Talk:Cruciferous vegetables/Archive 2

Sometimes, weasel words are speculation
Beware of a Borg-again Christian. Reasoning with them is futile. That duz not mean they are wrong. It means that keyword "may" should be taken out, somehow. Either by reducing the scope of the sentence or by taking it out, entirely.75.152.127.203 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only acceptable way of taking out the word "may" is to delete the material entirely and that is what I have done. As I and others have repeatedly explained above, this is Wikipedia policy.  Your refusal to accept Wikipedia policy is disruptive and needs to stop.  If this continues, I will take this to the Administrators' noticeboard. Boghog (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * People being investigated for stealing art are often framed. Yes, an absence of speculation iz wikipedia policy. No, WP:MEDRS, which iz pretty much everything we've been talking about, iz not policy: It iz a guideline. I deleted the material entirely. All that wuz necessary wuz deleting sentences containing "may", not all sections containing health claims.75.152.127.203 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is tough to do inventories in Afghanistan, because of the tally ban. One uv your reviewers iz biased. They tried to attack the idea that Brassicaceae contain chemicals effective against all cancers other than lung and stomach. They did it with weasel words, so that they would not be found essentially incorrect. These vegetables contain chemicals effective against many cancers. They are not az effective in human subjects, because humans are not az compliant with treatment az animals. One uv your reviewers iz biased.75.152.127.203 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "an absence of speculation iz wikipedia policy" – If reliable secondary sources only support uncertainty, there are only two choices. Reflect that uncertainty or delete the material entirely.  That is Wikipedia policy. If you desire more definitive statements, the burden of proof is on you to supply reliable high quality secondary sources to support those definitive claims. To date, you have supplied none. Boghog (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sniff.Horkh.Ptui." iz a way to appreciate fine art on a handkerchief. How can you attack all of my sources at once!? You are effectively calling about twenty sources frauds, and that probably makes you a liar.75.152.127.203 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources that you added, none of which are WP:MEDRS compliant:
 * – review of in vitro studies and brief mention of preliminary clinical studies
 * – primary source, animal studies
 * – review of animal studies, primary clinical study
 * – primary source, in vitro study
 * – primary source, in vitro study
 * – primary source, in vitro study
 * – primary source, in vitro study
 * – primary source, animal and human study
 * – primary source, animal study
 * The one citation that you did add that was a high quality secondary source stated "Brassicas, against cancer risk, the current epidemiological evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetable consumption may reduce the risk only of gastric and lung cancers. However, there is at present no conclusive evidence that the consumption of cruciferous vegetables attenuates the risk of all other cancers." Boghog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To become an electrician you have to pass a battery of tests. Among sources in this article are reviews other than the sloppy attacks on primary sources that you want to use. A medrs banner hung over material in this article for most of a year.75.152.127.203 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them. --Mitch Hedberg That statment iz unusable, because it iz not falsifiable, which means that it iz not verifiable. If I use unverifiable statments, even if they come from Harvard, Oxford, and Shanghai at the same time, then I pollute wikipedia. I would be writing with the words of a politician, scared of being wrong, and so effectively saying nothing. If there iz contrary evidence, then show it.75.152.119.213 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing secondary sources that systematically review the evidence and conclude that consumption of cruciferous vegetables may reduce cancer incidence and leaving behind other sources that imply that cruciferous vegetables have anticancer properties is misleading and completely unacceptable. Either we include cautious language that cites the systematic reviews or we leave out this material entirely.  Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, this is Wikipedia policy. Boghog (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pollydent: helps hold parrot's false teeth in. The relevant sentence iz meaningless speculation, and it duzn't say that cruciferous vegetables may reduce cancer incidence. It says that cruciferous vejetebles may only reduce stomach and lung cancer. It iz not cautious language. It iz utterly meaningless and unusable speculation, so it duz not belong here. Only facts belong here. Things that may be false are not facts.75.152.127.203 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Our current state of knowledge is limited. This is a fact. You need to accept this.
 * Our current state of knowledge does not allow more definitive statements concerning the health advantages of consuming cruciferous vegetables, particularly with regard to their possible anticancer benefits. Since several high quality sources document that uncertainty and because the subject is notable, it is appropriate to include that uncertainty in a Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Our current state of knowledge does not allow more definitive statements concerning the health advantages of consuming cruciferous vegetables, particularly with regard to their possible anticancer benefits. Since several high quality sources document that uncertainty and because the subject is notable, it is appropriate to include that uncertainty in a Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. --Isaac Asimov If it cannot be shown to be false, then truth in it iz meaningless, so even the statement from {) iz useless. Beyond that, these weasel-worded statements offer uncertainty without reason. If a reviewer wants to kritisize epidemiology, then let him do it. But trying to say that epidemiology iz the only support for the anti-cancer properties of these plants iz a lie.75.152.119.213 (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray iz now a seasoned veteran. That quotation from Mark Twain iz annoying, because he wuz out of hiz field. He wuz not a scientist. He wuz an author uv fiction. He lived in dream worlds. Scientists are versed in mathematics and statistics, which they learn to trust. Twain said something very annoying about statistics. Yes, statistics are abused, corrupted, misunderstood, and therefore maligned. That duz not make all statistics into lies. And, are you not, Boghog, just proving my earlier assertion that you are reading facts in this article with disbelief, because you trust reviewers more than primary sources, according to a guideline that will never be policy? 75.152.119.213 (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS is based on WP:PSTS.  PSTS in turn is Wikipedia policy, and in particular:
