Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 4

Controversial synthesis
I tagged the controversial text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup
A lot of references have unsourced text or are not part of the reference format. There are a lot more like this. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Government warning in Abu Dhabi
Ref: MaxPont (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight
I removed a paragraph describing opinion pieces in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health". Devoting this much space to minority views already well represented in the article appears to be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I also question the reliability of these opinion articles in this journal as indicative of a significant opinion in science. A journal not listed by PubMed is unreliable, but journals listed by PubMed have different degrees of reliability. This one seems obscure and perhaps biased.

There's no getting around the main issue here: the current scientific consensus is that aspartame is safe. The point of this article is to describe the controversy in encyclopaedic fashion, not to describe every letter written on the topic. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Aspartame Controversy and the reasons behind it. Usually a controvery revolves around disagreement with mainstream opinion.  Therefore, covering non-mainstream opinion, but  giving the non-mainstream the corresponding weight that it has in the overall opposing opinion is appropriate.  But eliminating non-mainstream opinions in a controversy article is not appropriate because of what the article is about.  The weight would be different in the article on Aspartame, but not here.  stmrlbs | talk  18:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe then the title is a problem, as has been pointed out before? No matter, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS will be followed. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Aspartame activists?
The current change of the edit from "anti-aspartame activists" to "consumer advocates" in the introduction is being challenged. The term "anti-aspartame activist" is a subjective made-up term that doesn't reflect its sources, nor is it explained anywhere what this means. Is it okay in wikipedia to make up words? In that case we should also mention the pro-aspartame activists. The source of the GAO Report states on page 12 that it was "Consumer organizations that raised concerns about its safety". In the Henkel article he mentions "individuals". No where is the phrase "anti-aspartame activists" mentioned. Lets call them what they really are: "Consumer organisations" or "consumer advocates". Immortale (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Betty Martini, the one behind spreading (and many think creating) the Nancy Merkle hoax hardly counts as anything other than an anti-aspartame activist. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Critics. Call them critics. Criticism of aspartame has come from a variety of individuals and organizations with variable goals, methods, and supporting evidence. "Critics" is technically correct and doesn't have the ring of a marketing slogan. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "critics", though I hope something a bit more descriptive can be found. "Anti-aspartame activists" to "consumer advocates" both appear to have WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems. Maybe this should be put aside until it's made clearer in the main article, then easier to summarize per WP:LEDE? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why we can't use the name that is mentioned in its source, namely consumer organizations. Other sources even speak of "some scientists". But critics is a sufficient compromise. Betty Martini has nothing or very little to do with the controversy. At most she may be called a messenger. All the major American newspapers have reported a number of times about the controversial decisions that were made prior to (modern) Internet, reaching an audience of many millions. It also reached the Senate twice, which wouldn't have occurred if it was so "clear cut". To pick out one person and then ridicule the entire research done by many independent researchers and journalists is questionable. Immortale (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Critics" is a good compromise. As to Betty Martini's role, no one would "now" know about the controversy if she hadn't become an activist who can write the longest diatribes in the history of internet usegroups. Then, when responding to questions and criticisms, she just resends them. She can keep this up forever. The Markle hoax has her written all over it. She, with some discredited individuals (two MDs and one chemist), are the only activists on the front today, but they have myriad supporters, all because of her internet campaigns. No serious researchers or organizations support their campaign. She's a non-medically qualified individual with a dubious honorary degree. Of course, if the fact that she did work in a doctor's office at one point in time, and is the wife of a Jehovah's Witness minister, gives her any qualifications, whatever. The point is, the original controversy had died out from lack of good evidence and disappeared from the public eye, but she revived it and started claiming that thousands of people were dropping dead because they were drinking Diet Coke, and don't forget she was promoting Stevia. That's the campaign nowadays. It has no support from mainstream science and medicine. It's a fringe, conspiracy theory belief. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are the two MD's and the chemist? Greenman (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understood you well, you base the entire aspartame controversy to a woman who writes incoherent replies and is married to someone who has a religion you disagree with and conclude therefore it is a "fringe, conspiracy theory belief"? Googling the "markle hoax" or "merkle hoax" only shows 2 meagre pages, one if you discount the clicking farms. If this was such a wide spread hoax, wouldn't it trigger more hits? Again, this is a made-up term that gets way too much weight. There's no independent source saying that Betty Martini is the cause of the controversy, so we should drop it from the article. Just a quick look at the New York Times and it gives 39 hits of aspartame between 1990 and 1995, some of them actually containing bad news for aspartame. Claiming that there was no mainstream coverage before Betty and internet arrived is false. Besides that, I've never seen a scientific report that attributes Betty Martini as the scientist, so why look into her credentials? It looks to me that the whole criticism and opinions on Betty Martini is fringe and pulled from dodgy websites. Immortale (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased Article?
This article seems to be very biased in favor of Aspartame. I find that ironic considering that it is supposed to be about the controversial history of Aspartame. This article lacks background for many (if not most) of its statements, simply posting facts and events that sound positive without listing the many negative facts and events that happened. Additional information is needed to make this article fully unbiased. For more information on this topic, look here: http://dorway.com/dorwblog/aspartame-the-bad-news-repost/ --Baructt (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I agree. Honk2234 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. As a related topic, independent from my statement of agreement (above) about the tone of the article, I am aware of an article written by Dr. John Garst. The postscript at the end of the article states that he "has his Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry (Pharmacy) from the University of Iowa, postdoctoral experience at Yale University (Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry) and two postdoctoral fellowships at Vanderbilt University (physiology-pharmacology (mentor moved), then nutritional toxicology) and taught nutritional toxicology at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, UIUC)". I am a chemical engineer, but I don't have the background to evaluate the validity of the article as I lack the medical side of the equation. It is possible that someone else may have the background to properly evaluate it, and if credible, whether it should be mentioned on the wiki page. http://brayfitness.com/blog7/articles/in-scientific-defense-of-aspartame-and-a-strong-opposing-view/

Samuel S. Epstein
The credentials of this man: "Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is Professor emeritus of Environmental & Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer, including the groundbreaking 1979 The Politics of Cancer, and the 2009 Toxic Beauty." But since he said something negative about aspartame, a few editors want him out of the article. People with far less or zero credentials who have said something positive about aspartame are being left alone in the article. As I've said before, we are here to describe the controversy, not a presentation of a PR press release on the safety of aspartame. Immortale (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the concern is with the source, Huffington Post. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, as the edit summary so clearly stated. The heading and Immortale's comment above are a straw man. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinions from The Huffington Post are reliable sources. See: here. Since we disagree about that, I posted the question on its Noticeboard again, where Brangifer felt it was necessary to tell me it wasn't about being a reliable source but about being CONTROVERSIAL and he decided that controversial matter shouldn't have a place in an article about controversy. The quote above is not a straw man, because it's an exact quote from the Huffington article. Immortale (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Immortale, I'm not sure whether your reading skills are deficient, whether English isn't your mother tongue, or you are just plain deceptive, but that's not true. It's a clear distortion of the facts. Controversial material often has a place in articles, so your claim is obviously bogus. My comment was about your repeated addition of "controversial content without discussion." It is the "without discussion" part that's the problem. You can't just edit war such matter into an article over the objections of several other editors. You need to seek consensus here.


 * Your warlike attitude toward this subject makes you read things in a very skewed light. You started this thread with a misrepresentation, and now you've done it again. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Undoing twice an edit that stood for almost 3 weeks isn't called edit warring. Wording like "warlike attitude", "plain deceptive", "clear distortion" and "obviously bogus" isn't going to give you automatically authority over the matter. The opinion of Epstein, as another academic expert who voices serious concern in the safety of Aspartame shouldn't be withheld from the readers who want to learn about the controversy. That the industry doesn't like negative publicity about their product isn't so strange. That some editors in this article don't want to report the controversy in a balanced way, seems very POV to me. Immortale (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the huffington post source is not the problem. The mans credentials don't seem to be the problem, especially with particular attribution. What exactly is the problem? Unomi (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, by the looks of it. And your battleground mentality. Incidentally, did you know that aspartame is chemically unstable at room temperature in acid solution? Which is, of course, pretty much every fizzy drink... Guy (Help!) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My battleground mentality? what are you talking about? I haven't edited this article in months apart to revert ip vandalism afaik. Yes, it breaks down to methanol as I remember. Unomi (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's please keep civil, and discuss changes on Talk first, whether additions or removals. Endless edit warring gets nowhere. Regarding this change, which is the gist of the most recent round, firstly, the British FSA investigation is reasonably noteworthy, and belongs in the "government action" section, although the text should mention their perspective, which seems to be that aspartame is safe but they're trying to do a definitive study to end speculation. Secondly, the Huffington Post is a reliable source for quoting medical experts, so there's nothing wrong with the citation. The wording though is very poor. What does "acknowledges the evidence on the carcinogenicity of aspartame" mean? It could be interpreted either way. The portion doesn't actually add much. Overall though, the article does underplay the controversy, overstating the argument that aspartame is not harmful, so perspectives such as Epstein's need to be integrated into the article more carefully. The introduction for example, states that evidence that aspartame is harmful has been dismissed, citing various friendly studies, and leaves it at that. The evidence that aspartame is harmful has quite clearly not been dismissed by all experts. Greenman (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE is indeed valid and applicable. I remain unconvinced that Eppstein's opinions as reportedly expressed in an online source are sufficiently important for inclusion here, and certainly not in the proposed form ("acknowledged"? seriously?). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Understand that the opinion of Epstein is mentioned in the context of the ERF research. We mention some experts who opposed their research and we should mention a few experts who support their research. It's not up to editors to only report one side. An opinion in the Huffington Post is a reliable source. If you disagree with that, then you have to re-open the case at WP:RSN. If you doubt the credentials of Epstein, please refer to reliable sources that he's not a real expert. The WP:UNDUE still applies because Epstein isn't given too much attention in the overall article, unlike some other individuals with no credentials. Immortale (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The FDA
In the lead, it says: "... with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut"." sourced by former staff writer John Henkel for FDA Consumer. Which FDA officials he refers to is unknown. This falsely implies that all FDA officials fully agreed that aspartame was safe. But several FDA officials found serious problems already in 1975 and the FDA appointed a special Task Force which was headed by the FDA's Lead Investigator Philip Brodsky and assisted by FDA Toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross. The latter testified even in court and never changed his opinion. This task force discovered disturbing facts in 15 aspartame studies and another FDA veteran Inspector, Jerome Bressler, examined 3 of them. These showed such disturbing facts, that FDA Chief Council Richard Merril recommended to U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner that a grand jury be set up to investigate G.D. Searle. There are quite a number of FDA officials who have strongly disagreed on record that aspartame is safe. I don't read anything of this in the lead. The Bressler report is not allowed here because even though it was released by the Freedom of Information Act, the website that has published this, is not identified as a reliable source. Immortale (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there 'official' venues where one can get a hold of the Bressler report? In terms of verifiability is there a real issue? Unomi (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The scanned pages of the Bressler Report can be found here: http://www.dorway.com/bresslercomplete.pdf There's no reason they would have faked these pages. I suppose the verifiability can be checked by the FOIA at http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/marketing/index.jsp. Immortale (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is going to be incredibly draining, we should probably seek mediation to work through a rewrite. Unomi (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti versus pro
I wonder why some editors like Keepcalmandcarryon have the urge to call the critics anti-this and anti-that. Why not call the pro-aspartame people pro then. Ridiculing critics with inaccurate descriptions that are not sourced is against wikipedia's guidelines. The book that James Turner wrote, The Chemical Feast isn't an anti-food additive book. There's not even a word like "anti-food". I own the book and it says: "Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on the Food and Drug Administration." Time magazine called this book: "... may well be the most devastating critique of a US Government Agency ever issued." And yes, it's partly about food additives (and pesticides) and regulations and laws that are being ignored. Immortale (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've stated before, I'm not pro-aspartame. I hate aspartame. I wouldn't use diet drinks to water my plants. I would not be offended if I were called anti-aspartame, just as I would not be offended if I were called anti-quackery. Olney opposes aspartame. That's what he's known for in the context of aspartame controversy. He has been active (i.e. an activist) against Searle and aspartame since the beginning. For the purposes of this article, he is an anti-aspartame activist. "Prominent critic" would work just as well. Similarly, the Chemical Feast is a rather strident critique of food additives. Why not just say it? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If so, why not call Bernadene Magnusson a pro-aspartame scientist. Or any other spokes person for the aspartame industry? It's not up to us to call someone pro or anti, unless they either call themselves that or if there's enough weight of reliable sources calling them such. The Chemical Feast is not just about food additives. It's about an evaluation of the deterioration of the quality of food in the US. The term "anti-food" is misleading because one can interpret that as something negative because how can someone be against food? let's try to be neutral where we can and call the book for what it is: a critical book about the FDA and the food industry. Immortale (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Walton review, 1996
This article is surprisingly short on some of the.... less controversial? aspects of the debate around aspartame. I am not sure if the following is good science or not, but I felt that there are currently not enough mentions of the surveys involving aspartame. http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

