Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:33, 5 December 2012

	Organic food was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 15, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WP:MEDRS

Why are the sources for this article measured along Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Organic food is, as the name says, food, not a medicin. The Banner _talk 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources used for medical information, in any article, is governed by WP:MEDRS ("specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article"). Since the section you are adding the information to the "Nutritional value and taste" section is obviously health related, so sources used in this section need to meet WP:MEDRS. The source you want to use, published here has multiple problems. The journal is not MEDLINE indexed, which is a huge red flag for medical journals. The journal's stated scope is "the areas of cell biology, plant pathology and physiology, genetics, classical botany, and ecology, to practical agricultural applications"; it specifically is not a journal that published medical information. Using a journal that is out of its stated scope to rebut information from journals that are in medical journals is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not very likely that an agricultural journal will be indexed by a medical index. So it is blatent nonsense.

Secondly, Medline is an American index. This agricultural journal is from the United Kingdom. To my opinion. you try to hijack this article by focusing on the medical side of it, instead of the food side of it. The Banner _talk 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink of your stance and hope to get some input of them. The Banner _talk 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's inevitable that an article on organic food will touch on health - since nutrition (or avoiding consumption of pesticides &c) is often perceived to be an advantage of organic food. It's reasonable to expect a MEDRS for that kind of content, especially due to the neutrality problems in this area (there are lots of lower-quality sources making very dubious claims). Outside that - say, content about farming techniques or the economic side - then of course we don't need a MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So you lock out loads of scientific sources, even agricultural science, as soon as it contains health claims? That you need reliable sources, true. That there is a load of garbage disguised als articles, true. But starting to measure ONLY along the lines of a notorious difficult accessible medical index, makes no sense. That gives undue weight to the medical side of the article. The Banner _talk 11:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the papers that cite the one you added. One review says: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods", Huber, Machteld (1 November 2012). "The challenge of evaluating health effects of organic food; operationalisation of a dynamic concept of health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 92 (14): 2766–2773. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5563. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). It comments that your study "reported differences in nutrient levels without assessing the statistical significance of those differences or weighting outcomes by sample size". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments to The Banner: 1) Pubmed is an international indexing, not an American one (as would be clear to anyone who searched the index for journals with the word "British" in the title - hundreds of results come up). 2) We should be using medical journals for medical information, and agricultural journals for agricultural information. I would have the same objection if someone tried to use the The New England Journal of Medicine or BMJ for purely agricultural info. Yobol (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that food quality and food nutrition is an agricultural concern, not exclusively a medical one. The Banner _talk 14:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

factorfizzle.com appears to be self-published, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on a second look it did not seem to be very reliable. But the part I added was based on a university study by an agricultural department. Not so likely to be included in een medical index, but, as far as I can tell, not an unreliable source, certainly not in its field of expertise. The Banner _talk 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS is not required for an article such as this one, which is within the scope of WIkiProject Agriculture. WP:RS is all that is needed; peer-reviewed journals are fine, university published sources are fine. Limiting source material to MEDRS would unnecessarily restrict reliable information on this topic. It makes about as much sense as requiring a MEDRS source for citing info on the death of John Lennon 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Health and Safety" section

Perhaps it would be better to remove the whole section "Health and Safety". First, scientifically it is a battleground. Second, the massive food industry will weigh in with their money, paying for scientific research that has a WP:COI. Third, the exclusion of sources, giving undue weight to the medical side of the story. The Banner _talk 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The supposed health and safety effects are a major reason why people consume organic foods; flat out removal of the section is grossly inappropriate. If there are problems with WP:DUE, it can be addressed without ignoring the topic. Hand-waving objections about conspiracies by corporations are probably not going to go anywhere. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, the same food large companies make both organic and non-organic produce; organic food is highly profitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto into organic food? I don't think so. GMO is absolutely prohibited in organic production. Just look at the organic standards (at least the European ones) The Banner _talk 14:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Potential COI: I grow vegetables, non-organic.