 * If there are relevant high quality secondary sources, we should use them in preference to primary sources. That is Wikipedia policy. If you cannot accept this policy, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are relevant high quality secondary sources, we should use them in preference to primary sources. That is Wikipedia policy. If you cannot accept this policy, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * When you see an open mind, you are probably attending an autopsy. That iz what template:medrs says. That iz not what the policy quotation says, nor iz it an acceptable summary of what your quotation says. Even the nutshell disagrees with the template.75.152.119.213 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What I quoted above in the box is Wikipedia policy. That is what WP:PSTS says and not what WP:MEDRS says (although MEDRS says something similar). Please go back and reread it. Boghog (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A hole was found in a nudist camp wall. Police are looking into it. It duz not tell you to delete primary sources if secondary sources are foggy.75.152.119.213 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are using primary sources to support conclusions that are contradicted by secondary sources, that is completely unacceptable. And that is exactly what you are doing by leaving in primary sources that suggest that these vegetables have anticancer properties while taking out secondary source that say the available evidence is inconclusive.  You have exactly two choices: include the secondary sources and state that the evidence is inconclusive or take out the material entirely. You are also grossly misinterpreting WP:V.  All that the verifiability policy requires is that the information contained in Wikipedia articles needs to be verified.  If I state that something is not known with certainty and then support that statement with a reliable secondary source, then I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:V.  Boghog (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The first one to call you a troll is a friend of Hitler. --Diskumbuuberated quotation of Jay Litwyn. Always question everything. --Albert Einstein I am trying to define foggy wording for you, so that you can evaluate secondary sources and prune them for bias. I know that this iz a subversive activity in asking you to think for yourself on wikipedia, and it 'should' be done. Are things that may be false facts?75.152.119.213 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason we use secondary sources is that they tend to be the least biased. Furthermore it is not acceptable to question the reliability of a secondary source in a Wikipedia article unless you have another secondary source that supports that doubt. One should of course maintain a healthy skepticism of any source. However at the end of the day, all material contained in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable sources and it is not acceptable to reinterpret the conclusions of those sources.  Reinterpretation amounts to original research and hence violates a core Wikipedia policy. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep an open mind, and not at both ends. I would apolojize for making a couple of statements more definite, except that would not tell you how important this iz to me. Orijinal research (synthesis, evaluation, analysis, descriptions of material used, exclusion criteria, tanjential questions) iz not a problem on talk pages, unless it makes its way, explicitly, into an article. You really cannot (and probably should not) avoid it. The first time you choose not to use material in an abstract, it may just be because you do not understand it. Eventually, you will exclude material only because the authors' interpretation iz novel. I welcome any kind of thought related to this article. A chinese wall iz between this article and its talk page, though. Everything here gets vetted the same way, so maybe I would stop my welcome at somebody pushing their own article from pub med. Yes, reinterpretation iz orijinal research. I hope you understand that condensing abstracts iz difficult to get right, and doing a good job of reaching people, and using safe assumptions in a condensation... Let's put it this way "no induction" goes out the window until you are done, fitting a context, and effectively saying nothing more than what your sources do, and what iz obvious. Sigh...Nothing iz obvious to some people. In a worst case scenario, I use more than one source for a sentence. Good copyediting (style) makes people understand more. Sometimes, it even scares them. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Little green men may inhabit your cupboards.". They do not, and the quoted statement iz still true. Speculation iz not welcome on wikipedia, because it iz not WP:V verifiable. It iz not verifiable, because it iz not falsifiable. You should refrain from making any jeneral or global statements about cancer prevention from any source, especially if those statements are equivocal.75.152.119.213 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This uncertainty is not speculation, it is fact. If the consensus in the scientific and medical community as documented in the most recent secondary sources is uncertainty, then we must also reflect that uncertainty in this Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Picard, you cheated...I'm impressed! Q Facts and speculation are different things. The best kind of consensus iz unanimity. You do not hav unanimity. Your quotation of policy disallows evaluation of primary sources in articles from us. It duz not disallow evaluation of anything on talk pagez. Maybe it should disallow unreasoned, global or jeneral conclusions about masses of primary sources from others, and stick to numbers. I hav pointed out flaws in these summary rulings from secondary sources. One sentense did not attack enough kinds of evidence, and that sentence iz useless even in saying that "crucifers reduce risk of lung and stomach cancer", because the sentense iz always true, because it contains the word "may". Avoid these words, because they are almost always part of a lie: "All, Ever, Every, Never, and Any". One sentense broke that rule to write a truism (to speak of sentense fragments) regarding "all other cancers" -- nobody gets all other cancers, so how would you even test that? It's not verifiable, right there -- just in making the required study unfeasible. Both sentences contained a boundless escape clause in "may". Both sentences are speculation. Both sentences tell me that the reviewer wuz biased. If you put material on cancer and bowels back in the article, then you should add the caveat banner for speculation. "May or may not" iz a redundancy. Facts and speculation are different things. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not require unanimity. If it did, then it would be almost impossible to obtain consensus on anything. It is acceptable to present significant minority views as long as they are supported by reliable sources along side the majority view.  However it is never acceptable to present only the minority view.  This would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Boghog (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If the world did not suck, we would all fall off. Facts are not a popularity contest. They are independent of Race, Creed, Color, Situation, Circumstance or Environment. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)