This is hosted by dorway.com, and is perhaps the primary reason for why I feel I need to ask, sooner than be bold. I also would love to know how Dorway.com is so far not represented in this article. Mind you, I am not biased in any way; I just saw the article and thought I would try to educate myself (which I have, but only to the certainty of not being the slightest bit certain), possibly gather some more references to cement a good article. Now then! I hope you can do with this information what you think is best for the article. I do not myself have the knowledge of the aspartame controversies that I feel I can add this, even in the simpler forms that don't demand a lot of context. 88.90.16.251 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the huge difference between industry sponsored and independent research is a big controversy. If there weren't any health problems, then the industry wouldn't have spend millions to debunk it. They would have simply sued the opponents for slander. They have never ever done that (they usually only threaten with a lawsuit) because in a trial, all the important research has to be brought onto the table and there's the risk they lose. Instead they continue with their propaganda and targeted PR to cause doubt among consumers. If I remember well, only Ajinomoto has negatively responded to Waltons research of industry versus independent research and they did a very poor job on that. Dorway.com gathers a load of research on their website but isn't allowed because of verifiability problems. If they mention reliable sources, use those instead. Immortale (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just remember when auditing sources that the bit about "If X, then they would Y" is speculation. -- King Öomie  16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World
I don't see the value of this imdb link. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't given some self-serving description a la a chain letter (Very scary- all should watch!), I don't see the problem with it being an external link. It's relevant, if absurdly one-sided and misleading. -- King Öomie  16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the King, I agree with Ronz. There's little if any value in a link to IMDB under any circumstances; here, the described film appears to be a viral conspiracy theory piece that's sold and distributed online. If it's been reviewed (and notability established) by reliable sources, let's add one of those if this is really necessary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll see no resistance from me. I just didn't see a good reason to remove it. If you've found one, more power to you. ;D -- King Öomie 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not seen the documentary...the link may violate WP:ELNO: mainly intended to promote? misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research? IMDB is an indirect link to the actual proposed external source, too...The real question is, would this documentary stand up to WP:RS? (It doesn't appear to meet WP:N to justify an article.) There are tons of websites that could be linked for the "anti-" point of view, why should this documentary be considered? &mdash; Scientizzle 16:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just stupid...Step 1: "valid external link, if you disagree, bring it to Talk". Step 2: brought to talk. Step 3: revert it back in without addressing the talk page thread?. C'mon now... &mdash; Scientizzle 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a valid link because some of the individuals mentioned in the article appear in this documentary and it's about the very topic of this article: aspartame controversy. IMDB is not like Youtube, you cannot just get any movie in its database. If you look at other articles dealing with controversies and "conspiracies", like for example The Moon Conspiracy, a bunch of IMDB movies are mentioned. We mention a link to a documentary on aspartame, why withhold that piece of information from the readers? Scientizzle, take it easy, not everyone is glued to wikipedia. Keepcalm said no need to bring it to talk. Immortale (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The New York Times mentions this documentary as well. Immortale (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Linking the imdb gives almost no information relevant to the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you have a lot of work to do, removing many references to IMDB in Wikipedia. The New York Times thought it was worth mentioning, but certain editors on a wikipedia article on the aspartame controversy feel it has no bearing? Immortale (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NYTimes didn't bother to write their own review.
 * I'd hope that there aren't many articles with IMDB links to documentaries not mentioned elsewhere in them. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the docu and the link to it is relevant to Aspartame controversy. It certainly exemplifies a number of the issues we touch upon in the article. We generally do link to sites that exhibit a pov, but thats not even the case here where we are linking to an IMDB entry. Unomi (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, presenting a link to a documentary on the controversy of aspartame without mentioning any of its statements in it seems quite harmless. The IMDB or the NYTimes simply state that there's such a documentary. The documentary can also be watched on GoogleVideo: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6551291488524526735# for those who want to watch it with their own eyes. And no, it won't cost you anything. Immortale (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except maybe some perspective. -- King Öomie  12:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by that, I can only point out that we are here to present what is verifiable, not truth. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another case of "I didn't hear that"... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was never any consensus here and WP:WL won't get you anywhere. Keepcalmandcarryon, you very much enjoy to bring this article into the spell of conspiracy and then you reject a link to a documentary because it's.... conspiracy. Immortale (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that I don't much enjoy this at all. The consensus (with our two aspartame-interest editors as the dissenters) was that IMDB and the conspiracy film are inappropriate links. My only goal in editing this article is twofold: to ensure the presence of reliable information and to prevent agenda editors from portraying aspartame-related conspiracy theories as legitimate, mainstream ideas. They are not. It is very unusual to read the words "conspiracy theorist" in the New York Times or the Toronto Sun. In this case, we do. That should give you some idea of how fringe this topic is. How exactly we say it can be worked out, but the final version should include conspiracy theory and should not confer an unjustified legitimacy on the fringe theories. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100 percent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well put. We mention the conspiracy theories, but we don't violate WP:ELNO by promoting them and linking to them. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reporting the controversy versus ridiculing the controversy
Like I said a million times, we're not here to show Aspartame is safe or Aspartame is bad, we are here to report the controversy. Controversies usually exist when there's disagreement between the official government story and the independent research. Otherwise there wouldn't be a controversy. As soon as there's a valid disagreement with the official story, there are always ridiculous statements to find. Many things have been said about Aspartame in the media, and to hand-pick certain quotes and to present them as facts is against Wikipedia's guidelines. Of course the industry is on the defensive side and you can trace almost every pro-aspartame statement to them. Show me independent and reliable sources that the safety of aspartame is an indisputable fact. Now, if Wikipedia is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the government and we only publish what they agree with, so be it. But my impression was that Wikipedia is not about that. Let's see what the Ramazzini Foundation will give us in 2011 when their new long-term research is complete. Immortale (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GEVAL. If the weight of the reliable sources indicates that the claims of the anti-big-business conspiracists "concerned public-health advocates" are ridiculous, then the article will present it that way. Moon landing conspiracy theories feels no need to give the conspiracists any credibility, because that's the consensus of the reliable sources. Also, 'mouthpiece of the government'? Watch your mouth. Motive to lie does not mean they definitely lied. It doesn't even mean you should ASSUME they lied. I'm not being bankrolled by anyone- I'm just a firm believer in Occam's Razor. -- King Öomie 13:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Of course the industry is on the defensive side and you can trace almost every pro-aspartame statement to them."
 * This is a non-argument true of any commercial product (because apparently you're not counting customer opinion- how many articles have been written advocating Aspartame for diabetics and as a weight-loss tool?) -- King Öomie  13:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's not a conspiracy. It's solid investigation that has been performed and it revealed not only fraud and research manipulation, it also divided the independent researchers from the industry-sponsored researchers. We have it on record that GD Searle lied about the original long-term research. They had lied so much, that a criminal investigation was about to take place. And then I haven't even come to Monsanto, who took over after GD Searle. If aspartame was a safe product, then the industry would test it by the terms their opponents would agree on. That has and never will happen. Like the tobacco industries did for many years (and conspired - a fact that surfaced during the big tobacco lawsuits), they need to manipulate public opinion. And they spend millions to make it work. And this happens with Aspartame as well, when Ajinomote hired the Burdoch Group (a PR group that helps the industry to get what they want). Just because the industry has the money to paint a pretty picture, doesn't mean it's a pretty picture. Why even spend all those millions if Aspartame was such a safe additive? But we're not going to agree, so that's why I'll wait until Ramazzini present their new data next year. Immortale (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do apologize if I offended. By "ridiculous" I was referring to the claims that Aspartame causes a larger range of medical conditions than most supervillains (cancer, fibromyalgia, muscle pain and spasms, emphysema, eczema, bi-polar disorder, restless leg syndrome, adult-onset diabetes, autism, multiple schlerosis, jaundice, birth defects, blood clots...). -- King Öomie  12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And ne'er the two shall meet :) There's a happy medium here between thinking that all opposition to aspartame is from "anti-big-business conspiracists" and that all pro-aspartame research is fraud. The one side will always talk about GD Searle, and the other about Nancy Markle. Most researchers are honest. However, if the terms of their research is dictated by the company that stands to benefit commercially, there's a huge conflict of interest. And it happens all the time. Company X, producing product Y, sponsors 10 "detailed investigations" that are, in essence, flawed. Giving product Y to people for too short a period of time, for example, or not looking for the right symptoms. This research is naively trumpeted as "proving" that the product is safe. So there's good reason to reject research sponsored by the company involved, and look for independent research, often sponsored by government. Unfortunately, particularly in the US, government is relatively absent and most research is commercially driven, which leaves us in the mess we're in. Tonnes of over-hyped flawed research drowning out the others. And then flaws in the opposition, such as the flawed hypothesis that aspartame causes blindness, are heavily hyped in downplaying any opposition. So, in brief, aspartame is like many similar cases in that there's a situation where one side is well funded and has reams of flawed evidence, and the other side is poorly funded and has little, and also flawed, evidence. Lurking somewhere, in between is truth and the reliable research :) It's naive to claim much certainty when there's so many shenanigans on both sides. How does this help? The point is that talk claims that "it's not a conspiracy", and will be criticised with examples of conspiracy. But the "it", the controversy, involves dubious claims and practises on both sides, so let's make sure we're not only talking from one side. Greenman (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There were only two long-term researches regarding aspartame, because it's so expensive to do such research. The first one by GD Searle (the manufacturer), who seriously manipulated and withheld fatal outcomes, the second was done by Ramazzini (independent institute). Like I said, I haven't even started talking about Monsanto. Yes, dubious claims have been made. And some of these dubious claims were misrepresented but still found their way here. In the lead, you can read it's a hoax, but if you trace back the origin of the claim of a hoax, it leads to aspartame being an effective ant deterrent, which ONE piece of scientific research debunked (not double-blinded, peer reviewed, but nonetheless, debunked it). Now, to me this has nothing to do with the safety of aspartame. Other claims that have been made, like excessive use of aspartame might increase the symptoms of certain diseases, are sometimes interpreted as "aspartame causes this and that disease". That aspartame might increase certain symptoms of certain diseases is not a hoax, because there's no research where this has been examined during a long period. According to wikipedia, a hoax is "a deliberate attempt to deceive or trick people into believing or accepting something which the hoaxer (the person or group creating the hoax) knows is false." This goes both ways then, the industry has brought us hoaxes as well. As the article is now, I don't see a thorough explanation of how the controversy started and how it continued during all those years. What I see is ridicule and whitewashing. Immortale (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags placed by user Verbal
Please carefully justify the tags. TickleMeister (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have removed sourced information (from WP:RS) that was added by consensus after discussion on this page (snopes, the hoax letter, etc). Please see above and the archives. You also gave undue weight to the migraines and headache link, which was already in the article. I have addressed this by merging the references. Lastly, please justify your edits, as the burden is on you. Verbal chat  13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with much of your edits here, TickleMeister, but believe your interpretation of process here is mistaken. If you wish to remove the previous, cited content, it's your responsibility to "take it to talk" upon being reverted.  It is not reasonable to revert back to your preferred version and demand that others justify the content of the article before you'll permit your edits to be reverted.  If you wish to make changes then you justify what you are doing. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ecsape Orbit, please show me policy for that. It is in fact the restoring editors task to give justifications, not the bold remover of crap. TickleMeister (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal, you have broken 3RR with your numerous edits to my edits today. STOP! TickleMeister (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't broken 3RR, but that is beside the point of this page. Please justify overturning the consensus worked out on this page re removal of sources. The body also contains the same information twice now, that should be fixed. While this discussion is ongoing, please restore the NPOV tag. Verbal chat  13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How does removing poorly sourced and unencyclopedic data about some poor crank's webpage from this article make it POV? Tell me that and I'll restore the tag. Do you have even ONE quality source for the Merkle junk? TickleMeister (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snopes was found to be an RS in this matter, as were the other sources. If you wish to dispute that you'll have to show a new consensus. I have no problem with you doing that, but you have to do that first. Please either restore the sourced info which has consensus, or restore the tag. Verbal chat  14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the Bold, revert, discuss essay and this section under Consensus policy. Please revert your edits and discuss these changes.  What you call 'crap' may have a value and reason for being there you aren't aware of.  But you won't discover that unless you seek consensus through discussion.   As I said, I understand your position, but your actions and demeanour are proving counter-productive.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor
Verbal has posted on the fringe theories noticeboard about this article. I'm going to stay uninvolved, but Escape Orbit is correct about BRD and his/her comments and approach are useful. You need to discuss all the issues one by one. Come back to FTN if it seems that non-scientific ideas are being given too much prominence. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, Aspartame is a science article and should be sourced pretty much exclusively to scientific sources. This article is about a controversy and can be sourced to articles in the mainstream press. Do be careful about the press though, because some good newspapers are known to fall down on their science coverage. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, except that it's also a medical article, so wp:MEDRS applies too. I will look at Verbal's sourcing for the "hoax" material, but it looks, prima facie, like stuff that shouldn't be here. TickleMeister (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * beep! Sorry, this wp:SPS called "snopes.com", published by a hubby and wife (?), is not a RS for a scientific/medical article. Epic fail. TickleMeister (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Except it was being used to support the existance of a hoax, for which Snopes is considered a RS. Epic fail.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was an important hoax, it would have a good source, not a SPS. wp:V is essential. And even if it was reported in a RS, the question of weight arises. It is not notable if Joe Bloggs starts a website claiming aspartame is kryptonite. TickleMeister (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For internet hoaxes, snopes is a RS. It has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is used by multiple high-quality sites for information about (and the existence of) internet hoaxes.  You've got a strong concensus here against your view.  If you feel strongly about it, I suggest you to to the Reliable source noticeboard and ask there.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, we have Time as a notability source. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, then use it. As far as I can see, it's what snopes relies on as well. So go straight to the original source, which is a RS. TickleMeister (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've since established that there is nobody called Nancy Markle and that this all about some chain letter posted to Usenet in the 90s. Talk about obscure rubbish! Look, we have quite enough REAL controversy in the medical lit. to keep us busy on this page. We don't need to go looking under our shoes for content. TickleMeister (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For many (likely most) people who know of the controversy, they know of it solely because of the hoax perpetrated promoted by Betty Martini. She's a super activist. It is strongly suspectd that she is the one who actually perpetrated it in the first place, but lacking total proof, we can only cite reliable sources for that suspicion. The hoax is thus a very notable factor as the major sustainer of this controversy. This discussion covers very old territory and I suggest you read through the archives so you don't keep wasting our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with giving undue weight to this hoax is that it confuses valid science with outrageous claims, and in so doing undermines the very real concerns about the drug. You say it is a "very notable factor in maintaining the controversy", but that is not for you to decide, it's to be demonstrated by sources. Where are the reliable sources in the literature about this? One report in Time does not cut it, so until I see more sources of quality, I say UNDUE. TickleMeister (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As TM has not been able to overturn the existing consensus, here or at FTN, I have merged teh two versions - taking the data added by TM and integrating it with the consensus version to produce a new compromise (however it doesn't compromise on Snopes being an RS and previous consensus established here. I would ask if anyone has problems with the long standing text to discuss them here first, as this is a contentious area. Best, Verbal chat  16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "TM has not been able to overturn the existing consensus"?? What existing consensus? You mean your opinion? I see no sign of any consensus here, and consensus is a moveable feast anyway, that needs to be constantly re-established. One of the "studies" you keep restoring was not published in any peer reviewed journal, and you are devoting far too much space to a long-defunct rumour campaign that started on Usenet 15 years ago, and never went much further except for the (industry-funded?) attempt to get it into the mainstream press (cough*Time*cough) as an example of how all opposition to aspartame is the work of kooks. The only reason to highlight the actions of kooks is to make the substantial list of science and medical research that takes issue with the safety of this drug look like part of a nutty rumour campaign. It is an example of undue weight, a lack of NPOV, and tendentious editing. TickleMeister (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Look, we have quite enough REAL controversy in the medical lit. to keep us busy on this page"...but do "we"? There is no real controversy in the medical literature, apart, perhaps, from the findings of numerous scientists and regulatory boards that the Ramazzini studies were poorly done. The literature, including solid, years-long dietary studies indicate that there are no adverse effects of aspartame. The "real" aspartame controversy, according to the New York Times, is the domain of conspiracy theorists. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is absolute rubbish. The studies on headache and migraine, just for starters, are compelling. (Note: aspartame gives me migraines, hence my involvement here). TickleMeister (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that explains a lot. This controversy is composed of what was once a minor scientific controversy that pretty much blew over when the evidence just wasn't strong enough to bear the claims of people falling dead all over the place (those claims are still being made). That controversy has never received much attention in mainstream sources. It is also composed of a very active conspiracy theory in the alternative medicine subculture. It is solidly in place and advocated by just about every alternative medicine guru and nutcase, including the dubious likes of Mercola. You're trying to limit the coverage of that conspiracy theory and it's impact. It has a huge impact! It has by far the greatest influence among ordinary people. Very few scientists take any of it seriously. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC time
If my opposition here, e.g. Verbal, can please crystalise objections to my edits in a few specific bullet points, naming the exact texts opposed, and why, then I can send this to RfC. TickleMeister (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted
There were so many issues (synthesis, removal of properly sourced content, undiscussed deletions, etc.) that I just reverted a long slew of TickleMeister's edits as vandalism. Discuss, discuss, discuss, and stop removing longstanding content over the objections of other editors. Even if you're right, that's not the way to do it. We work by consensus here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please justify each charge. Start with synthesis. Where? TickleMeister (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TM, you have a large number of editors opposing your changes to this article which had reached a stable consensus. The burden is on you to show consensus has changed, and not to force you version by dint of editwarring and large numbers of undiscussed and controversial edits. It is time for you to get consensus now, as your proposed edits have met opposition and go against the previous consensus. Please discuss and you may even convince us. Verbal chat  10:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In your blanket reverts you have also undone good copyediting and WP:MOS edits, and you have spread "discussion" among several threads. Please keep one thread to each related topic. Verbal</b> chat  10:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, be specific. What don't you like? I've made too many changes to start explaining each one. I would have thought most of them were self-explanatory. And BTW, Brangifer seems to agree with some of them, so stop hitting me with the consensus stick please. TickleMeister (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to explain them, yes. For example, do not remove hoax from the lead or make any other controversial edits without agreement here first. I do not vlassify what BR has written here as support. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At last you refer to a tangible point, the removal of the word "hoax" from the lead. Since there is now a section on a hoax in my preferred version, I am willing to put that word into the lead. Ok, what else? TickleMeister (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to justify the changes you wish to make, as multiple editors have stated here and at FTN. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Working subpage
I have created a working subpage at User:TickleMeister/Aspartame_controversy per the allowed policies at wp:WORP and wp:SP.