Just FYI - Monsanto has a big line of vegetable seeds that are not genetically modified. They breed new varieties that are valuable to conventional as well as organic growers.Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Large food companies" ≠ GMO. Organic food is big business, and still benefits from economies of scale just like modern agriculture. Nothing wrong with big business, of course. If you have evidence that the sources we rely on are inherently bad because of the massive food industry weighing in with their money, that would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nasty question: can you prove that the source we rely on, are really independent and neutral? Did you notice that every time there is a favourable report about organic food, it is followed by a report discrediting it? Strange at least. The Banner _talk 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When there are studies lacking rigour it's not a conspiracy when someone points this out. You may as well argue that when a report is released favourable of astrology it is followed by a report discrediting it and this indicates a conspiracy. Conspiracies by their very nature lack verification. If you want to posit a grand conspiracy by the "big grain" to push down "big organic" then do that elsewhere. I'm not sure what you mean by the "medical side of the story". There is no "other side" when it comes to health. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When supposedly "rigorous" studies are wholly funded by major corporations such as Monsanto, that too is suspicious. It's remarkably easy to have a university researcher to publish favorable results with unlimited funding. We may also need to add some of the political issues as well. Montanabw 04:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that our editing should be governed by such conspiracy theories. Got sources? bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what the objection is. Is there some specific content in this section that is supposedly not neutral? A specific reference that is objectionable? This kind of blanket discussion is not going to be fruitful so please be specific. Thanks 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

I think the issue is here is a debate to use only MEDRS versus WP:RS. There is no need for there to only be MEDRS sources here to the exclusion of other material that will pass WP:RS. My point is that peer-reviewed literature and studies that appear in such sources are often not supportive of alternative views, and a lot of mainstream research is funded from corporate sources. Thus, particularly in fields such as this one, to limit sources to only things that appear in Pubmed will, inherently, create a POV bias that is not appropriate for a comprehensive article, leaving behind only an anti-organic, pro-corporate agriculture viewpoint that defeats the intent of[REDACTED] and the NPOV pillar. Montanabw 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making very specific claims about a conspiracy with absolutely zero evidence. For health claims we use MEDRS. Your objections sound like special pleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to waste time on this article as I have other projects. You all know damn well that MEDRS is not the only reliable source for[REDACTED] articles that only tangentially have health claims, and thus, while they are clearly WP:RS sources, others are allowed. And you also know damn well that corporate America is hostile to claims that organic products are superior. I'll let those who care about this article continue to defend their materials, but I am simply here to offer them support. I know you Wolifie, and I know you have an obsession with MEDRS that approaches Meatbot behavior. I just don't have the time or energy to deal with you. Montanabw 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The text in question is not "tangentially" related to a health claim; it is a health claim about the safety of the food. Yobol (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And again, RS is appropriate, MEDRS is not mandatory. Both mainstream and alternative sources are needed to avoid an anti-organic food POV, and really, do we need MEDRS for things as obvious as "oranges contain vitamin C" ? I don't think so, note WP:POPE. Montanabw 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with contentious topics, we should be using the best sources. We are not sourcing "oranges contain vitamin C", we are sourcing contentious claims about the safety and health of specific foods. In this case, MEDRS are the best sources. We don't come to a neutral point of view by presenting all sides with equal weight, but by giving due weight to what the best sources say. If the scientific sources do not support organic foods, then so be it. We do not include random sources to "balance" things out. Yobol (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you take organic farming seriously, Yobol? The Banner _talk 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen the feedback on this article? Comments as The article is one sided, slanted towards big agri-business. Studies have shown that consuming pesticides over a long period of time is harmful to one's health. This article denies this., This is not an objective page., Very one sided and you dont have real informnastion make clear that there IS a problem with this article. The Banner _talk 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that not every claim in this article needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Not even every scientific claim needs it. But we really do benefit our readers by insisting on WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for health claims, and claims about health effects on humans of organic vs. non-oragnic food clearly falls in the realm of health claims. Zad68 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We do our readers a great disservice if we violate our own guidelines and policies to please random people on the internet. Our role is not to write to please people in our feedback; it is to write a good article based on our policies, no matter if some readers personally find the final results biased. Yobol (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, Yobol. We are here to write a good and reliable article that offers the public a complete view on the subject. Not a one-sided affair, hijacked by a silly WP:MEDRS-guideline that will never, never, never permit an objective article. The Banner _talk 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we are here to write a complete article as dictated by the reliable sources. For health claims, that means MEDRS compliant sources. Once again, we don't include sources that are not reliable just because they mention a different point of view. Yobol (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

When is that decided? By whom? Do you have links to a vote or RfC? The Banner _talk 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As always, with consensus. The consensus is clear that WP:MEDRS applies to all health claims. You can certainly try to adjust that consensus at WT:MEDRS, though it is doubtful it will work. Yobol (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Yobol. I don't want your personal opinion. I want facts. So: When is that decided? By whom? Do you have links to a vote or RfC? The Banner _talk 10:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. If you are asking when MEDRS was decided to govern sourcing for health claims, that would be when it was promoted to guideline status by the community. See WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Then let me spell it out: you use this WP:MEDRS as a policy, carved in stone and protected by the whole Russian and American Army together. In fact, it is nothing more then a guideline. Guidelines are not mandatory, as policies are. But you, and your friends, use it as such.