 * He did not teL hiz mudher he ayt sum gluu. Hiz lips wer sealed. This article wuz never based entirely on secondary sources, and when someone wrote a long sentence full of jumps and speculative interpretation, I provided a source for it, condensed it, and I made it easy to read and verify.75.152.119.213 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable to supplement secondary sources with primary ones. However it is not acceptable to remove relevant high quality secondary sources leaving behind only primary ones, especially if the primary sources come to or imply a different conclusion.  And again, uncertainty ≠ speculation. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Quantum Mechanics do it on fields and in time. You can leave any sources in. I would comment-out a source first, with a reason, if I couldn't find anything useful in it, and that's a worst-case scenario. I hav no problem with letting people know that wikipedia iz at odds with some secondary sources, when they are interested in reading sources. However, I am probably at odds with WP:CHERRY in saying that some material iz not usable, especially global or jeneral conclusions. (Actually, no I am not. I would not ignore an article that said crucifers induced cancer, for instance. It's just not my style.) So, I might select something else to use in your sources, or I might find a review that iz contrary to another. However, I hav my doubts, because inconclusion asks for more money, and researchers get into the habit of asking for more money, and insecure about whether it will come. 75.152.119.213 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 75, this joking tone is incredibly annoying. Give it a rest, please. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do. Temporarily. Az I've said to Boghog once or thrice, though, if you are frustrated, then maybe you should just say that there iz no deadline, and trust that other people will take care of my fuck-ups.75.152.119.213 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not understand the desire to use primary rather than secondary sources. This is undue weight "is antiproliferative of human prostate cancer cells" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=12665522 Our readers do not care about prostate cancer cells in a petri dish. A couple of research might care but not general readers. What people care about is prostate cancer. That occurs not in dishes but in people. Support the removal of the primary references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Az, Iz, Wuz, Duz, Hiz, and Herz" reflect a disbelief in voyst essez. Removing primary sources iz not policy: It iz part of a template that can disagree with policy. How can you claim to know whether readers care to understand research in glass? 75.152.127.191 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are discussing glass. We are talking about in vitro vs. in vivo studies. Your literal translation is not helpful.
 * I have no idea what you mean by "voyst essez". Whatever it is, you might consider that it impedes communication.
 * Primary sources are indeed generally against policy: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."(Wikapediyo:Verifizit#What be countn 4 reallyable source) Primary sources are/iz generally not third-party. Any health related claims, of course, are/iz subject to WP:MEDRS. While that is a "guideline", it clearly represents WP:CONSENSUS. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone living today who played with a contemporary of J.S. Bach. It's "third-party published.", rather than self-published. The majority of pubmed articles are both primary research and third-party published. I hav not contributed many URLs from self-published work. Boghog noted that most of my support contributions were animal studies. Thoze are hard to argue with. I also hav a bias towards placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies on humans. That bias should be a component of what makes sources credible. It's not. 75.152.127.191 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As a Wikipedia contributor who has cultivated a longtime professional interest in good, transparent reporting of health research, I find the insistent claim that the use of "may" in this sort of context is WP:WEASEL to be quite indefensible. As User:Boghog has patiently explained above it is completely normal to use modal expressions with "may" and "might" to qualify evidence that is only suggestive. I also agree that the "joking tone" (including the deliberate substitutions of the letter 'z' for the letter 's', as in "there iz no deadline" )  is "incredibly annoying" (disruptive?) and is wasting the time and energies of contributors here who are trying to help freely provide high-quality health information to readers of Wikipedia around the world. Surely, it is ethically wrong to use WP:DEADLINE as a justification for willful overinterpetation of the available evidence, especially in fields such as the health sciences. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Facts are not a popularity contest. A policy iz on wikipedia about the neutral point of view If an article stands in the middle between popular opinion and the truth, then it iz a lie, which means that a *biased and buttressed* point of view _can_ be more accurate and functional than a neutral point of view. Facts are not a popularity contest.