In it I have stored the version of the page as I last left it. I am happy to go on editing it there for a while to get my act in order and so some of the suspicious editors here, who seem to be wary of my motives, can understand the sort of balance and NPOV I am striving for.

Tip: it can be useful to load the live article into one tab of your browser, and the temp article into another tab, then press Ctrl+Tab to flip back and forth between the two, to see the changes.

Please do not edit war the temp page. In fact, let it be my version, if you like, and make comments on it here. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To-do list at top of page
I've just noticed it. I see some of my edits address some of the outstanding issues. I also note that the stipulations of wp:CONTROVERSY dictate that all sides must be heard. This justifies an inclusionist approach, please note. I call this to your attention because of the itchy trigger finger deletionist approach taken here recently. I also ask other editors to start tackling some of the other outstanding issues in the article, as listed in the to-do list. Why I am the only one trying to improve the page, with nothing but opposition and reverting? You can help by adding rather than subtracting information to the Temp page (working draft). TickleMeister (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion."Yobol (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but please do consider it. The essay contains some excellent advice that would help us here. TickleMeister (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually consider policies and guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS much more important than this essay in crafting a better article. Yobol (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * wp:CONTROVERSY is complementary to those rules and guidelines. Use them all in your approach. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of telling everyone else what they should be doing, it might be make a better use of everybody's time if you instead focus on specific suggestions for the article. Yobol (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well pardon me, I thought that was what I was doing. [[Image:Wink.gif|20px]] TickleMeister (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE to me are way more important here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you feel wp:CONTROVERSY in any way detracts or works against UNDUE and MEDRS? I'm just interested because I don't find any problems with applying all of them simultaneously. TickleMeister (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One represents an opinion, the other two represent policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So with what part of wp:CONTROVERSY do you have problems? TickleMeister (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted major edit
While much of this massive change appears fine, much does not. I suggest folding in the changes section by section so it's easier to see where there's agreement. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be easier just to refer to the temporary version for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramazzini studies
I have reverted recent change to the safety section for various reasons:
 * it deleted a reference to a secondary source in favor of a primary sources (in contravention to WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS)
 * it deleted well sourced commentary about the Soffriti papers that are well documented in the secondary source
 * it added a poorly formatted citation to sources that were already cited later in the paragraph.

In the interim, I deleted the foodnavigator reference; it was redundant as the journal article it was discussing was already cited, and as a popular press article probably better not using it in this section.

Please do not delete well referenced information or sources before gaining consensus. Yobol (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Too many "discounted"s in the paragraph
 * Some of the ERF studies not cited, I fixed that
 * Language is highly POV and conclusionary, not encyclopedic
 * The industry funded review is cited in the paragraph already, and does not need multiple cites
 * Formatting of citations is never a reason to revert TickleMeister (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ticklemeiser, please stop inserting dubious studies as fact. TFD (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to make decisions as to what's right or wrong on controversy pages, as you appear to be doing. We need to present both sides. TickleMeister (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not mean that we provide undue emphasis without discussion. Please work towards consensus.  TFD (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE says it IS for us, actually. -- King Öomie  05:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why am I being tag teamed with removal of perfectly acceptable and informative edits? Is there a legal threat from an aspartame-associated corporation I don't know about? The only other time I've faced this sort of opposition, even to normal and unexceptional edits, is when there was a lawsuit threat. TickleMeister (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I note this page has a nasty history: mediation cabal case, another mediation case. I mean, if wp is under some sort of legal threat, why not just make editors aware of it and save us wasting our time? TickleMeister (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting TM: "perfectly acceptable and informative edits". Diffs please. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the edit history yrself, today's date. TickleMeister (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a much simpler explanation than some sort of 'legal threat'. Your edits have gone against consensus.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What consensus? I added new edits today that should be fairly neutral, like a table from the GAO report. How is that against consensus? TickleMeister (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to add that table, start a new section here with a justification (please keep it civil) and then it can be addressed. The burden is upon you to show consensus if you want to add to the article. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GAO report table
This is the table under discussion. TickleMeister (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

TM, could you please say here why you want to add this table, what it shows, where it should be added (link to diff for example if you added it previously), and how it would improve the article. (1 and 4 are very similar!) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. The FDA used to monitor aspartame’s safety through reported adverse reactions and market research surveys that provided data on aspartame consumption. FDA analyzed about 3000 reported adverse reactions, concluding that it could not definitely state whether aspartame is or is not associated with the reported reactions (source: GAO report). Most of the reactions reported were mild or moderate (e.g. headache and dizziness). Following the approval of aspartame’s use in carbonated beverages, FDA received an increasing number of reports concerning adverse reactions related to aspartame. The Centers for Disease Control reviewed these reports and, in November 1984, reported that it found no conclusive evidence that aspartame caused these adverse reactions, but the FDA continued to receive adverse reaction reports on aspartame. In 1985, due to the large number of reports of adverse reactions to aspartame (reportedly, source on FDA site), CFSAN changed its procedures and had to implement a computerized adverse reaction monitoring system to cope witht the volume of reports from medical personnel, researchers, and consumers on aspartame (and other food additives). CFSAN concluded that the adverse reactions, such as headaches, dizziness, and mood changes, were generally not severe and showed no clear-cut association with aspartame consumption.