What makes you so afraid of alternative sources? Agricultural research on universities is just as reliable as any other research done by universities. It is only published in other journals. The Banner _talk 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS are by-and-large inferior sources when it comes to health information. When an article is published in a journal outside its scope, and that information conflicts with results published in more relevant journals, that is a huge red flag. You have two choices at this point: attempt to get WP:MEDRS changed to fit your personal view, or attempt to get consensus here that WP:MEDRS does not apply or that that article is appropriate as a source. Either way, further discussion about this seems like a waste of time at this point. (I note that you conspicuously left out of your multiple Wikiproject notices that you left out Wikiproject Medicine, the one Wikiproject with the most experience with WP:MEDRS.) Numerous other editors have stated they do not feel your interpretation of MEDRS is correct or that that article should not be used. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you prove that, mr. Yobol? Can you really prove that agricultural sources about food health and safety are really inferiour in quality? The Banner _talk 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wasting more time on this. If you can get consensus that this source is allowable, it goes in. If you can't, it won't. Further repetition on my end does not appear to be an efficient use of my on-wiki time. Yobol (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no facts to prove your stance. That is now clear enough. The Banner _talk 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if I finds books supporting that organic food is safe and healthy, they are allowed? According to Yobol restore; books aren't indexed in pubmed, so not finding them there is not a reason to remove. The Banner _talk 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Books that meet WP:MEDRS can certainly be used (see the section on books). In this case, the author of the book in question is Robert Blair, who has quite the resume, and is published in an academic publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). If the authors have significant academic credentials such as Blair's, and is published by an academic publishing company, certainly it can be considered for addition. Yobol (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You should start reviewing your own sources a bit. By now, I have seen several who are unable to say that organic food is healthier or safer. Unfortunately, most of them claim that there are not enough well-controlled studies performed, to make a valid claim. Could you look at the sources and change the text accordingly? Thanks. The Banner _talk 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article says neither is significantly healthier or safer, which is what our sources say. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Yobol (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Kouba and Bourn stated that there was in fact just not enough research done to give a clear verdict. And I have found that by now also in other articles. The Banner _talk 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If there has not been enough research (i.e. evidence) to show a difference, then that's what we say (there is no significant evidence of a difference). Perhaps you should read null hypothesis. Yobol (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. But what I read as statement from the authors in those article is plain: "I don't dare to say it is safer/healthier or not. based on the available research, I just don't know." Or, you can't prove it and you can't deny it. Would you have the same outcome when you allow the use of agricultural peer-reviewed university published studies into organic food? The Banner _talk 00:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea what you're talking about. And since we're back to talking about non MEDRS sources, I'm back to recognizing this as a waste of my time. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And again, no arguments. The Banner _talk 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is so generic as to be meaningless. If you find a book it will be judged on its merits of being a reliable source of medical information. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Switch of you tunnelvision, IRWolfie. You are talking about food, not about medicins.

And secondly, I am not impressed by your threats on my talkpage to take me to AN/I when I go on giving Yobol a hard time. Those threats are incivil and agressive on its own. I can understand that you want to scare me away, but that is not going to happen. This threat only confirm me that that you lack proper arguments. The Banner _talk 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Details of specific POV issues?