 * Trolls are liars and people who do not know what they are talking about. Some of them are contrarians who do not even believe in the truth: They take whatever side you are not on. All anyone haz to do to avoid being a troll or taken in by one iz read the authorities, be familiar with rules of philosophy, and add common sense, which iz actually pretty rare.


 * I've met about two trolls on USENET in the last two years. Neither one thot that they were doing anything wrong, until I managed to expose their game. This veteran of Wikipedia haz a nice list of troll types: User:Durova/Sockpuppets. I could add wikilawyering trolls who are not discussing the merits of research at all, and instead are wasting my time discussing rules of evidence that philosophers did not write. Facts and speculation are different things. Unncertainty is speculation when it duz not specify controversies. Your high quality review iz biased and ignorant of some kinds of primary research. It duz not even measure consensus. Things that may be false are not facts. 75.152.127.191 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

75.152.127.191 (talk)


 * Repeating what I wrote above, the current uncertainty in the scientific and medical communities about the anticancer properties of cruciferous vegetables is not speculation, it is a fact. And that fact is backed up by reliable sources. It has become very clear from the above discussion that there is no consensus to support your interpretation of Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Furthermore your stubborn approach is not winning any converts. Please read WP:LISTEN. Boghog (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)




 * "Brassicas, against cancer risk, the current epidemiological evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetable consumption may reduce the risk only of gastric and lung cancers. However, there is at present no conclusive evidence that the consumption of cruciferous vegetables attenuates the risk of all other cancers." Boghog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Follow your dreams, except that one where you are naked in church. This source iz biased, so I did not use this jeneral and sweeping conclusion from it, because it ignores too many kinds of evidence.75.152.127.191 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying that the National Cancer Center is "biased" does nothing to demonstrate that it is biased. Saying that you believe it ignores "too many kinds of evidence" does not demonstrate that it is not a reliable source. (BTW, it seems that you would want to spell sources "sorsez", conclusion "konklushun" and so on. Please don't, but just be aware that your unique system is inconsistent. Also, I'm not sure if "swaaping" is your individualized spelling of "sweeping", another word entirely or a random typo.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am here, because I am not all there.I do not apply regular spelling to every word. To do so would reduce you to reading every sentence two or three times, rather than accepting that Ingglish voices essez in meny common words and plurals, and yes, "swaaping" wuz a typo. "sources" would be "sohrsez". "conclusion" would be "kunkluuzhun". Evidence that an authority at the National Cancer Center iz biased against primary research iz in the fact that "Furthermore, we found that the isoenzyme induced was GST-pi which plays an important role in protection against breast, bladder, colon and testicular cancer.". More evidence iz in the requirement for the evidence to be conclusive. All evidence iz conclusive, until someone devizez an experiment to contest an interpretation. Further evidence iz in the requirement of the second sentence for Brassicaceae to reduce risk of all other cancers.75.152.127.191 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I think you are saying, I see no indication that the National Cancer Center is "biased" in any sense of the word that I am familiar with. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speculation iz not fact. If it iz not fact, then it iz opinion. If an opinion requires too much of a vegetable, then that opinion iz hard to satisfy. If an opinion discards conclusions from primary sources without good, and specified reasons, then it iz biased against primary sources. The conclusion iz not usable, because wikipedia policy disallows speculation from any source. Sigh. At the prezent time, WP:CRYSTAL contradicts itself on the subject of whether you can source speculation. 75.152.127.191 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * GYPSY MIDGET ESCAPES JAIL: Small Medium at Large. A major objective in the policy, guidelines, and style guide of wikipedia iz avoiding the prezentation of opinion or distorted fact, at all, from any source. If WP:UNDUE gets into issues of view on facts, then writers can be excused, because history iz on wikipedia. It iz more important to omit opinions in Science. Prezent only evidence. Let people form their own conclusions.75.152.127.191 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be of the mistaken impression that Wikipedia exists to present facts. Wikipedia exists to summarize verifiable material: information that comes from a reliable source. As best as I can tell, you think some of the sources are wrong. This is immaterial; we do not evaluate whether or not they are "correct". If the sources are reliable, what they say is verifiable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation. -- St. Augustine Colons begin complete sentences; semicolons for fragments which explain. Boghog's essay link iz more sophisticated than what you are saying, much like a bias toward double-blind studies iz more sophisticated than anything I found in WP:MEDRS.75.152.127.191 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Selectively presenting evidence that is designed to lead to a conclusion that differs from reliable secondary sources is misleading and dishonest. This is precisely the kind of abuse that the Wikipedia WP:PSTS policy was drafted to avoid. You claim the secondary sources are "prezentation of opinion or distorted fact".  Why should we believe you over the Korean National Cancer Center and the U.S. National Cancer Institute? Boghog (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)