 * In 1984, the CDC performed reviews and data analyses on 231 cases, concluding that “[some symptoms] may be attributable to some as yet undefined sensitivity of some individuals to aspartame in commonly consumed amounts (which is why British Food Standards Agency launched an investigation in 2010 into exactly this issue) ... Although it may be that certain individuals have an unusual sensitivity to the product, these data do not provide evidence for the existence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences attendant to the use of aspartame". (I know for a fact that this prescient supposition is true from my own testing and experimentation on myself).


 * By January 1987, CFSAN had received about 3100 aspartame adverse reaction reports (not including the reports the CDC reviewed). The inserted table shows these CFSAN reports, and this is an important milestone in the monitoring process.


 * CFSAN reported about 9% of the reactions it had reviewed were severe. However, CFSAN concluded it cannot definitely state whether aspartame is or is not associated with the reported reactions. In most cases, the reactions are mild or moderate (e.g., headache and dizziness) with "many confounding factors".


 * As of 1995, when the FDA was quoted as saying that they'd stopped accepting adverse reaction reports on aspartame, over 75% of the adverse reactions reported to the FDA Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) were due to aspartame. 75%!! TickleMeister (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So it shows only reported side effects, not confirmed side effects? And the regulatory body couldn't confirm any of it? Sounds like it fails WP:UNDUE and doesn't belong in the article. Yobol (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yobol. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The addition of the table was inappropriate because of WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're unconfirmed then I'm also against inclusion of the table. When they are confirmed we can add it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As of 1995... considering all the studies on aspartame done since, that is nearly prehistoric data :-)) Don't you have anything more recent as 1995 ? And proper studies ? Knorrepoes (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The UK's FSA is currently investigating the exact same side effects mentioned in the Table. To therefore claim that this data should be excluded from a page on the CONTROVERSY over alleged side effects because they are "unconfirmed" just bloody well beggars belief. TickleMeister (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So when the FSA reports we can add what they say to the article. They may confirm some side effects, they might comment on the origin of the complaints (maybe to do with a hoax campaign?). It's all speculation until they report, so it doesn't go in the article. You keep claiming you want to do things properly, so let's do it properly and not fill the article with potentially misleading speculation, poorly conducted case studies, and anecdote, per our relevant policies and the fact we're trying to build a real encyclopaedia. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  06:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These reported side effects pre-date the hoax campaign by 7 years. I know it's tempting to paint all negative reports as part of a hoax campaign, but to do so is OR, SYN, and in this case, entirely wrong. So side effects reported by thousands of unhoaxed citizens to a government agency is certainly not "all speculation", it's a matter of public record, and absolutely apposite in the context. TickleMeister (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the point of my comment. No speculation should be allowed into the article. Wait for the FSA to report, then you will be validated and we can rewrite the article to match your POV. Assuming the FSA agree with you, they might not. So we need to wait. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also note that the FSA, when describing that very report, makes the point that aspartame is safe. It also says that the study is due to anecdotal reports of side effects people consider themselves to have. FSA release. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not want the article to "match my POV". I simply want all sides of this controversy thoroughtly covered, as per the very good essay wp:CONTROVERSY. You and the other opposing editors are intent on having a POV in the article. TickleMeister (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seizures
Sigh, so what's wrong with the seizure data then? TickleMeister (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:BURDEN is upon you. Please state what's so good about it. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, rather you tell me your objections. TickleMeister (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BURDEN you should provide a rationale for adding this material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BURDEN is about sourcing properly. Read it. My rational for adding details about a drug's side effects to a page about the drugs's side effects are obvious. TickleMeister (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please justify the addition and discuss it civilly, and maybe you'll get some support. For example, why do the sources justify adding this to the article, considering WP:UNDUE and the coverage already given in the article. What 3rd party WP:MEDRS would support this addition? Is there any opposing WP:RS? etc <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the same problems of relying on primary sources and undue weight?Yobol (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this must be addressed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Update to "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section
Verbal reversed the edit diff. Why? TickleMeister (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE weight to a minority report and to a non WP:MEDRS report of a petition based on a single anecdote. Doesn't meet reasonable inclusion criteria. (That's just 2 reasons that immediately spring to mind). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't we simply put a notice on the top of the article saying that all edits will be rejected because of undue weight and MEDRS? Might save other editors a lot of time. TickleMeister (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should follow those policies instead of constantly proposing edits that violate them? Yobol (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

''The below has been collapsed due to WP:BLP issues. It should probably be removed.'' <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I'm not violating them at all. Let others decide.


 * "During presentations to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee this year in response to an 8,000 signature petition calling for restrictions and warnings on aspartame use, the Ministry of Health’s Elizabeth Aitken and New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s toxicologist John Reeve both agreed that there was a link between aspartame and some illnesses."


 * "The aspartame controversy erupted after Abby Cormack's case became the subject last year of a petition to Parliament's health select committee calling for restrictions on the chemical. Ms Cormack, who chewed four packets of sugar-free gum a day and drank large quantities of diet soft drink, reported dizziness, tingling, insomnia, paranoia and other problems which she said ended when she quit aspartame. The committee did not agree to the petitioners' request, but in a minority report, the Green Party called for warning labels to highlight aspartame's "potential adverse effects". Coca-Cola Oceania has financed the trip to New Zealand of Canadian aspartame expert Dr Bernadene Magnuson, who will speak at Nutrition Foundation seminars this week on the "myths" surrounding the chemical." TickleMeister (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: interesting discussion of conflict of interest issues relating to the review study of aspartame here. TickleMeister (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of the data from mpwhi.com can also be found in TESTIMONY FOR HB2680 & SB2506 - BAN ASPARTAME IN HAWAI — a US state government document. TickleMeister (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, no self-acclaimed censorship in the discussion page. The sources are valid and don't need to be removed from editing discussions. Immortale (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FDA complaints about aspartame
I watched the 1996 60 Minutes report, which said that, at the time, there had been 7000 complaints about aspartame. I searched for more and found only this from the Rocky Mountain News, with the rest behind a paywall: "The FDA has received about 7000 consumer complaints on aspartame since 1981, more than for any other food additive. About 60% involve headaches, dizziness and mood changes." Should this not be included in the article? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the third most populous country in the world I imagine the FDA receives a lot of complaints. I think we would be giving a bunch of anecdotes WP:UNDUE weight  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot make assumptions. The FDA stated that from all food additives, aspartame caused the most health complaints. That's a fact that should be in the article about controversy. Why is it that nearly every major newspaper calls aspartame controversial in their reporting but some editors on Wikipedia deny it systematically. Immortale (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anecdotes do not prove causal links. I really do not care much for newspapers' understanding of how science works, and we should follow policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We would need a properly run study in order to conclude there was any connection. TFD (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is full of anecdotal links, but only those that ridicule the health concerns on Aspartame. Let's not forget that this article is about a food additive. If I want to know about this food additive, I would like to know that this particular one received the most complaints at the FDA. Why withhold this information, which is verified by major secondary sources? It's like I would say that I want to see a properly run study that Betty Martini is the instigator of the Aspartame dangers. Those anecdotal, gossip-like bits receive no resistance among the pro-aspartame editors. Immortale (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There already is a link to the study by the CDC who investigated complaints about aspartame at the request of the FDA. In 1983 the FDA received 356 complaints which were investigated with the conclusion that no connection between aspartame and adverse effects could be established.  TFD (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is besides the point we are describing above. It's still a fact that of all food additives, aspartame has received the most officially reported complaints at the FDA, complaints often reported by medical doctors. Now if we want to report one conclusion of these complaints, then that is another matter. Immortale (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not in the business of adding every random fact about aspartame; we're writing an encyclopedia article that has policies and guidelines such as WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. Yobol (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is being abused here to exclude perfectly valid material. And MEDRS is not even truly applicable to a controversy page about a "food additive". UNDUE is a matter of judgement and is often merely a tool to exclude material some editors don't like; IOW it's also open to abuse. It's very easy to label data one wants excluded as a "random fact". Suppressing the fact that by 1998, aspartame products were the cause of 80% of complaints to the FDA about food additives, and that these complaints included headache, dizziness, change in mood, vomiting or nausea, abdominal pain and cramps, change in vision, diarrhea, seizures/convulsions, memory loss, and fatigue, is despicable. TickleMeister (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Article in EJCN (Nature), 2009
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 63, 695-698 (May 2009) | doi:10.1038/ejcn.2008.4

The science is clearly not settled yet. TickleMeister (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an article but a letter to the editor written in response to another letter. TFD (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that if quality journals are publishing arguments between scientists over the safety of the drug, who are we to decide that it's all settled in favour of harmlessness and safety, and to exclude studies that disagree with the (largely industry-funded) current pro-ASP consensus? TickleMeister (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The find a reliable source that reports on the dispute. TFD (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And since when is Nature not a RS? TickleMeister (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The letter you provide is evidence of a controversy and therefore a primary source. What you need are sources that describe the controversy.  You need to find sources that establish the notability of the letter, for example an article about anti-aspartame activists that mentions it.  The EJCN is actually an academic journal and therefore a reliable source for science but not for fringe theories.  However letters to the editor are not reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what a reliable source is (hint: in this case it's the journal). But I'm not going to bother with your sophistries anymore, even though they're patently weak, because the editing environment here, dominated by a coterie of editors determined to have a certain POV in the ASP articles, is not conducive to an encyclopedia. If this is what wikipedia has become, more's the pity. TickleMeister (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, PLEASE assume good faith. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ticklemeister, you're not helping your cause by making assumptions of bad faith, insulting other editors, and crying like a baby when you don't get your way. The notion that aspartame is harmful is not the mainstream view, and therefore it should not be presented in the article as such.  I'm sure there are a bunch of conspiracy theories out there, but only the ones that are notable and widely discussed are relevant.  I can write a letter to the editor for my local newspaper about how aspartame caused my nipples to explode, but I can't site it as a source unless my nipple explosion is widely discussed elsewhere.    Snotty Wong   speak 14:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to become sarcastic here, Snottywong, a letter to the editor in Nature goes through a very strict editorial process, with the highest regards to science. They verify the writer as well, and ridiculous claims are never published. These letters represent a debate between a pro-industry scientist and an independent scientist (with high credentials), which is typical for the entire debate around aspartame. Once upon a time the mainstream view was that tobacco was good for your health, and slowly the whole view on that went opposite. That's what is going on with aspartame. Immortale (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well be that aspartame is bad for you but we need reliable sources to confirm that before we adopt that point of view. WP is not the place to right great wrongs.  If WP had been around in the 1950s I would have objected to saying cigarettes were harmful to health just as I would have objected in the late 1960s to saying they were not harmful.  The decision on these topics is not made here.  These articles only reflect mainstream thinking.  TFD (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "before we adopt that point of view". We are not supposed to have any point of view. Maybe that's where a lot of you are going wrong here. We need to present both sides and stop deciding things for the readers. This article is not supposed to have a pro-ASO POV (as it currently clearly does). TickleMeister (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, Wikipedia adopts a neutral POV, per WP:NPOV, a core policy, which takes consideration of things such as undue weight into account. Please familiarize yourself with these core principles of wikipedia, as they have been linked to you many times. Yobol (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

EHP article
A recent change was made adding an EHP article regarding the Ramazinni studies, which had a couple of problems: 1) it did not endorse all of the methodologies that Ramazinni used (which is implied by the edit), of which many have been criticized by outside authorities; it only provided information that one particular aspect of the Ramazinni studies (notably the use of in utero exposure as well as longer term exposure) out of a multitude of methdological decisions may be beneficial in general with these types of studies (and even then only asks for further studies to be done before adopting new guidelines), and 2) more importantly, this review/commentary (it was not a study as the original editor described) is designed to discuss the proper timing and exposure length for carcinogenic bioassays; it does not indepedently review the validity of the Ramazinni studies or results as it relates to aspartame. This review may be appropriate for a wikipedia article on bioassay, for instance, but to me fails WP:UNDUE in an article about aspartame, especially when it is obviously being included to try to bolster the Ramazinni studies. Yobol (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The abuse of this encyclopedia continues. I refuse to get riled over it. If there is no support for my edits, all I can do is note it down and move on. Fortunately there are other sites where the information can be aired. Here is the edit, reverted for spurious weight reasons:

"In 2008, a study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences endorsed aspects of the Ramazzini methodology, saying that extending animal bioassays beyond 2 years and beginning exposure in utero would provide more reliable and appropriate indicators of human risk."