TheBanner appears interested in placing POV tags on this article, but this Talk page does not detail specific POV issues and how they can be remedied. A tag like the POV tag needs active Talk page discussions that provide specific detail about the concerns and how they can be remedied, so that the problems can be addressed and the tags removed. This is especially true for an article-wide tag, which indicates that an editor is concerned that the entire article has significant POV problems. TheBanner pointed to the WP:MEDRS and Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussions, but they do not provide specific, actionable detail about the apparent POV concerns. The WP:MEDRS section discusses which sourcing guidelines should be applicable, and the Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussion has wandered into off-topic territory. There are no active Talk page discussions to support the POV tags. If the tags are replaced, please open a Talk page discussion and provide specific detail about actionable concerns. Cheers... Zad68 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The way you kill off this discussion is evidence on its own that you don't want a different opinion and different sources in the article. Excluding different opinions is favouring specific opinions = POV. Look up the now removed section about homeopathy and the strong POV statement attached to it. As long as this article is hijacked by a narrow opinion about valid sources, it will never be neutral. But I surrender to the CABAL. The Banner _talk 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong POV? You added unsourced claims that homeopathy works; in direct contradiction to the body of sources about homeopathy. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not. Instead of twisting my words, you could have read properly what I wrote The Soil Association's organic standards encourage the use of effective homeopathy and prevention on livestock, using veterinary medicines only in emergencies. That is a neutral comment about what the Soil Association recommends in her Organic Standards. You can look that up in the source given in the article. But is was you coming up with POV-statements as "There is no such thing as effective homeopathy" and "However, homeopathy is not effective in treating any disease.". What you do, is adding an opinion to a statements available on paper and on the internet in sources provided by the Soil Association. You can read it yourself when your are willing to make the effort. The point of effectiveness of homeopathy is in this context irrelevant and POV. The Banner _talk 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? "The point of effectiveness of homeopathy is in this context irrelevant and POV" but it's you that added "effective" before "homeopathy" in the article.

Reliable sources are quite clear that homeopathy is not effective, and the mention of the Soil Association's support of homeopathy was hinting at one of the problems with the world of organic food; I'd avoided hammering the point home, but if readers are missing that point, then I would happily flesh it out a bit more, to make clear the disconnect between the Soil Association's beliefs and reality. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things: 1) the "effective homeopathy" is a quote from their organic standards. 2) when you want "to make clear the disconnect between the Soil Association's beliefs and reality" you are judging the Soil Association in the wrong place. Do that in the article about the Soil Association, but in this article it is irrelevant and POV as it is discrediting organic food on a minor detail. Shall we judge Bill Clinton over the fact that he gave away some underpants and recorded them as gifts for charity on his tax returns and call him a tax cheater? Come on. The Banner _talk 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You think if the soil association thinks homeopathy is effective that means we should so it's effective? Have I summed that up correctly? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Switch off your tunnel vision, Wolfie, that is not what I say. What is said is: In her organic standards the Soil Association is referring to "effective homeopathy". You can quote that, if you like. But this article is not the place to make a judgement over homeopathy. When they believe homeopathy can be effective, fine. They have the right to think and say that. But this article is not the place to judge the effectiveness of homeopathy. The Soil Association made a statement, and we should state that (or leave it out) without any further comment or opinion about it. The Banner _talk 08:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You added text specifically saying homeopathy is effective despite that being contrary to the most reliable secondary sources. Do you deny that? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I added a quote out of the Organic Standards of the Soil Association in which they mentioned "effective homeopathy". I did not say homeopathy is effective as my own opinion, I quoted. It was your judgement about the ineffectiveness of homeopathy that is out of place. In this context it is irrelevant to add a statement about the ineffectiveness, as the wikilink to homeopathy would make that clear enough. The Banner _talk 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC) And please, could you refrain from seeing edits wars when there are no edits war going on?

I find the comment "And please, could you refrain from seeing edits wars when there are no edits war going on?" a little odd considering the article has been locked by an admin due to the edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not odd: Protection request: no 3RR and your warning. The Banner _talk 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There was definitely edit-warring, which is why the admin protected the article. If there were not any edit-warring, the admin would not have protected it. There wasn't a 3RR violation, but a 3RR violation is not required for there to be edit-warring. If there were 3RR violations happening I would have filed a report at WP:3RRNB and there probably would have been blocks. It is better for the article to be protected and for us to discuss the issues here on the Talk page instead of editors getting blocks, isn't it? Zad68 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do no see any editwarring, but I do see a serious content dispute. And I am not afraid of blocks or threats of blocks, a neutral Misplaced Pages is far more important. The Banner _talk 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree on content dispute, that's why hopefully we'll have agreement to go to DR. Based on my experience at Misplaced Pages, the edit history of the article page demonstrated edit-warring, and the fact that an admin full-protected the article for 10 days confirms it. As an academic exercise, ask admin CambridgeBayWeather for his input on it, as he was the one who reviewed the RFPP and subsequently protected the page. Zad68 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