 * When you find out how far you can go, you've gone too far. I am not selectively prezenting evidence dezigned to lead to a conclusion that differs from secondary sources. You are not assuming good faith, Boghog. I hav not found contrary evidence that I excluded. I hav not even found weak evidence that I could not explain from experimental design. For example, I saw an experiment in which vegetables were cooked. Evidence on cabbage shows that cooking reduces anti-cancer properties of these plants.75.152.127.191 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not just to present facts, but also to include interpretations of those facts that are supported by reliable secondary sources. In this case, the expert opinion concludes that the available evidence is inconclusive.  Only presenting facts collected from primary sources that leaves the impression that these vegetables have anticancer properties is dishonest and is in direct violation of WP:PSTS, a core Wikipedia policy.
 * Also you still have not answered my question why should we believe you over the Korean National Cancer Center and the U.S. National Cancer Institute? You have only stated that these secondary sources contain "opinion or distorted fact".  You have not presented a shred of evidence that these conclusions are suspect, only your personal opinion. The burden of proof is on you to supply reliable secondary sources that contradict the KNCC and NCI.  So far you have supplied none.
 * Finally I did assume good faith when a patiently tried to explain Wikipedia policy above. Your stubborn refusal to accept consensus and Wikipedia policy demonstrates very clearly that you are not acting in good faith. This discussion has gone on far too long.  Please accept community consensus and move on. Boghog (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am Speedy Gonzales of Borg: Prepare to be accelerated! My emphasis. I am glad that you hav predicted what SummerPhD should be able to deduce from my answer to her. It iz very impressive for someone who should've gon to bed about three hours ago. I am an insomniac at this time of night, too; from Alberta. Your last sentence iz biased against primary sources. WP:PSTS explictly allows them to be used carefully. WP:MEDRS says that wikipedians are not expected to overturn a secondary source with primaries. I am biased in favour of primary sources, because some people like to see details in the evidence, while secondary sources echo conclusions that they agree with. I use secondary sources for direction. Some material in some of them duz not belong in Wikipedia, though.75.152.127.191 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kleptomaniacs should take something for it. I am not asking you to believe me over the KNCC and NCI. I am asking you to believe several other institutions, and to agree that my statements make no claims beyond what their rezults demonstrate. I made no explicit claim about whether the NCI offered an opinion until the time of this post. I hope you agree with my above deduction, because it seemed like you did a few minutes ago. 75.152.127.191 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A cat in heat haz elevated whore moan levels.75.152.127.191 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PSTS allows careful use of primary sources but at the same time, strongly encourages the use of secondary sources in preference to primary sources. The primary publication of other institutions present bits and pieces of evidence that these vegetables may have anti cancer properties and do not provide a global analysis of the evidence. The secondary sources that review the primary sources clearly state the available evidence is inconclusive. Not presenting the conclusions of the secondary sources does a serious disservice to the reader. Boghog (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am biased in favour of primary sources – This is the crux of the problem. Your bias is fundamentally incompatible with the way Wikipedia works. Start a blog, write a scientific manuscript and get it published in a peer reviewed journal, but please stop wasting our time here when both Wikipedia policy (WP:PSTS) and community consensus are strongly against you. We have explained this policy repeatedly. Please WP:LISTEN. Boghog (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Shakespeare of Borg: Prepare to be, or not to be. This iz a moderated version of policy. The one exception it allows iz for justified predictions in the immediate future. I hope you find the background fractal and music entertaining. Confusing a reader does them a disservice. If primary sources form a consensus against secondary sources, then different readers could disagree based upon irrelevant things like loyalty. Knowing better helps you do better.75.152.127.191 (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Confusing a reader does them a disservice." – And that is precisely what you are doing when you give the impression that these vegetables have anticancer properties when the available evidence is inconclusive. Boghog (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Klairol for Klingons, because today is a good day to dye! A template haz misled you into believing that reviewers are always able to form conclusions from their selection criteria, and into taking the action of deleting primary sources if wikipedians showed up a reviewer.75.152.127.191 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:PSTS is a Wikipedia policy and not a template. This policy is sound and is specifically designed to prevent editors from inserting original research.  