 * TickleMeister (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd, there seems to be two words added in your quote above that wasn't in your original edit. A mere oversight, I'm sure, and not an intentional misrepresentation of what you actually wrote. Yobol (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not odd, that's me trying to find compromise, as I always do. You should give it a go sometime. TickleMeister (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame and premature birth
See new study that followed a cohort of 59,334 pregnant Danish women, and showed that  those having 1 or more servings of artificially sweetened drinks a day were found to be at a 38 per cent increased risk of pre-term delivery. Consumption of 4 or more servings a day was associated with an increased risk of 78 per cent.

See associated news report in Daily Mail that specifically names ASP.

The studypaper can be found here, published in American Society for Clinical Nutrition, note the stats - statistical significant!. Safe2trust (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr Briffa comments that "as the authors of the study point out, length of gestation may be affected by exposure to methanol. Methanol is a known nerve toxin, which can be metabolised in the body to form formic acid (another nerve toxin), as well as formaldehyde (which is what is used to preserve dead bodies).  It’s also a constituent of aspartame (the most ubiquitous artificial sweetener)." TickleMeister (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you persist in bringing up selective primary studies, all of which have the SAME WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS problems? Yobol (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep insisting that we can only cite review studies, which flies in the face of MEDRS's stipulations about controversies? You have a basic misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. TickleMeister (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The report does not even mention the artificial sweetener used. TFD (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The full text does, see comments on it. TickleMeister (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you read the entire article before bringing it here, I will remind you of two sentences from the article: "However, it is difficult to make inferences on which sweeteners might be at fault because most artificially sweetened soft drinks include mixtures of different sweeteners" (meaning the authors don't know which sweeteners, if any, are the culprit(s), and concluding with "However, the replication of our findings in another experimental setting is warranted" (which suggests that the authors realize that one study doesn't change the consensus that aspartame (or other sweeteners) are safe, even if you do not.)
 * Also, let me remind you that we have reviews (secondary sources) demonstrating the safety of aspartame, and per WP:MEDRS, "primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field" which is precisely what you are doing every single time you bring up a primary study to suggest aspartame is not safe to dispute the secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why bother with a separate page on the aspartame controversy then? Why not just have a page that says aspartame is safe, end of story, and exclude all of the 100+ studies to the contrary? That would be just tickety-boo as far as NutraSweet and the beverage companies go. They'll be thrilled with that, I'd say. Oh, but wait, MEDRS also has these pesky lines: "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." So clearly I am right and you are wrong. TickleMeister (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued ignoring of consensus on core wikipedia policies and guidelines will only get more of your changes reverted. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious problems with this page
I am finding some serious problems in this page. Let's take just one: a 2005 study is called "more recent" than a 2007 study, and even though the 2005 study only looks at MRI images of the brain to judge whether or not aspartame affects insulin levels, it is used to refute a 2007 study that actually looks at insulin in the blood. Are the editors here all working for Monsanto? Get real, guys, this is not your playpen, this is an encyclopedia! I am finding this sort of deliberate twisting of the facts all over the page, as well as blatant OR. TickleMeister (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another example: "... but aspartate does not normally cross the blood-brain barrier in most parts of the brain without active uptake by transporters". The source does not reference aspartame. This is OR and SYN folks, and that's why I removed it. TickleMeister (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish I had the time to deal with this right now, but I'm traveling and there are guests. BUT, at least you are now starting to get specific on the talk page, rather than edit warring. That's the way to do it. If I recall correctly, that last one was also one I wondered about. It seems like synthesis to me. You may be right. Discuss each edit before making controversial edits, especially deletion of sourced material. This page has been a warzone before, and we don't want that happening again. If you'll work with us, you'll find we're more receptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, comment noted. It's worrying that despite the war that has preceded me here, we have not ended up with a good article. Wars often produce fine-tuned and accurate articles, but it looks like one side won the war here and have put "their" version up, warts and all. I'm going to attempt to balance it out. TickleMeister (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please propose an edit to fix this, and stop making accusations against other editors, thanks. Please do not be WP:BOLD as your edits have been reverted and the total introduced an apparent bias against WP:NPOV and removed material supported by RS and consensus. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are required to explain charges like NPOV and bias. How and where? Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removal of sourced info, addition of implied bias via funding not supported by WP:MEDRS, etc see previous discussions here and in archieve. It's easier for you to justify your changes. Some of them will probably be made, such as the blood-barrier synthesis you pointed out above. It is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff with your wholesale reverting. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we have something to talk about. Let's go:

Inserting funding data
Are you seriously saying we cannot state who has funded a study? Please expand. The source is totally RS, so it seems you are saying I am introducing bias by stating where the funding comes from. What do other editors feel about this? TickleMeister (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless a reliable source states it is relevant we shouldn't include it. Because of the nature of this page, we eitehr need a source saying it caused a bias or that funding did not effect findings. The presumption in scientific research would be no effect until evidence is presented. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But excuse me, the source does say that the funding caused a bias. Did you not read it? Here it is again: Perhaps if you actually look at my sources you'd stop the reverting. TickleMeister (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WebMD is not a sufficently reliable source for such criticisms of a scientific, peer reviewed, publication. It requires a WP:MEDRS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A source was asked for and presented. The cite is legitimate because WebMD does not criticize the science in the article, but rather questions if the funding can influence the outcome of the study.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's incorrect. MEDRS refers to sources for medical articles, not to sources for the fact that there is a bias question. The source is more than adequate for the fact that the study was funded by the manufacturer and that there are concerns about bias because of that fact. I could have made far more of it in the article than I did. So apart from this completely bogus objection, what other points have you got? TickleMeister (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is not sufficient. It is not a WP:RS or WP:MEDRS, and in fact points out that the scientists were unaware of the source of funding making it irrelevant. Including it without context is including unsupported bias. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a RS (never listed as unreliable by RS/N). But apart from your error there, what context would you consider appropriate? TickleMeister (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, the funding is mentioned all over the place ... try this one for size . You cannot suppress this information, Verbal. Wikipedia is not censored. TickleMeister (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already at least one paragraph which discusses funding in a scholarly way without innuendo. Would you like this paragraph altered? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, when you put a statement in the lead that says, in effect, "there was a study that found all concerns about aspartame are baseless and there really is no problems with it at all" you need to state something about where the study comes from. Such Panglossian statements cannot stand without more data about the origins. Why are you so alarmed that people learn that the most exculpatory study is industry commissioned? Why are you trying to suppress the truth? TickleMeister (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you want changed about the paragraph we already have? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't respond with wp:HEAR tactics. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The first source you give says that the scientists were unaware of the source of the funding. What do you want changed and why? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the encyclopedia should get into the argmunent about what the researchers were aware of. Clearly, if you do a study or review for a company that works at the behest of manufacturers of products, you'd be well aware that your client is looking for a certain outcome. What I want is to see the study described as one funded by industry, as it was indeed. If you like, we can get into accusations of bias using the statements of Michael F. Jacobson, PhD, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). TickleMeister (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think giving undue weight to a fringe view is compatible with our policies. The bulk of the source you gave discounts the criticism. You need to bring an RS or discuss it in context. As I've said before, innuendo is unacceptable. Let's wait for further input from others. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be considered a "fringe view" anymore unless you consider the UK government researching possible side effects "fringe"Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's not innuendo to state that the main study exonerating a chemical is industry funded! Hello? WebMD is fully RS, and you have zero reason to keep repeating that it isn't. Where is the proof that stating funding is "innuendo"? You don't like it, is all. I suggest you start taking my interest in the aspartame articles serious and stop stonewalling. I can assure you I won't be going anywhere and I'm happy to call a RfC on each and every edit I've made. TickleMeister (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User 6words gives a good summary of the problems and assement, that agrees with mine, over at Talk:Aspartame. Your implied criticism is the innuendo, and it is not allowed. It would be okay to state the funding with the full context, but not as a misleading factoid. What is wrong with the current coverage of the funding issue? No need for an RfC yet. Please stop trying to make this personal, WP is not a WP:BATTLE. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure the two of you are in agreement. He's not raising RS issues. I have answered him on the other talk page with my proposed solution to this impasse. TickleMeister (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Redux
I have found a disturbing echo of this debate in the archives of the Aspartame page. Here it is. Notice the same players, the same charges of POV, FRINGE etc, the same false claims of consensus and "we've been here before" (archives show we haven't), the same wikilawyering to suppress info. It is almost a photocopy of the debate above. TickleMeister (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "redux" is inaccurate and uncivil. Please engage in good faith discussion. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the cap fits, Verbal .... TickleMeister (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Quit BAITing with ad homs and discuss the content. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very apposite to point out that there is a pattern of discussion here, based on false arguments and claims of consensus. That's all about content. Read the link to the archives I give, it's word for word the same arguments. TickleMeister (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vestibular and cochlear toxicity
See

I think we should see an end to claims, on these Talk pages, that the science is settled on aspartame, that the drug is entirely safe, and that the controversy is nutty. TickleMeister (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A genetic predisposition to an adverse reaction seen in siblings "shakes up" the science behind the substance being safe? Your optimism is refreshing. The conspiracy theory is still pretty nutty, relying on cover-ups second only to the moon landing in scope. -- King Öomie  13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop expressing your opinions here. This is not a forum. The study above could be the tip of the iceberg. We even have someone in the archives of the aspartame Talk pages describing those symptoms (tinnitus). TickleMeister (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When you tell me to stop expressing opinions, and then immediately cast wild speculation, you look ridiculous. -- King Öomie  15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quit BAITing with ad homs and discuss the content. What is your objection, if any, and on what grounds, to this content? After all, you acceded to its instant removal last time. TickleMeister (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is fine (pubmed), I was remarking on your inference and analysis of its implications (which are not welcome in the article). -- King Öomie  18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingoomieiii, and would add that case reports are the lowest form of scientific evidence, of which this publication has only two. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This cite is also legitimate if you look at it impartially. The conclusion is: "CONCLUSION: Aspartame had a vestibulocochlear toxicity in a pair of siblings, suggesting a genetic susceptibility to aspartame toxicity. Even though the yield may be low, asking patients with dizziness, vertigo, tinnitus, or high-frequency hearing loss about their aspartame consumption and suggesting cessation of its use, may prove helpful for some." and should be presented in the article.  I agree with Immortale and TickleMeister.  Cherry picking studies to include is exactly why this article is biased.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So case studies that put aspartame in a positive spin are welcomed but those that aren't, are ridiculed? Sounds very POV to me. The industry has flooded the scientific community with one-day case studies and then point at them to tell everyone about the overwhelming scientific studies that prove aspartame is safe. Like if you give a person a cigarette and claim he hasn't got cancer after one day. The highest form of scientific evidence is long-term, double-blind research, which aspartame has had two: the original one done by GD Searle, which outcome was deliberately falsified and the second one by the prestigious, independent Ramazzini Institute. Those are the facts. Immortale (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make straw men arguments, as no one here has advocated what you seem to be responding to. Your description of the Ramazzini study doesn't agree with the WP:RS. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We should report all quality studies, within reason, and let readers make decisions. This study is a new one and raises concrete issues that should be reported. To King, the comments I made about the study (that it should put paid to claims of complete harmlessness of aspartame) are obviously for our private consumption on this page, and not for the article. Try to keep talking about page content. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article you cite is a primary source, and poor one at that, given that it is a case study with an n of 2. We do not cite "all" studies; we cite the best studies, with preference to secondary ones, as this is policy. Yobol (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having only 2 patients does not make it a "poor study". You show a lack of understanding of what makes a study weak or strong, and it's not only number of participants that count. Some of the most famous cases in medical history are based on single cases. Since this is a medical issue, we must rely on MEDRS, which allows the use of studies like this, with proviso: " Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above"
 * Now as the full text of this study shows, it is the second study to show vestibular toxicity, the other one being . So perhaps both studies should be referenced, and the source should be to the fulltext rather than the abstract. TickleMeister (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you read WP:PSTS as to mean we must include these two primary studies? Wow.  Not sure what to say to that.Yobol (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I referred to WP:MEDRS allowing the use of such studies. We now have two peer reviewed studies showing that these effects can happen to human beings. This is exactly the sort of material that belongs in a drug safety/controversy page .... unless you have a POV that would like to see it suppressed? TickleMeister (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:PSTS, then. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read it. It doesn't supersede what I've said here. Wikipedia medical articles are absolutely chock-full of studies that are not review studies. Take a look at a few. TickleMeister (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Shrug. I disagree with your assessment of the worthiness of the article you want to cite and your reading of policy and guidelines. Yobol (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put the changes into the Temp article. Please feel free to peruse this article draft and comment on issues with which you disagree (start a new section for particular issues, thanks). TickleMeister (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else note that the two authors of this case report are, in fact, the subjects of the case report? It's a bit...unusual. If the OP is suggesting the inclusion of this source in the manner currently presented on the temp page, I oppose on the standard basis that medical research claims should rely most heavily upon peer-reviewed secondary sources (i.e., literature reviews and meta-analyses), or--if those are in short supply--at least controlled clinical trials, to make any claim of an association between aspartame and any specific condition. Case reports are great tools for research, but they are uncontrolled primary source anecdotes (that happen to be more informative for hypothesis generating for future studies) and should not be extrapolated beyond this. This is particularly relevant given the authors' own assertions on the paucity of similar reports.