The article has been locked down due to the above dispute, and the last alternative version to the current, locked version contains the following paragraph. This version is one which I edited to restore a valid viewpoint and restore a POV balance to the article, BUT also changed from previous versions to clearly state who holds the position, dates, and other information to allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the data. I also made some small edits to other paragraphs to remove unnecessarily POV adjectives and create more neutral language. I removed two sentences sourced to dead links, these changes were also reverted. There appear to be no arguments presented above other than an insistence that MEDRS must be followed in this instance. However, that is an argument that makes no sense, as the MEDRS literature is already covered in the article and their dismissal of the organic food industry is well-discussed. As one the very core issues in the organic food industry is this very health and safety concern, to not discuss it at all in the article is to have the article have serious NPOV problems. It is my position that it is simplistic in the extreme to provide only the negative view without the positive view as well, and MEDRS is not an appropriate limitation on sources, though, clearly, such sources are, of course, preferred when available. Therefore, I recommend restoring the following paragraph, or, in the alternative, a similar expression of the concern raised by supporters of organic food, with reliable sources per WP:RS. Montanabw 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the ] identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk.<ref name=Sewell>{{cite journal |author=Sewell B, Whyatt R |title=Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=1989 |month=February |pmid= |doi= |url=http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_11052401a.pdf }}</ref> A 2012 risk assessment estimated that cancer benchmark levels in preschool children were exceeded for several toxic substances and recommended consumption of organic foods as one strategy for reducing risk. <ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref> Proponents of organic food express concern that children are being exposed to hazardous levels of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In 1989, NRDC estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life.<ref name=Sewell/> In a study conducted on children and adults in California, consumption of conventionally grown foods was associated with excessive cancer benchmark levels for all children for DDE, which was primarily sourced from dairy, potatoes, meat, freshwater fish, and pizza.<ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref>

Please discuss below. Montanabw 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I had added the original version of the paragraph - from viewing the article's history I guess it's not surprising it was immediately removed. Essentially I think it's absurd that a long article on the pros and cons of organic food not contain a single sentence about pesticide resides potentially being a BAD thing when there's a large set of evidence that it is (that's published and peer-reviewed). I agree there's also many published studies suggesting it's safe but the article as it is written currently is obviously extremely biased against the benefits of organic food. Why would ONLY reviews (per a strict application of MEDRS) be allowed here, when it clearly isn't in any number of highly related articles (on specific pesticides and their health effects when ingested as residues, for starters)? Krem1234 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Montana, first, let me commend you at starting this conversation. Honestly we're at an impasse here if there is still an insistence on using non-WP:MEDRS sources to try to support medical claims in articles. Having those claims carefully couched and qualified and attributed does not, in my evaluation, get past the WP:MEDRS requirement. I'd suggest we take it to dispute resolution as a start, because I don't see anybody here being convinced yet by the arguments of others. The center of the argument appears to be: Are the WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements in effect for medical claims in non-medical articles? I believe the Misplaced Pages consensus is Yes. We have 10 days until the article is unprotected, and we could be well along in making progress at WP:DR by then. Zad68 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the application of MEDRS is necessary at all. You are talking about food here, not medicines or healthcare. But dispute resolution and/or an RfC might be a good way to start. The Banner _talk 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd be OK with either, I'd prefer DR, as it should get us to a clear result faster. Zad68 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I should have written it differently: dispute resolution including an RfC. I like to see outside input about the question if WP:MEDRS should be applied on food-articles or that WP:RS is sufficient. That question is in fact the source of the dispute. The Banner _talk 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can at least agree on how to phrase the issue for DR, then (or probably Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). As I see it, the issue is first if MEDRS should be applied to THIS article? (irrelevant as to other food or agriculture articles, unless we really want to spend six months of dramah dealing with that question - I don't) Then I would refine this question further: if it does at all, then should MEDRS apply to the article a) in its entirety (i.e farming methods, chemistry questions, etc.) ; b) only for "medical" or "health" claims (whatever those are); and if B applies, then c) Is the question of pesticide residue entirely a medical claim subject to MEDRS in the first place or is it also a non-medical question involving politics and other issues (and if so, are these relevant to balance the NPOV of the article)? To me, the concern that pesticides in non-organic foods are harmful is akin to early claims that smoking is linked to lung cancer; mainstream researchers debunked those until the Surgeon General started looking at it. Most such concerns are raised long before there are sufficient mainstream studies to verify or debunk them. My own position is stated in MEDRS: "sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." (My emphasis) Montanabw 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DRN? Why not just ask at WT:MEDRS. People seriously want to include non-MEDRS sources about cancer risks? If so, an RfC is easy: "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer". IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice twist, Wolfie, but that is not the case. The Banner _talk 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you disagree that claims about cancer risk where being added without using MEDRS sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant question, Wolfie. I was not adding information about cancer risks. The Banner _talk 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