The consensus of the medical and scientific communities is that the available evidence is inconclusive.  By presenting only the results of primary citations that leave the reader with the impression that cruciferous vegetables have anticancer properties is fraudulent. It is not our job to review the literature. That is the purpose of secondary sources.  Wikipedians cannot act as reviewers. To do so would be a clear violation of another core Wikipedia policy, WP:OR.   Boghog (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Horngren's Observation: (generalized) The real world is a special case. Again you assume something other than good faith. Again you ignore my conclusion that reviewers, especially the one we are talking about, do not measure consensus, nor do they take all available data into account: That is impractical. I will not let you tell me to stop thinking, because of some policy that I am not violating. If you call me a fraud one more time, then I will be entitled to swear at you, so you better read that pillar again, and I do mean pillar, because repeating your insult is WP:INCIVILITY. While you are at it, I recommend this essay, since you want to let skepticism shade the truth:Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.75.152.117.14 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good faith is not a policy but a guideline which I have tried to follow but your stubbornness makes that very difficult. Consensus is a policy. As evident in the above discussion as well as this discussion there is clear community consensus that WP:MEDRS should be respected when making medical claims. By not listening, you are violating a core Wikipedia policy. Boghog (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning, Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves, this was removed from the WP:NPOV policy because "it could be misunderstood and used to exclude from a Wikipeida article opinions properly attributed to reliable sources". That is exactly the situation we have here.  We have an opinion (the evidence is inconclusive) that is properly attributed to a reliable source (The National Cancer Institute).  Thanks for providing a link that supports my point ;-) Boghog (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "And you ignore my conclusion that reviewers, especially the one we are talking about, do not measure consensus." – As I have stated elsewhere, what you and I think at the end of the day is irrelevant. Statements and conclusions in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable sources. The sources I have supplied are reliable.  Your opinion is not.  Also you have not explained why you think the conclusions of these sources is flawed.  Have you even read these sources (both freely available here and here)? Both sources have done a thorough review of the available human data and both have concluded that the data taken as a whole is inconclusive.  Because the results of animals studies frequently cannot be reproduced in humans, the animal data is far less relevant, and should not be used to draw conclusions about what might happen in humans especially when extensive human data is already available.  Why should I give greater weight to the opinion of a anonymous IP over two high quality reliable sources?  These source have done a much more careful job of measuring consensus than you have. Boghog (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "You are effectively calling about twenty sources frauds, and that probably makes you a liar." – 75.152.127.203 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC).  "If you call me a fraud one more time" 75.152.117.14 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC) –  Most of the twenty sources that you attempted to add (primary animal studies with questionable relevance to humans) are not WP:MEDRS compliant.  The two sources (high quality reviews of human studies) that you are trying to suppress  because you don't agree with their conclusions are WP:MEDRS compliant. Who is being more honest?  Boghog (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Restart
I have inserted a Reliable sources for medical articles template at that top of this talk page that provides links to reliable sources that discuss the health implications of cruciferous vegetables. From those links, I have identified two high quality sources that support a connection between consumption of cruciferous vegetables and lower risk of two specific types of cancers (colon and bladder respectively):