Future proposals for content inclusion should refrain from the hyperbolic evisceration of straw-constructed humanoids if there's to be good-faith, constructive discussion. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a "medical claim"; it is a report of an adverse effect in the medical literature, to be included in an article about the controversy of possible health side effects of a chemical. What more apt place for such a study could possibly exist?
 * The fact that one of the TWO available published studies on these particular side-effects features a doctor and nurse, genetically-related duo, actually adds to the credibility of the study rather than detracts from it. These are medically-trained people reporting on their own symptoms, at no monetary benefit to themselves. (Unlike the positive studies, this one was not funded by a multibillion dollar corporation).
 * MEDRS does allow the use of primary reports, as long as one does not make claims that go anywhere outside the report conclusions. The text on the Temp page does not go anywhere beyond the study's conclusions, so why you imply I have "extrapolated beyond" the reports conclusions is odd.
 * You have glossed over the fact that there is another study with similar conclusions, so the study is not a 'flash in the pan'. TickleMeister (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How "an adverse effect in the medical literature" is not a "medical claim" in your head, I don't know. It's certainly obvious that "Aspartame may have idiosyncratic toxic effects for some people in the areas of vestibular and cochlear functioning" is a medical claim.
 * Please don't conflate the term "study" with "case report". Two case reports for a combined n of three subjects is a pittance, and insufficient to make the claim that "Aspartame may have idiosyncratic toxic effects for some people in the areas of vestibular and cochlear functioning" which is an extrapolation for which you've provided no secondary source. What do the reviews say about vestibular and cochlear functioning? &mdash; Scientizzle 02:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Medical studies don't "make claims", they report. The conclusion in the study, or case report as you prefer, was that "Aspartame had a vestibulocochlear toxicity in a pair of siblings suggesting an idiosyncratic genetic predisposition to aspartame toxicity".
 * The "extrapolation" is not an extrapolation at all, but a rephrasing of the conclusion. If you would like a different phrasing, please suggest it.
 * The other study abstract stated: "a patient whose symptoms of episodic vertigo and continuous unsteadiness resolved upon ceasing aspartame intake. A literature review revealed that although dizziness has been associated with aspartame intake, no systematic study of the problem exists."
 * I'd be surprised if the reviews say anything about it, because this is a new study. Once again, MEDRS applies, which just means we have to be careful to make no claims that go beyond the study.
 * I'm busy reading the GAO report, 1987, on the safety of aspartame. There is an impressive table of reported side effects, most of them neurological. The reports says that "In most cases, the reactions are mild or moderate (e.g., headache and dizziness)". Note the "dizziness" (reported in both studies here). BTW, more than half the researchers surveyed by the FDA, some of whom were studying aspartame, were concerned about safety issues with the chemical. TickleMeister (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame and headaches
Does anyone here object to including the data about aspartame's link to headaches/migraine in susceptible individuals? It's absurd that I have to ask this, but since numerous peer-reviewed, published studies were deemed unacceptable in this regard by one editor, I feel I have to get consensus. TickleMeister (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these reviews of the literature, or primary source material. I would rather we used reviews. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviews, if available, are always preferable, but you won't always find review studies on all topics in medicine. I this case we have, instead, quite a few published studies. This is more than adequate to mention the issue in the article. TickleMeister (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no reviews, and unless the primary studies are of particularly high quality (for example double blind placebo controlled studies, large n, published in high impact journals), I would prefer to leave out any primary studies that evaluates aspartame safety from the article, per our guidelines. There are thousands upon thousands of journal articles published, not every one of them deserves mention in Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree utterly. This side effect has been recorded not only in numerous peer reviewed studies, but also in the list of reported adverse health impacts compiled by CFSAN. There is no wikipedia policy that prevents this data from going into the article. In fact, it was always in the aspartame articles, albeit couched in somewhat dismissive language. And there are not "thousands upon thousands" of studies concerning the health effects of aspartame. Those that do exist deserve to be aired here, in an article on the controversy surrounding the health effects of this chemical.TickleMeister (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with TickleMeister on this one. The "only peer reviewed articles published in the December issue of the New England Journal of Medicine are good enough for me" attitude is over the top on a controversy page.  Science is a process and there is value in presenting these studies to illustrate trends in research pertaining to the subject, as well as findings.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very carefully read WP:DUE. -- King Öomie  14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take your own advice. You'd be extremely hard pressed to make an undue weight argument for the small section on headaches, considering it's the most frequently mentioned side effect. TickleMeister (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you and I disagree with how to apply policy and guidelines such as WP:PSTS and WP:NPOV. I see no point in repeating myself as they were already expressed in threads above this one. There are thousands of articles on every topic imaginable on health issues.  They don't all deserve to be cited in Wikipedia.  Let's see what other people say before citing them in the article. Yobol (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a section about potential side affects such as headaches should be included.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to RfC this? TickleMeister (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should propose a change in text with the appropriate citations to see specifically what you have in mind (here in talk) so that we can all judge on the merits?Yobol (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the proposed edit. TickleMeister (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take your sources one at a time:
 * Sun-Edelstein, a review and therefore appropriate for use in the article, says "Although some studies found that aspartame did not cause more headaches than placebo, other evidence suggests that aspartame may be a headache trigger in people who ingest moderate to high doses (900 to 3000 mg/d) over a prolonged period of time." In other words, it is inconclusive (some studies says it does, some says it doesn't), and does not support your definitive statement "has been linked" without qualifications.
 * Newman is a case report and therefore inappropriate for use, especially with a review above saying it is inconclusive.
 * Jacob is a case series, in a low impact journal - indeed the website doesn't even have an impact factor associated with it; indeed, I'm not sure why a aspartame-headache study is being published in a journal specifically used for dermatits - too many red flags here for me to cite as a source
 * The fourth citation is a repeat of Sun-Edelstein
 * Millichap, a 2003 review and therefore appropriate for use says, "The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of aspartame as a significant trigger of headaches in migraineurs, especially when the exposure is prolonged. The effect of aspartame in pediatric migraine needs to be confirmed by controlled studies, although patients and parents should be cautioned regarding the potential adverse effect of this ubiquitous sugar substitute" and therefore appears to support your statement.
 * Lipton is a primary study from 1989(!), and probably not appropriate.
 * The NY Times article is an obvious violation of WP:MEDRS and not appropriate.
 * The Leira article I do not have access to but lists along with aspartame as possible migraine triggers in its abstract, citrus fruits, tea, coffee, pork, chocolate, milk, nuts, vegetables, cola drinks, tyramine, phenylalanine, phenolic flavonoids, alcohol, food additives (sodium nitrate, monosodium glutamate, aspartame) and caffeine, cheese, bananas, nuts, 'cured' meats, dairy products, cereals, beans, hot dogs, pizza, coffee, tea, cola drinks, alcoholic drinks such as red wine, beer or whisky distilled in copper stills. An impressive list, though if we're going to use this source for aspartame as a cause of migraine, it probably should be added to all the above articles as well. (Or, more reasonably, not used as a source).
 * So, really, there's 2 appropriate sources, both of which spent about two short paragraphs each on aspartame and headaches. The first definitively cites aspartame as a trigger, the other, more recent review says it is inconclusive.  Not sure two short reviews justifies inclusion, and even if it does, it has to be much more qualified than what you cite above as it is not clear that aspartame is a trigger based on these two reviews. Further input from others would be helpful. Yobol (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are now almost engaging in OR, designating studies as "probably not appropriate" and making disparaging remarks about journals. Your objection to the NYT as a source for the views of a medical professor is ridiculous (not all facts need to follow MEDRS, as I explained above). Your analysis of the studies in order to exclude one of the most important symptoms people complain of (even government documents show) is a clear example of an unreasonable, perhaps even tendentious, editing stance. I notice you did not mention the fact that headache is listed as one of the most commonly reported adverse side effects according to the GAO report. It also happens to be the symptom I personally and reliably experience when I ingest it. I've been editing wikipedia for years, mostly as an IP editor, and I've come across no other pages with this sort of trenchant obstructionism.  TickleMeister (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yobol. These accusations against Yobol are meritless and disruptive.--Ronz (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just take one of his points, the fact that NYT is not MEDRS and therefore not to be used in the article. Do you agree that (a) this controversy article needs to air all sides of the controversy, and that (b) an article in the NEW YORK TIMES, one of the world's major newspapers, on this very self same controversy, is an excellent source of material for this controversy article, or not? If you agree the NYT is a good source, then you disagree with the Yobol wp:SPA. TickleMeister (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed rewrite uses the NYT article improperly, in violation of MEDRS. I'd say the use violates UNDUE as well. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If you think evaluating sources against WP:RS and WP:MEDRS is "OR" you need to read WP:OR again. 2) The article from the NY Times is already cited in the controversy article, appropriately in the "history" section where the NY Times is appropriately used to cite the existence and history of the controversy.  When you try to use it in the "safety" section where medical claims are made, WP:MEDRS applies, and it is most definitely NOT appropriately used here. I agree that with Ronz above that the information you are trying to include fails WP:UNDUE as well. 3) I did not mention any GAO report because you did not cite it as a source, as far as I can tell. 4) It seems clear that your interpretations of WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS and others are significantly different than mine (and it appears many of the editors here). It would seem to me that it would be wise to set up ground rules on the use of sources, etc. before suggesting any substantial changes as these interpretations will guide any discussion on any changes you choose to make. Yobol (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are simply misstating the intent of MEDRS, which states "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." To claim that the myriad studies linking asp. to headache should all be suppressed because of a weight issue, in a controversy article, is risible. Making readers aware of controversy is also about quoting the dissenting researchers, from any RS. I cannot believe I have to point this out! MEDRS also endorses the use if the Press in some instances: "high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article" This topic is a social and current affairs topic ("controversy".. get it?) TickleMeister (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TickleMeister is trying to present information relevant to the article and it should be included.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As has already been explained to you in my last comments, the NYTimes article is already cited in the history section. It should NOT be cited in the scientific "safety" section where medical claims are made.  Understand now? Yobol (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument of NYT being "already cited" is irrelevant. If it helps illustrate another facet of the controversy, then it should be included.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to MEDRS, making people aware of a controversy is important. Using the NYT to quote the words of a researcher would fall within these guidelines. Moreover, MEDRS allows the use of the popular press for ancillary information, just as I do in the article: "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story.." he NYT is not being used to make the headache claim, merely to quote a researcher in the field as to why the compound could be causing problems. TickleMeister (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet again, the NYTimes article already cites that researcher and his comments in the history section, so the controversy is already noted. Popular press should not be used for medical claims.  If the "researcher" has a valid claim, it will be reflected in the relevant scientific literature, which should be the only source for medical claims, per the very sentence you just quoted. Yobol (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're starting to embroider and extend the content of MEDRS. There's nothing that specific there. While your extrapolations of policy are interesting, I think they are inappropriate here. TickleMeister (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess there's not much else to be said, if you cannot (or refuse to) understand the clear and plain meaing of WP:MEDRS regarding the popular press. Shrug. Yobol (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, keep your comments about "tendentiousness" "risible" "WP:SPA", etc to yourself as much as possible. Focusing on the content and not denigrating other editors will get you much further in fostering a cooperative environment for collaboration. Please review WP:NPA if you have not done so already. Yobol (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Characterising your arguments as tendentious (showing a bias) and risible (ludicrous), which they are, is perfectly acceptable Talk page behaviour. I am not denigrating you, but what you are saying. You are also a SPA (your history clearly shows you spend almost all your time defending medical products like Thiomersal and supporting one side or another in controversy articles). You should have raised this on my Talk page, if at all. TickleMeister (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute
I am finding this article extremely difficult to edit due to what I regard as a highly POV mindset in a group of editors who have this page on their watchlists. These editors seem to have decided that this chemical is harmless and safe, and all my attempts to edit in a NPOV —based on the fact that there are studies highlighting problems, and researchers expressing concerns, and people reporting adverse effects, and governments running investigations— are treated as laughable examples of the internet "hoax" about aspartame's dangers. I am treated rudely and with scorn, or with outright contempt. No attempt is made to improve the article or work in a collegial manner. Both aspartame articles bristle with inaccuracies and a pro-corporate POV. The archives show that I am not the first person to be treated like this. TickleMeister (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not dup threads. Post responses here please -- King Öomie  14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