: "However, a number of studies have identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk." That is explicitly information about cancer risks. You even used the word cancer risks. It's also a synthesis. You are using something from 1989 to counter something much later. More: "it was estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Any material that is health related falls under MEDRS, whether it is about medications or not. Note that those who are judging the NPOV of the material in this article based on their own personal interpretation of what they feel should be in the article, rather than letting the high quality secondary sources (in this case MEDRS) dictate the WP:WEIGHT of this article, have it exactly wrong. We use sources to dictate NPOV, not use our own views on the subject dictate which sources "should" be in the article to "balance" the POV. Yobol (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, Yobol, and it is a rather narrow interpretation. What you do is giving undue weight to one type of sources (the medical sources), while completely ignoring other high quality reliable sources. By ignoring/outlawing agricultural sources in an article about food, you make the articles inherently POV. The Banner _talk 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Present the high quality secondary reviews that meet WP:MEDRS and we can talk. The sources you want to use don't qualify, so you try to shoehorn other sources in, or badly misread WP:MEDRS to justify bad sources. You start with finding good sources. You don't start by finding sources that meet the POV you want to push and try to push it into the article. Yobol (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It sounds like you are proposing that because this is an article about food, and not some medical topic, WP:MEDRS should not apply. However, the WP:MEDRS guideline, which was promoted to guideline status four years ago, is not limited to articles about straight medical topics. From the guideline:

Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Clearly the guideline is not limited to biomedical information only in medical articles, but "in articles," meaning, all Misplaced Pages articles. Food is eaten by humans and affects human health. The claims that were being proposed here were clearly biomedical claims, and WP:MEDRS applies. Zad68 04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Having no particular horse in this race, and being a regular editor of articles on both medicine and some natural world topics, it strikes me that applying MEDRS here can only lead to an inherent POV bias, by excluding highly relevant articles which are published in reputable journals other than those strictly termed 'medicine'. This has the effect of introducing systemic bias, and some of tha arguments given above like "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer" are facetious and unhelpful to achieving a solution.

I would seem to me that, like other controversial topics, that the only suitable resolution is to lay the controversy out by mentioning appropriate peer reviewed journal articles which claim that an issue exist, and then setting out the review articles which run contrary. Not mentioning important theories is like talking about the MMR vaccine whilst not mentioning that article (which of course the article, part of the medicine wikiproject, does).

The view that pesticides etc. cause deleterious effects is not WP:FRINGE, as it is widely believed (and I pass no judgement on whether it is correct or not) and widely reported. As such, it seems entirely reasonable to insert a variation of the paragraph above, although probably with the balanced view in close proximity. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I fact, the move into the cancer-debate is a distortion of the original question. Originally, we were talking about organic food being safer and healthier than conventional grown food, not focused on cancer as Wolfie is doing now. I came across a peer-reviewed article from the Agricultural Department of the University of Newcastle, claiming that organics grown food had some moore goodies than conventional grown food. Shot down, because is did not comply with WP:MEDRS. The Banner _talk 10:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC) It would be nice when it was disclosed who was paying for a certain study/research.