This needs to be weighed against other high quality sources that have analyzed the available evidence and have found it inconclusive:




 * That is not an inconclusive result. That is normal. Outside of a prison, you do not hav controls on diet, excercise, drugs, and rest, so studies on humans hav a larger standard deviation. As long as your risk ratio is above one, and p>=.95, you hav a positive result. That is a conclusive result.75.152.117.14 (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The results of clinical trials (even after excluding trials that did not reach statistical significance) frequently contradict each other. Furthermore not all trials are equally reliable (the study design will have a large impact on the reliability of the results). That is why it is so important to rely on high quality secondary sources that review all the available data and weigh the quality of the studies to draw conclusions about the results of clinical trials. The above source is a high quality source. Boghog (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On this topic, robustness and security of design are in conflict regarding fibre.75.152.123.114 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase SummerPhD, I have no idea why you are discussing fiber. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)



I would support adding a carefully worded section that states there is evidence to support cruciferous vegetables decrease the incidence of certain types of cancers (colon and bladder), but the evidence for other types of cancer has been less clear.


 * The quotation is an . If you use it, then it has to be explicitly sourced, and verbatim. I do not recommend using it, because I do not trust it. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The exact same argument could be applied to the animal studies. Shall we replace the entire article with direct quotes?


 * We would not hav to do anything like that if you would accept that speculation is opinion, which is volatile and therefore not encyclopedic. You are showing a bias against primary research, which iz direct evidence.75.152.117.14 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The secondary source is not speculation, rather it contains the opinion of experts who have carefully weighed the evidence. Per WP:PSTS policy "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."  I am following Wikipedia policy.  You are not. Boghog (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The most civil way of making an article based upon secondary sources iz to add support from them, not to water them down with opinions full of the knife from skeptical sources.75.152.123.114 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The only acceptable way of supporting statements in Wikipedia articles is to insist that the article accurately reflects the conclusions of relevant high quality secondary sources. Any reinterpretation of the conclusions of those sources is WP:OR and is absolutely forbidden. Boghog (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you not trust the source? You have not provided a shred of evidence that the source is not reliable. All you have stated is your opinion. I happen to trust this source far more than your opinion. However at the end of the day, what you or I think is completely irrelevant.  What we have is a high quality secondary source and unless you can produce another high quality secondary source that contradicts the first, we must respect the conclusion of this source. Boghog (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You produced another high quality secondary source that "contradicts" this second source. The previous source is conclusive; weak and conclusive. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * False – The NCI review and in agreement with  found limited support for reduced risk of colon cancer.  The  review in agreement with  found limited support for reduced risk of bladder cancer. Please read the reviews before commenting on them.  Boghog (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * False – The NCI review and in agreement with  found limited support for reduced risk of colon cancer.  The  review in agreement with  found limited support for reduced risk of bladder cancer. Please read the reviews before commenting on them.  Boghog (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of cooperation, I will trust your summary. Weak evidence iz still evidence. Much az slow progres iz still progres. By the time evidence gets to a provable design, like a Randomized Controlled Trial, the fibre iz gon, so you noh longger hav a Timed release.75.152.123.114 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, please read the reviews before commenting on them. Boghog (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally the following review article provides one possible explanation for why the cancer link has been so difficult to establish:

In short, not all individuals may benefit because of genetic differences. Boghog (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would call that almost certain. The gene attributed to PTC is only 85% accurate, so I guess that gene is complex, perhaps taking into account your ability to metabolize things like ITC in a beneficial manner. In other words, if Broccoli or cabbage taste sharp to you, then Wasabi is probably not medicine for you. I looked for evidence to support this speculation. The right search has not occurred to me.75.152.117.14 (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Common Rules of Evidence
WP:MEDRS is an appeal to authority that would bias wikipedians against clear evidence. In many cases this would be a bias in favour of skepticism. Also, when a reviewer has too narrow a scope on too many pieces of evidence that do not go together, and that reviwer fails to make a conclusion, it does not mean that available evidence is inconclusive: It was a reviewer who was inconclusive. That does not mean people can overturn an inconclusive result lightly or easily. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The gold standard in experimental evidence is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study on humans. Such studies are expensive, and they are usually not done without evidence from other animals. Also, human behaviour (diet, drugs, rest, exercise) is not under experimental control outside of a prison, which means that animal data will be more consistent, consistent enough to deduce genetic intolerance to a drug or toxin. Many courts accept a three species rule for admission of animal data into a courtroom. Interpretted, that means if a treatment haz been tested on Rodents, Felines, and Canines, then it is admissible avidence. In some cases, dietary fibre for instance, placebo controls are not possible. I can think of no substitute for fibre that is not another kind of fibre. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to compliment you on the more serious tone that you were taking. You completely destroyed that in your last three edits.  It is hard to take your arguments seriously when you are inserting all sorts of irrelevant material.  Your excessive attempts at humor are annoying to me and a number of other editors.  Please Stop


 * Readers outnumber writers by a factor of approximately one hundred to one. That means about one hundred and ninety-eight people who are not complaining about my wikilawyering.75.152.117.14 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don’t mistake silence for agreement. Boghog (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to each of the issues that you have raised:
 * An appeal to authority contains a logical fallacy. Where the logical fallacy in WP:MEDRS? Furthermore how does MEDRS bias Wikipedians against clear evidence?   One of purposes of MEDRS is to discourage editors (and readers) from drawing unwarranted conclusions from animal studies. Proving X cures cancer in rats does not necessary mean that X cures cancer in humans (see below).