More meritless, disruptive accusations against editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion and discussion here I have removed the POV tag. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is certainly bias here. The information being brought to the table is being dismissed instead of being included impartially.

I assert again that this page is in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone which states: "Wikipedia describes disputes." and you cannot describe a dispute if you don't even allow it in the article. I have also requested editorial assistance in resolving this dispute.Stealthcupcake (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Aspartame information
For editors looking for information that has been removed from the article or refused entry on thin grounds:
 * 1) look up aspartame at the SourceWatch site,
 * 2) use my workpage on Aspartame
 * 3) use my workpage on Aspartame controversy
 * 4) use my workpage on Aspartame sources TickleMeister (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article
This article is an exception to wikipedia's usual unbiased standards. It does not adequately detail the concerns of a significant amount of scientists nor do more than mention and dismiss a few studies regarding aspartame's safety concerns. This article spends more time rebutting claims of aspartame's safety (the controversy) than discussing the actual controversy itself which is the title of the article. Someone with an appropriate knowledge on the subject and time on their hands is needed to give a more balanced article. In the meantime I propose this article should have the "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag at the beginning of it.Jmpunit (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)jmpunit
 * No it is balanced. It is dealing with a controversy which pits fringe theories against science.  TFD (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct Jmpunit. A number of editors have tried to improve things, but they are outnumbered by others with a particular bias. I would accept the disputed tag. A very clear example for me is the intro. "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed". The three sources boldly backing this claim are quite laughable, but rather sad seeing the amount of lawyering that goes into undermining other sources that do not adhere to the bias. Classic straw man, as the claims the sources refer to are mostly the discredited Nancy Markle claims. The best approach is to use reason and tackle the flaws patiently one-by-one, but expect this to be a disheartening and tiring experience, as some of the opposition will be personal attacks, or mindless lawyering, instead of dealing with the points raised. Greenman (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also find this page highly problematic. TFD alleges that this controversy is one of 'fringe theories against science', and that may or may not be so. But that doesn't excuse the fact that this article purpotedly *about* the controversy says almost nothing about what the controversy substantively is. There are two issues here:


 * 1) The article speaks only in very general terms about biological aspects of aspartame in organisms, but fails to mention almost any of the very specific claims made by medical studies, often peer-reviewed. (The insulin claim is one exception). As a reader wanting to find out about what he actual controversy is substantively about, this article has failed me. I htink there may even be more specifcs in the Aspartame article itself. What is the point of this page? It reads as though its point is to discredit claims against aspartame's safety as a food additive.
 * 2) The other aspect of the controversy is that there are allegations that the official government institutions (FDA etc) did not undertake due care in approving aspartame, and rather that they ignored opposing evidence, dismissed reliability issues of Searle etc as immaterial, constrained review processes in such ways as to prejudice the their outcomes. Now these allegations may or may not be true, that is the controversy. That is the controversy and this article says almost nothing about it; a bit about conflict of interest, that's basically it. This page should instead be called 'FDA Approval of Aspartame', because that is the narrative. Not only is this aspect ignored but it is actively hidden: the article's main message is that the FDA (the very organisation which has been criticised) has discounted all the critics' concerns against aspartame! How on earth can you claim neutrality when the claims of an organisation are invoked to dismiss allegations against that same organisation's credibility?? The same goes for all the equivalent national bodies quoted. The controversy is substantively about claims against the integrity of these groups, and yet they are the quoted sources for discounting those same claims. This is inherently biased. It moreover completely obscures the controversy, which is supposed to be the subject of the article. Again, as an interested reader looking for background about the controversy, I've basically been told "there is no controversy" - it has been completely obscured.
 * One more point. I notice that TickleMeister has been constantly vetoed for quoting primary sources (ie journal articles), and yet so many of the citations supporting dismissals of negative health effects are primary source journal articles. The most offensive example is from the 'Aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine' section: "However, a (one-day) exposure study showed that the DKP was tolerated without adverse effects.[97]", where [97] is a primary source research article. Furthermore, it is embarrassing that a 'one day' exposure study is even quoted at all, given that the controversy surrounds aspartame's acceptance as a food additive which would therefore be consumed on a regular basis over a lifetime. I'm no wizard about WP policies, but that sure sounds like undue weight. Indeed, its effect in the paragraph is to close the issue authoritatively, when it is neither a relevant nor secondary source.
 * All in all, as someone with no personal interest in aspartame's safety or not, this article reads like no other Controversy article I have seen on WP. It doesn't elucidate the controversy at all - in fact the only substantive info given about it comes through statements dismissing it, which overwhelmingly seems to be the purpose of the page. Pretty depressing for any WP fan :(. Hayimd (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagging is supposed to be used to draw attention to an issue; as can be seen by this talk page, there is plenty of activity here already. Instead of tagging, what should be done is issues should be brought up for discussion on this talk page.  Remember, civility and assuming good faith with other editors and avoiding a battleground mentality  will help foster a consensus building environment. I'm confused by your concerns; by eyeballing it, over 50% of the article is spent discussing the controversy and history, and the other part discussing safety issues.  Since the main point of contention is how unsafe aspartame is, it only makes sense that an analysis of the research of its safety takes up a significant minority of the article space.  Yobol (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the case if that was all there was to it. But the other part of the issue is the credibility of the FDA's process, concerns which include, but are not limited to, the quality of the studies relied upon by the FDA. The problem is that the discussion of the safety issues is dominated by the findings of the FDA and other equivalent national bodies, to the exclusion of other findings which are considered unreliable. To dismiss sources contesting the safety of aspartame because they are primary is simply a sleight of hand if these are in fact the very sources which contest the issue. If there is so little secondary source validation for this controversy, why is there a page about it? You can't recognise the controversy, but then dismiss its sources.
 * Furthermore, most if the other sources cited (in favour of aspartame) are primary themselves. Worse, the analysis here is heavily limited to those sources that find in favour of aspartame; the only one mentioned against by name is the Ramazzini, and of those cited it seems like only 1 in 10 actually find against aspartame. (If the scientific consensus is that the issue is closed, how do we explain all these studies?). I don't understand this imbalance. The purpose of this page is not to debunk a minority view, but to present it, and arguments for and against - but the view hasn't even been allowed to be stated! If the weight of evidence is against the view, that should come through on its own as each claim is refuted - it doesn't need editorial intervention to protect it. Hayimd (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We rely on secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS. Also, we rely on policies such as WP:UNDUE; the majority of secondary sources say aspartame is safe, so we have to reflect that majority in our article.  And again, the majority of the article is spent discussing the controversy (i.e. the hoax, etc).  You seem to have a problem with your policies and guidelines that is the foundation of this article.  I suggest you read them again to understand how we write articles here. Yobol (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead text wording
"The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of several controversies and hoaxes since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974. Critics allege thatconflicts of interest marred the FDA's approval of aspartame, question the quality of the initial research supporting its safety,[1][2][3] and postulate that numerous health risks may be associated with aspartame.

The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed"

Are, and  suitable sources for such a formulation?

Yes, No, Maybe and why? Unomi (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Are they the highest quality sources imaginable? No. Are they acceptable for the purpose of dismissing conspiracy theories? Of course. Per WP:FRINGE, we can't well expect JAMA to publish papers debunking conspiracy theories about MSG, aspartame, fluoride in the water, etc. This absence of medical journal-level sources shouldn't be used as a wikilawyerly excuse to imply the conspiracy theories and hoaxes are any more prominent or valid than they are. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed" is not neutral and should not be used. There are many studies done that have concluded that aspartame does not lead to cancer, but there are ongoing studies to research possible minor side effects which by itself invalidates the declaration.  Also, "fringe" and "conspiracy theory" are phrases that do not apply.  Attempting to discredit individual reports of side effects as a "conspiracy theory" is misleading.Stealthcupcake (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias
Every instance of "Conspiracy theory" needs to be changed to controversy. Saying something is a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to discredit an opposing view. It also has a negative connotation that the people who question the safety of ingesting it are somehow "crazy" which is misleading. In the General Accounting office report (first cite) it even says "Twelve of the 69 scientists responding to GAO'S questionnaire expressed major concerns about aspartame’s safety." If experts familiar with the research had concerns, then it is a controversy and not a conspiracy theory. More respect needs to be given to all points of view before the truth will be accepted. Nobody likes to have their point of view dismissed with such impunity. Stealthcupcake (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless we have sources describing it as such, and those sources demonstrate that the description was not a small minority viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is not saying something like "There is an opposing point of view that suggests x.y.z but have not presented any supporting evidence". The problem is saying: "Conspiracy theorists believe x.y.z."  Do you understand the difference?  Calling skeptics "conspiracy theorists" is an underhanded way of attempting to influence public opinion to believe a particular point of view by painting the opposition as "crazy" and this is not acceptable.  If this article is still worded thus, I am going to change it because it is not balanced, nor productive when personal feelings color the article with name calling, and it should not be tolerated by either side of the discussion. Stealthcupcake (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. The whole page is slanted to paint people who have identified problems with the chemical as part of a loony fringe. I have documented many of the scientific concerns with aspartame, most of which were excluded from this page by a consensus of editors who feel that any mention of a problem with aspartame gives it undue weight. Of course that is rubbish, but consensus is how wp works, so that's how things stand right now. TickleMeister (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that doubting the safety of aspartame is a conspiracy theory. The term is correctly used in the article.  TFD (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says that the fact that the FDA commissioner who approved Aspartame later joined a PR agency that represented the producer "fuel[led] conspiracy theories". Also, one "conspiracy theory claims that the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted".  The belief that there was secret collusion between the FDA, the producers of Aspartame and others is a conspiracy theory.  Skepticism about the safety of aspartame in itself is not a conspiracy theory, it is just a view that is not supported by evidence, and is not called a conspiracy theory in the article.  TFD (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory:


 * "Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning."


 * If collusion alone has been alleged, then that is not a conspiracy theory. "Superhuman power and cunning" must be alleged for it to be labeled thus.  I stand by my earlier comments that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to sway opinion by suggesting a point of view is "crazy" and is not allowed.


 * This is a conspiracy theory:
 * "Aspartame was approved because the New World Order race of reptilian humanoids wants to take over the world."


 * This is not:
 * "I think G.D. Searle bribed the FDA to approve nutrasweet so they could make money."