Our article already discusses pesticide residue in detail (an entire paragraph is dedicated to it). While it mentions some people believe organic food to be safer due to lower pesticide residues, determining the validity of that viewpoint must be based solely on WP:MEDRS compliant sources. In this case, the available high quality sources state that organic foods are lower in pesticide residues, but probably are not safer as both have pesticide residues lower than determined safe limits. There is no need to include random primary articles to artificially "balance" (and in this case, skew) the POV. Yobol (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I have contributed significantly to the MMR vaccine controversy article, and we mention and discuss "that" article at such length specifically because (not despite) high quality secondary sources (i.e. MEDRS) mention it. We, as editors, don't decide which individual primary articles are important to mention; we allow our high quality secondary sources to determine which are significant, and then we mention them. Yobol (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your POV here so clearly, Yobol. The Banner _talk 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your line of reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that. If you think organic food is nonsense, it is hard to be positive about it or see any POV as it just confirming your own personal ideas. The Banner _talk 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 ? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that blanket application of the secondary source rule in this case creates a systemic POV problem, and whilst I appreciate your point about the particular article in question in MMR being pointed to, it was only illustrative. I can see no compelling argument to not use some selected primary articles to illustrate that the view is held by academics, who have produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. At the moment, the article reads to me as if the only people who believe some of the points of contention discussed are uninformed members of the public, which, from the existence of primary research appears not to be the case. In fact, for at least one section, the point is specifically made in the cited review article that too little evidence exists to make a firm judgement - a clear cut case IMHO to use some primary sources, with appropriate caveats and balance.

In general, the article is full of slightly dubious statements, mostly tipping towards the anti-organic stance, like commenting on the naming convention to say that calling food organic or non-organic is "technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves" without any sort of citation.

With no particular view on whether organic is or is not a desirable trait in food, this article does appear to reflect a clear bias, which judicious use of primary sources, with appropriate copy editing and balance, would do much to correct. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates my point above about how this view of NPOV is incorrectly arrived at. You read the article, you decided it looked biased to you based on your personal opinion, and then are trying to add studies (even if they violate our guideline on sourcing) to correct the bias. That is manifestly the wrong way to go to develop a neutral point of view. We should be developing a NPOV by reading all the high quality sources and developing a neutral point of view by summarizing those good sources. For example, we do not add primary studies about how HIV does not cause AIDS to our HIV article because you or I think it is "biased" because it does not mention this; just go by what our high quality sources say. If good high quality sources that meet WP:MEDRS say organic food is safer or more nutritious, then great, let's add them (none have yet been presented). The absolute wrong approach is for individual editors to decide what bias an article should have before reading the sources, and adding inferior sources to match their own preference. We need to follow the high quality (in this case MEDRS) sources, not push the low quality ones on the article to push a POV.

If all the high quality sources say organic food is not significantly safer than conventional food, there just might be a good reason for that, other than perceived bias. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to look at peer-reviewed sources looking at the matter from an agricultural viewpoint, Yobol? Do you think that agricultural departments of universities are second rank research institutions? Did you ever look into the quality of those sources? The Banner _talk 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

They generally don't specialize in cancer risks as far as I am aware. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are more health issues then the cancer risks you so desperately cling on, Wolfie. It is quite likely that agricultural institution know much more about the presence of vitamins in parsnips than no matter what medical journal. And I think (I did not look it up yet) that they will know far more about genetically modified crops and the related health and ecological risks. Would you be willing to remove all health claims out of the article Agent Orange when those sources did not comply to WP:MEDRS? Or would you accept that there is wide coverage about health concerns outside WP:MEDRS-approved sources? The Banner _talk 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review is not a cure all for reliability, as discussed in WP:MEDRS - there are other factors to consider. If you have a problem with WP:MEDRS, you can discuss that on the relevant talk page. Agricultural journals are generally reliable for agricultural issues (farming techniques etc) while biomedical journals are generally reliable for health related claims. In this case, we are making health claims, so we should be using biomedical journals. I would have the same objection to people using the BMJ for the intricacies of farming, despite its sterling reputation as a biomedical journal. This has been explained to you several times now. Yobol (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be funny to term it this way, but the Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines pro-actively demand a "systemic POV problem" slanted toward mainstream, peer-reviewed, reliable secondary sources. If the application of the WP:MEDRS guidelines "slants" an article to present the best-quality mainstream consensus of scholarship about a particular biomedical claim, to the exclusion of sources that do not meet the standard, then we should be pleased with the result. That is exactly the "POV" the Misplaced Pages guidelines intend. Zad68 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with using reliable peer-reviewed articles. I don't think anyone is arguing against that, but that the strict application of the specific terms of MEDRS, which is looking for review articles, rather than individual research items seems inappropriate here. We should not be pleased with any bias in an article, and at the moment because of this application, it seems to be undue weight for one side, to the exclusion of what appear to be academic articles which meet all the provisions of WP:RS, just not the some authors particular interpretation of MEDRS. MEDRS has these policies for a good reason - to prevent every tabloid health scare article based on one limited range study making up the content of our articles, but this is applying it beyond its purpose to restrict healthy and relevant sourcing.

