tumor experiments submitted to the FDA were grave enough to warrant the PBOI and the specialist panel to warn against the presumption of safety and recommend further study. Regardless, it is our job to present the information surrounding the article as best we can, do you agree that our article seems to offer fairly superficial coverage of the opposition? u n☯ mi 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I will agree that we should not engage in original research but primary sources can be used as they already are in this article. The policy permits this. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Remove what? Some unscrupulous actions have caused this page to be locked. Please tell me, what theories have I been promoting? Jmpunit ( talk) 08:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
. I'm surprised you describe the protection request as "unscrupulous":
you appeared quite grateful when I last protected the page. Is there a particular aspect to the request that you feel was inappropriate?
TFOWR
09:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Yes. I believe that it was unscrupulous for kingoomieiii to delete the tag without discussion or justification and immediately request for protection knowing that the page would be protected without the POV tag (it was less than 30 minutes between his removal of the tag and the lock). As can be seen above I and others have raised numerous detailed concerns which continue to be ignored and labeled invalid. I do think it has been unjust for others to remove the tag without truly addressing our concerns even though the tag itself says that it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved; which clearly it is not. Jmpunit ( talk) 10:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
RFPP can take anywhere from 30 seconds to an hour or more to lock a page, but I guess you can chalk the lock up to me being in on the coverup. Oh, look, my Ajinomoto check has arrived. I removed the tag because apparently, some folks here think it's valid until their concerns are not only address and dismissed, but accepted. My bad, I guess. -- King Öomie 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
When the page becomes unprotected, I propose a significant overhaul of the Safety section as most of it is in violation of WP:MEDRS. Most of the studies are primary (are we seriously citing an anecdotal report from 1992 about flight safety?) and need to be removed. I will be compiling and going through a list of reviews and basically doing a complete overhaul of the section. I suggest we limit the vast majority of the sources to reviews published in high quality journals in the past 10 years. Obvious exceptions to the limitation to primary studies are notable ones like those from Ramazinni that have had extensive publications done about them (and it should probably have its own sub-section). Any other suggestions? Yobol ( talk) 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS specifically names
WebMD as a RS, and WebMD carries an article that publishes the views of a well known public figure§ who calls into question the independence and reliability of the review panel, on whose review study contents this entire article has been slanted. You appear utterly deaf to this happenstance.
§ Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) TickleMeister ( talk) 03:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You keep stating that primary sources are not allowed. Where does it say this in the policy? Jmpunit ( talk) 09:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, fringe theories are opinions. There have been studies done that show there are problems with the sweetener. Just because some people selectively dismiss these as faulty does not mean this is true. You might claim consensus in the scientific community but you can not ignore the significant minority. The studies themselves can not be labeled as fringe and should therefore be given more weight in this article. Again if it can not be shown in the policy that primary sources are not allowed they are allowed though with care. I also propose that changes should be made to this article: The language needs to become more neutral. There needs to be given more weight to the opposition of aspartame. The sources must verify the claims made by the preceding statements. The section headings need to become more neutral as to more accurately define what the section is about. If you need specifics please see above as I have posted them numerous times. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I reject your characterisation of my position as one that urges the flouting of policy. We seem to have little left to say to each other, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from making comments like this in future, because this is just a hair's breadth from a personal attack. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to entertain questions not related to this article as you continue to refuse to respond to SPECIFIC CONCERNS that I have posted. If you have a desire to discuss the safety of fluoride I suggest that you go to that talk page and inquire there. As I have already stated, the studies that find problems with aspartame are not opinions and are not fringe, therefore those who read these studies and do not find fault with them are not fringe theorists. Jmpunit ( talk) 00:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Are these authors fringe theorists? [ [4]] [ [5]] Jmpunit ( talk) 07:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If the consensus is that the majority of scientific evidence supports that aspartame is not unsafe and there is as the first article points out "a wealth of evidence" that conflicts with this then yes that is a challenge to the consensus. Furthermore if the studies are not fringe theories and one looks at this wealth of evidence and comes to the conclusion that aspartame has safety concerns then they are not fringe theorists. Another good point from the first article is that "although 100% of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies conclude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects." Give me one good reason why these specifics should not be in the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You are just conveniently ignoring the relevance of this article. As you know the BMJ is one of the most respected medical journals in the world; it would not publish an article making such claims if it was not supported by facts. You have yet to give a good reason why this should not be on the page. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Walton though I am still asking where does it say in the two sources that he "alleges"? If you read above you will see that I'm referring to this artice [6] Jmpunit ( talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If you read the above I would not have to continually repeat myself. If you read the article correctly you will see that there more references to this article than just Walton. If you read the question I would have gotten a response by now. Don't touch my postings on this page as it's vandalism. Jmpunit ( talk) 02:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What I want is none of your concern so let it be; officious behavior is disruptive. If you look at the references section it only lists Walton for two of the five sources. Even if there are letters disagreeing with this it should still be posted as the BMJ is a reliable source. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we see eye to eye on this one especially since you so passionately defend the use of another BMJ letter in this article. To disagree with the use of this one would contradict your actions. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What is really odd is that you would prefer to quote from a newspaper than a medical journal. The following is from Medrs:
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results.