 * The second example is merely opinion unsupported by evidence, not conspiracy theory.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthcupcake (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2010


 * Notice how I phrased my comments, "collusion between the FDA, the producers of Aspartame and others" (my emphasis). Individual aspects that form part of the conspiracy may be reasonable conjecture, but the theories are much wider, requiring the collusion of the FDA through several administrations, the medical establishment, the scientific community and the media, all acting in the interests of the drug industry.  Similar to other conspiracy theories, it is unsupported by evidence and impossible to disprove.  TFD (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, collusion alone does not merit the "Conspiracy theory" label. Speculation about how many parties are involved is irrelevant.   The stigma of being called a "Conspiracy theory" is reserved for those theories that allege "Superhuman power and cunning", which these arguments do not.  Being unsupported by evidence also does not make it a "Conspiracy theory" or "hoax".


 * The "Activism and Internet rumors" section in particular is in direct violation of Wikipedia rules.


 * "An elaborate hoax disseminated through the Internet attributes deleterious medical effects to aspartame."
 * This is clearly in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight which says:
 * "Impartial tone


 * Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.


 * The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."


 * This is clearly not the unsupported opinion of a small, crazy fringe element as evidenced in the very next section of the article: "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" Which cites several instances of international corporations and Governments, including the US and the UK who have either banned aspartame at some point, or are investigating claims of adverse side effects.


 * The terms "An elaborate hoax disseminated..." and "Specifically, the hoax websites allege that aspartame..." should be removed for violating:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY:
 * "Be careful with weasel words


 * Weasel words are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. "Houston is considered the friendliest city in the world." Really, now. Who says so? Do not use expressions like "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged," without saying specifically who is doing the claiming, thinking or alleging.


 * Also, beware of using words of attribution that cast aspersions on the source. This is largely an issue of context; for example,


 * Standing before the ruins of an exploded apartment building, the military spokesman claimed, "Only military targets were hit."


 * In this context, the word "claimed" suggests the credulity of the writer. "Said" would have been a more neutral choice. "Alleged", also, in most contexts suggests a statement of questionable veracity."


 * The overall tone of the article when dealing with all points of view should be neutral, however it is not. If you disagree, please read these pages:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

Stealthcupcake (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read all the policies and guidelines and it would seem that following your reasoning we could never call anything a conspiracy theory, unless its adherents claimed superhuman direction. TFD (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what I am saying, because unless we can remove the negative connotation of "conspiracy theory" the use of that term is not neutral. If you are writing an article on Wikipedia, then you have an enormous responsibility to be neutral and fair.  Most people read Wikipedia and take everything in it to be fact.  If you understand the policies and are unbiased, then there should be no aversion to changing the words "conspiracy theory" to "controversy" or removing the word "hoax".   These terms are not neutral, they are used to discredit opposition.  Nobody hears "conspiracy theory" and thinks to themselves: "Oh, that person is claiming there is a conspiracy". They think:"That person probably wears a tin foil hat because they think aliens are trying to fry their brain.".

Stealthcupcake (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the definition at Webster's: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".  TFD (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I read this article, the less neutral it seems to be. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph claims:
 * "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.[4][5][6]". But, examining the cites does not back up that claim entirely.

[4] simply links to a pdf that refutes many claims, but does not cite any scientific studies itself, and should be presented as opinion without them. [5] is an article that does have a lot of good information, but at the end, (on page 3) actually links to a pubmed page on a study done that confirms that some individuals may experience adverse side effects after ingesting aspartame.
 * "This experiment provides evidence that, among individuals with self-reported headaches after ingestion of aspartame, a subset of this group report more headaches when tested under controlled conditions."

Which proves that the claims of headache due to ingesting aspartame have not been dismissed. Finally, [6] links to a site pertaining to the Nancy Markle email which also does not dismiss all the controversy about this substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthcupcake (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Properly sourced negative statements meet WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Particularly the section about impartial tone.  Resistance to being neutral on this page is exactly the reason why most people do not take Wikipedia seriously.131.107.0.106 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Npov says no such thing. We can take this to BLPN if needed. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please go read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors Declaring that all claims of health risks have been examined and dismissed is patently false. Yes, there is a lot of misinformation on the web, but this article comes off that aspartame is completely safe, and if governments and multi-national corporations around the world are still examining claims, (and in some cases have banned the use of aspartame altogether) then this page is clearly biased and needs a lot of editing. I have put a lot of thought into this and if you disagree, I would appreciate more that just "these negative comments meet the neutral point of view" when the clearly do not. It would not be fair to say "defendants of aspartame's safety claim a conspiracy to taint the image of the sweetener with a vast network of websites and scientific bodies colluding to produce false studies showing it's adverse side effects" would it? I am not asking for the facts presented to be changed, only that the facts presented neutrally. Your resistance is clear evidence of your bias. Take it to BLPN, thenStealthcupcake (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, nonsense. No one has claimed, "these negative comments meet the neutral point of view" so nothing needs be done to the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am wrong, but this what you said earlier, is it not; "Properly sourced negative statements meet WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthcupcake (talk • contribs)
 * I stand by what I wrote. I hope you'll stop misrepresenting it. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see you don't like it when I paraphrase what you wrote even though I think I accurately represented your sentiment. I think the same courtesy should be extended to those who have legitimate concerns about the potential health risks posed by ingesting aspartame, and not to be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists".  I don't understand why another page about a similar controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation can be represented so well, but this page is so biased?
 * It's not about liking or disliking, it's about stopping you from continuing with behavior that can get you blocked per WP:TALKNO. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please answer these questions, or I will change the page:

1) The article states: "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." If the UK government is spending money for more research on aspartame, then the claims have not been examined and dismissed.Stealthcupcake (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

2) There are several multi-national corporations that have banned the use of aspartame in their products, and it has been banned by the in the past by the US government. There is clearly more than just a "fringe" group that have concerns of one kind or another about this substance, unless you are including governments and corporations in the "fringe" group willy nilly.

3) The article claims "An elaborate hoax disseminated through the Internet" and then cites 3 web pages all describing the same 1 occurrence of an apparent false email. I hardly think one meme constitutes "an elaborate hoax", and would be more accurately characterized as a meme or rumor.Stealthcupcake (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer this question: If "Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects" is in a major UK news article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects, then how can this article claim: " ....postulate that numerous health risks may be associated with aspartame. The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed."?Stealthcupcake (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that aspartame is safe, merely that scientists have concluded it is safe. And if you want to put in that defenders of aspartame claim a conspiracy then you would need a source for that.  TFD (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article states: "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." If the UK government is spending money for more research on aspartame, then the claims have not been examined and dismissed.Stealthcupcake (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the page without consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody can answer questions about obvious problems about the page, then consensus is assumed.Stealthcupcake (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons that editors may not answer your questions. The lack of an answer would not show consensus, as far as I can tell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If editors are not engaging on the talkpage with policy and source based arguments then they are not contributing to establishing a consensus either way. See Consensus, note that claims of 'against consensus' by itself is not a valid rationale - it must be followed policy based arguments, and obviously, such arguments must be defended if challenged. Unomi (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, hence my bringing up WP:TALKNO. --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stealthcupcake, you are facing the same sort of threats that I faced. The aspartame articles on wikipedia are hopelessly broken, in my opinion due to determined editing by vested interests. This is wikipedia's Achilles heel. I suggest you append a NPOV tag to the page, because there are clearly many of us who feel the artice is biased. TickleMeister (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not threatened anyone. I simply asked that the article not be changed without consensus.  That is policy, not a threat.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The scientist who was asked to look into aspartame said, "This study is not to determine whether aspartame can be consumed safely; this has already been established, but rather to see whether certain people are sensitive to it". TFD (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Food Standards Agency that is sponsoring the study has said "The Agency's view remains that aspartame can be consumed safely and we are not recommending any changes to its current use. However, we know that some people consider they react badly to consuming this sweetener so we think it is important to increase our knowledge about what's happening." Governments can make decisions on products that are safe that do not necessarily imply inherent danger if they are doing it to increase public perception of safety (see precautionary principle).  Just because you think this proves it is not safe does not mean the government agency that is doing it does as well. Yobol (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be "inherent danger" to make onto the controversy page? If all claims of health risk have been "examined and dismissed" by the scientific community, then there would be no more research done on the matter.  This shows that there is research being done by the government of a G8 country which is significant.  As a side note, TickleMeister and myself believe this page to be biased and it has been tagged thus.  I have posted to the editorial assistance page asking for eyes on the subject.  The tag is there because the impartiality of the page is in dispute.  Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved.Stealthcupcake (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There will always be cranks who are able to persuade the governments to examine their claims, but it does not change the scientific consensus. The U. S. government investigated flying saucers and ESP, and published a book debunking the moon landing hoax theory and Oswald's body was exhumed to see if it was really him.  Unfortunately, instead of ending conspiracy theories they merely fuel them.  TFD (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Equating people who think they are experiencing side affects from ingesting a substance are equivalent to cranks who believe the moon landings were a hoax is opinion. If all the research had really been done and consensus on the subject has truly been reached, there would not be any further research being done, at which point I would agree with that opinion.  I don't think any more research is being done to determine if the moon landings happened or not, but the research on aspartame is being done now, which is significant.Stealthcupcake (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Research is being done to satisfy public opinion. It is your interpretation that if research is being done there is no consensus.  Even the government agency running the study says it can be consumed "safely" in describing the study.  You are just forcing your opinion on the rest of us at this point, and I would support removing the NPOV tag.Yobol (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NPOV tags should only be placed when there is a legitimate dispute over how a topic is presented. The fact that an article treats fringe views as fringe views is no reason to claim it is not neutral.  TFD (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But it arguably does not treat fringe views as fringe views, rather it presents them as conspiracy theorists. I am reinstating the tag until w sort this out. Unomi (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source, the New York Times refers to "conspiracy theories" and unless a reliable source can be found challenging their view then it is NPOV, since it represents the view in reliable sources. The fact that some cranks believe these theories to be true is irrelevant.  TFD (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The very same source also refers to "a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others", we fail to reflect that aspect of the source, that they, in your opinion, are cranks is immaterial. Unomi (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been explained to you countless times. The unfounded belief that aspartame is unsafe is not a conspiracy theory but forms part of various conspiracy theories and this article reflects that fact which is found in reliable sources.  If you are unhappy with what the 'NYT' says, then you should complain to them.  All we can do here is reflect what reliable sources say and we cannot promote views that are not found there.  TFD (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen so much ignorance and bias in my life. I always knew Wikipedia was a steaming pile of crap because REAL scientists have told me to never even waste my time reading anything in it. I still had a little hope, and thought to myself "It can't possibly be that bad, could it?" I found out it was worse, and I was honestly SHOCKED at how absolutely thick headed most of the responses on this page are. Oh, and if you get butt hurt over this, I really don't care, and I am not going to be reading your comments or messages, so flame away to your heart's content. This is definitely the first and LAST time I'll ever try to edit a page. I will say that I find it HILARIOUS how seriously you guys take yourselves, changing your "interpretations" of guidelines to fit whatever argument you're trying to win at the moment, taking pride in pretending to be little guideline nazis, and you do not realize that the REAL experts view this site as a joke. And I was "threatened" with being blocked before. Ha, I mean... oh darn. I honestly doubt I will ever even READ another "article" much less try to contribute. I am sorry TickleMeister, I really don't have time to try to convince people incapable of learning anything that this page is seriously flawed on many levels. The dispute tag is constantly removed. When someone calls the neutrality of the page into question and puts up a tag, that means that the neutrality of the page is in dispute. The tag even says not to remove it until the dispute is settled. If it's not settled, then you don't remove it. A fucking 3rd grader would understand that, but for some reason it is lost on people who believe they are smart enough to determine what material is "good enough" for this page. As my parting gift to you, the editors of this... article(?), I give you this little gem from Carlo Graziani. It has never failed to bring a smile to my face:

"I'm relieved to see other people are also wary of information that they get from a source whose organizing principle appears to be that twenty jackasses make an expert. Although after reading your take on Wikipedia, it appears that the actual situation is worse - the output produced by twenty jackasses plus one expert is indistinguishable from what would be produced by twenty-one jackasses." Stealthcupcake (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way. I urge you to stay and continue attempting to improve the page. Wikipedia does have a poor reputation because of editors who attempt to spin articles for ideological or commercial reasons. That's the nature of the beast, no way to avoid it. TickleMeister (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)