Now, like I said, I don't have a particular view on this topic (despite Yobol seeming to think so), but I do have a strong view on biased editing. Nobody seems to be denying the other evidence of bias, and phrases like "based mainly on anecdotal evidence and testimonials rather than scientific evidence" don't help as that in itself isn't sourced to anything, and is contradicted by the existence of other peer-reviewed studies which could be mentioned in context. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And a little further, i've been rechecking MEDRS, and actually I think it could support the inclusion of some primary articles (including relevant weight etc. as i've said repeatedly) - "it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Misplaced Pages should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study." Now that all sounds very fair, and could help address the perceived bias. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you have a particular view on the topic, as I am not a mind reader. I do think that your conclusion that the text as is violates WP:NPOV is incorrect for the above mentioned reasons: you have decided that the text is biased, not based on what the best sources say, but due to your own personal preference on what you think it should look like. That is not how we should be writing this encyclopedia. The reason why we don't use primary studies like this is because there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of health related primary studies done on organic studies, and we are not qualified to know which one are important or not based on our own evaluation. We depend on secondary reviews to make that decision for us, and to synthesize that information for us. MEDRS very specifically cautions us against using primary studies to rebut secondary reviews, which is what is being proposed here.

BTW, that phrase you mention actually is sourced (Magkos 2006, as indicated in the text) and is a paraphrase from the source (see the 1st and 2nd full paragraphs on page 24). As always, it helps if people actually read the sources before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the whole terminology is already biased. About a 100 years ago, the whole farming industry was working on a way that today is called "organic farming". What is now called "conventional farming" is a relative recent invention that replaced the traditional style of farming. To remove that change, you have to be rather radical and rename "conventional farming" to "chemical and GMO-farming" and rename "organic farming" to "farming". But that would be such a major culture shock that at this moment the suggestion is not viable. The Banner _talk 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

OK. Here's the next question: Are we at an impasse? Has anyone changed their position from where they were several weeks ago? We have three or four primary editors and two or three other editors discussing this issue (endlessly) and I don't see anyone's position changing. And the neutral party here is getting accused of bias! Is there any place for a compromise on this issue? The organic food movement is not "fringe" even if it is not "conventional" and therefore, is there a place to carefully outline ALL more-or-less "mainstream" (NRDC is hardly a fringe group, and Monsanto, which funds research to "prove' their products are harmless, isn't exactly NPOV) views with the best sourcing available for each? Montanabw 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Do you think agricultural journals reliable for saying what causes cancer? Yes or no. Do you think adding a synthesis is a good idea? Yes or no. (please stop with the Monsanto conspiracy theories, you were asked for evidence, otherwise stop it) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

OK. Here's the next question: Are we at an impasse? Has anyone changed their position from where they were several weeks ago? We have three or four primary editors and two or three other editors discussing this issue (endlessly) and I don't see anyone's position changing. And the neutral party here is getting accused of bias! Is there any place for a compromise on this issue? The organic food movement is not "fringe" even if it is not "conventional" and therefore, is there a place to carefully outline ALL more-or-less "mainstream" (NRDC is hardly a fringe group, and Monsanto, which funds research to "prove' their products are harmless, isn't exactly NPOV) views with the best sourcing available for each? Montanabw 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Do you think agricultural journals reliable for saying what causes cancer? Yes or no. (please stop with the Monsanto conspiracy theories, you were asked for evidence, otherwise stop it) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast thing called "proof". There is "evidence." I have evidence. You are twisting my words. Some evidence is better than other evidence, and what WP does is outline what is in the two lanes on either side of the middle of the road, but considers stuff that drifts over the fog line as WP:FRINGE. Here, we just have info on one side of the road, and not the other. "Mainstream" science denied the tobacco-cancer link for decades. "Mainstream" science also once asserted with great certainty that the earth was the center of the universe. Montanabw 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's your Monsanto info: evidence that Monsanto Corporation funds these studies that "debunk" organic food benefits. And, also add Cargill. There are other sources confirming the funding bias. There are also peer reviewed sources on the health risks of pesticides that can meet the MEDRS standard that are being completely ignored, see also , and Please don't tell me that a Presidential Report from NIH and another one won't pass muster here! Montanabw 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Agriculture articles
• Mid-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• B-Class Horticulture and gardening articles
• Mid-importance Horticulture and gardening articles
• WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening articles