Also interesting is that you wouldn't mind using one BMJ letter that refers to Walton but refuse to use another BMJ letter that refers to him? Seems very selective to me. Jmpunit ( talk) 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that you say you refuse to waste anymore of your time since you say this often, usually citing policy, accusing others of violating wp:idht and ending with a delightful "Cheers". If you think it okay to use the BMJ letter that you refer to below then there is no reason why this one [7] should not be used. Jmpunit ( talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No one thinks it's "nice" to be accused of having faulty allegations. Show me where it says that he "alleges" in the two sources? Also if you read above you will see that we were not discussing Walton rather an article in the BMJ. Jmpunit ( talk) 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If you think it's nice for you to be accused of having faulty allegations then good for you. All I have to prove is that the words "Walton alleges" are not in the article and should not be used in this page. Prove me wrong if you disagree. Jmpunit ( talk) 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
All you have proven is that a textbook says that Walton left out some studies and other "studies" were not actual studies. It doesn't change the fact that there are still studies out there that have shown adverse effects from consumption of aspartame. Also the letter that I have been referring to which uses Walton as a reference would seem to disagree with this as it was published a few years after the textbook in the BMJ which is a reliable source. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As for using exact words in a source; this is not the problem. The problem is using words that promote doubt which are not used in the sources. Even if you find one source that disagrees with this it does not mean it is "proof" as reliable sources continue to use the supposedly "faulty" source in reference. Jmpunit ( talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's also mentioned in the BMJ which is a reliable source. Jmpunit ( talk) 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has become a battleground where one group of editors is fighting to exclude data from one side of the controversy, which this group regards as "fringe" and "wrong" (i.e. repugnant), from the article. This position betrays a basic misunderstanding of wikipedia's tenets. So let's go back to basics.
I quote from WP:CONTROVERSY: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy."
This snippet of commonsense is being ignored by editors seeking to exclude one side of the debate from the page.
Each and every claim by the opposition to aspartame should be aired, including all the studies that find a problem with it, since these studies are named in multiple websites and in the Walton review. It does not matter, for purposes of an article on a controversy, that this review was not published itself in a peer reviewed journal. It is cited in multiple RSes, so it (and the studies it cites) are appropriate on the page.
CONTROVERSY also warns about the use of weasel words like "alleges", which is used inappropriately in the article. TickleMeister ( talk) 06:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not be obtuse. The purpose of reporting a controversy on wikipedia is not to state which side is winning and then suppress the other side's views. Can you understand that? As for the FDA, another fact that is suppressed off the page is the fact that by 1998, aspartame products were the cause of 80% of complaints to the FDA about food additives. There were so many complaints that the FDA had to install a new computerised complaints monitoring system. TickleMeister ( talk) 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an exaggeration to call studies that find problems with aspartame "alternative science". These studies base their conclusions on the same methods used by other "mainstream" science. Why would these dissidents be published in reliable sources if they were promoting "fringe theories"? Since they are in mainstream publications this means that they have a significant minority. I find it more than interesting that thousands of people are attributing illnesses to aspartame. To dissmiss them as hypochandriacs and in denial of serious conditions is ignoring their concerns. I also don't see why these complaints shouldn't be in the article since it would seem that this is related to the controversy and that these people would represent at least some of this significant minority that is being ignored in this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? There are numerous excellent studies that make the connection. TickleMeister ( talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
|
This shows that there is not a universal acceptance in the scientific community of Magnuson's review (see citation 11) [9]. There is no reason for this not to be in the article. Also can you please provide a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal that states that "the validity of these claims (that aspartame can cause numerous health problems) have been examined and dismissed" since it says this on the page? Jmpunit ( talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't dodge my question. Also the 2002 review you cite was done by NutraSweet's Harriett Butchko where it says on the bottom that if there are any questions to contact her at harriett.h.butchko@nutrasweet.com. Do you have any other independent studies or reviews rejecting the above that might not be marred by conflict of interest? Jmpunit ( talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you telling me that if you wrote a letter to the BMJ it would be published and not dismissed as outrageous? Jmpunit ( talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also I am still asking for you to give me a reason why this [17] should not be in the article. Jmpunit ( talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, writing of ufos, 9/11, and world government conspiracies is not relevant to this article. The beliefs that you accuse me of having are also not relevant to this article as the accusation itself is not. As you said above the BMJ would publish you if you were responding to an article critical of them. This is to give both sides a voice so that the reader can decide for themselves. The same is true for this page: Since a review that implies that Soffriti's findings are invalid are stated on this page it is ESSENTIAL to give his reply a voice so that the reader can decide for themselves who to believe. To not allow this in the article would not allow the reader to make a fair judgment based on BOTH points of view. The article does not have to say "Soffriti has PROVEN that Magnuson's review is faulty based on X,Y,and Z." but rather "Soffriti REPLIED to Magnuson's review STATING it is faulty based on X,Y, and Z." There is no reason why the latter would not be fit for this article. Jmpunit ( talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
So, all I see on this Talk page is smoke and mirrors, obfuscation and sophistry, and no honest or fair-minded attempt to improve the article to wikipedia standards of NPOV. TickleMeister ( talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Lajtha et al., 1994 noted some changes in neurotransmitter levels in rodents who were given aspartame orally.
Reilly and Lajtha 1995 found that reductions in glutamic acid levels in both brain regions and of aspartate in the hippocampus were noted when rats were given aspartame through drinking water.
Walton et al., 1993 Concluded that aspartame (30 mg/kg bw/day for 7 days) increased the frequency and severity of adverse experiences in individuals who were already depressed.
Trefz et al., 1994 found that headaches were among the mild adverse symptoms reported by subjects that were given aspartame (15 or 45 mg/kg bw/day)
The results of a questionnaire-based study (Lipton et al., 1989) and two double-blind out-patient investigations (Koehler and Glaros, 1988; Van Den Eeden et al., 1994) employing daily doses of up to 30 mg/kg bw/day indicated a potential association between aspartame intakes and headache. Schiffman et al., 1987 is this reports sole source for dismissing evidence that aspartame might cause headaches though this study has been criticized for using tightly controlled experimental conditions which did not mimic normal life (Edmeads, 1988)
Wurtman 1985 indicated that the administration of aspartame, due to an increase in phenylalanine absorption in the brain, could affect the synthesis of catecholamines or serotonin and cause seizures. He based his findings on three examples of heavy consumers of ”diet” drinks and on experimental studies on animals demonstrating that the consumption of aspartame reduced the threshold of sensitivity to chemically induced seizures (Maher et al., 1987; Guiso et al.,1988; Pinto et al., 1988).
Camfield et al. (1992) demonstrated that aspartame could increase the duration of certain types of epileptic seizure in children.
Once AGAIN, this is all beside the point, the point being that the article is not fully representing arguments from both sides of the aisle. Getting ourselves enmeshed in the minutiae is unnecessary. We are not here to argue the cases for and against. We are here to edit an article on a controversy to a higher standard than that in which it currently exists. It is completely futile to start hand-waving about how one side has won, governments are happy with the safety issues, reviews all are positive. That can be reported in the article, not argued here as a reason to exclude one side of the controversy. TickleMeister ( talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Ticklemeister:
TFD ( talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)