 * That iz why investigators study things in glass, why my rules encourage studying more than one species, and why my rules recommend high quality evidence, like RCTs on prisoners (where you do hav control over diet, excercise, rest, and drugs, unless the guards are bent). The lojikal fallacy in WP:MEDRS iz that facts are not a popularity contest. The same iz true of WP:UNDUE.75.152.123.114 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Investigators study things in vitro because it easier. Investigators study things in vivo because in vitro studies may be over simplifications and may mislead.  Investigators study things in humans because effects in animals do not always translate into humans.  By far the most relevant studies when making human health claims are human studies.  If human clinical results are available that have been reviewed by reliable secondary sources, then we have an ethical obligation to include those interpretations within the article.
 * Wikipedia is more than a collection of facts. Conclusions based on those facts must also be included. Per WP:RAWDATA, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.  This is Wikipedia policy. Per WP:PSTS policy, conclusions in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable secondary sources. And finally WP:UNDUE is also Wikipedia policy. Neither WP:PSTS or WP:UNDUE is a popularity contest. Quite to the contrary, these policies are designed to prevent popularity contests among Wikipedia editors from dictating Wikipedia content.  It is important that Wikipedia content and especially the interpretation of that content be support by secondary sources independent of the article contributors.
 * Concerning Wikipedia article content, what is relevant is Wikipedia policy, not your rules. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia articles, then your contributions must conform to Wikipedia policy.  If your contributions deviate from that policy, they will be deleted.  On this point, there is nothing more to discuss.  Boghog (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The results of animals studies frequently cannot be reproduced in humans. That is why regulatory authorities require human clinical studies to demonstrate efficacy and safety before approving a new drug. The relevant MEDRS section concerning animal studies is here. It is very relevant to this discussion.  Please read it.


 * I mentioned both animal and human studies. I compared the advantages of both. My notes are more useful than that medical editorial, in evaluating the quality of both.75.152.123.114 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement above proves that you have not read the secondary sources. The review articles also review the animals results. Boghog (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The reviewers were not at all inconclusive. They have thoroughly reviewed all the evidence. (fact: PubMed has characterized both articles as reviews) Based on that evidence they have come to the very clear conclusion that the available data taken as a whole is inconclusive (fact: obvious from reading the reviews themselves). Furthermore the results of individual clinical trials frequently contradict each other.(fact:,  ) That is why it is critical to rely on high quality secondary sources to make conclusions about the results of clinical trials.


 * If you had read more than twenty pieces of primary research abstracts on your own in this field, then you would understand that rezults in this field are very robust, so no cause for explaining conflicts on this topic should be. PubMed does not require reviews to consider all evidence or make judgements on appropriate weight. That falls under the peer review process of each journal. Medical Hypotheses75.152.123.114 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you had read the secondary sources, you would quickly realize that the human studies have produced conflicting results. Furthermore the human results are far more relevant than the animal studies in making conclusions on what may happen in humans. Both primary and secondary sources undergo peer review. By taking into account all the evidence, the secondary sources are much more appropriate for making broad conclusions.  Boghog (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "They have thoroughly reviewed all evidence." BULLSHIT! "Furthermore the results of individual clinical trials frequently contradict each other." LIAR. You do not know what you are talking about. 75.152.117.14 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You have presented zero evidence that you have actually read the reviews. Furthermore you have not explained why the reviews are deficient. You have only expressed your opinion and your opinion is not a reliable source.


 * You hav been beating me over the head with policy and guidelines, elevating them to philosophy on integrity, then using them to attack mine. Please concern yourself with the integrity of reviewers and their evidence. Please do not drag me into repeating my attack on a reviewer's glasnost. If Boghog doesn't believe me, that's fine. This point haz been asked and answered. 75.152.123.114 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already partially addressed these issues above. Please read it.
 * I have been beating you over the head with policy and guidelines because of your failure to listen. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must follow these policies. If you start listening, there will be no longer a need to quote policy.
 * You are questioning the integrity of the authors of secondary sources. At the same time, you object when you think your integrity is being questioned.  That is hypocrisy.
 * Finally you have not answered the question.  How can you question the conclusions of the secondary sources when it is quite clear that you have not even read these sources?  Therefore I will keep repeating the same question until I get a clear answer.  Again, why are the reviews deficient?  Please answer the question. Boghog (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Conflicting results in clinical trials are unfortunately very common:
 * I know what I am talking about. Do you? Boghog (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what I am talking about. Do you? Boghog (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what I am talking about. Do you? Boghog (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We are talking about robust treatments that can nearly quadruple the speed of recovery. Those claims against the jeneral reliability of clinical trials do not apply here. I will not believe you until you find contradictory rezults regarding crucifera or its content.75.152.123.114 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Conflicting results from human clinical trials are frequently observed. That fact is very relevant to this discussion. If you had bothered to read the content of the two secondary sources (both freely available here and here), it will have been clear to you that the human results concerning crucifera have been contradictory. Please read these sources before making any further comment.  Their analysis is complete while yours has been superficial. Boghog (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rules of evidence – the opinion of plaintiff 75 concerning the secondary sources in question represents hearsay testimony and therefore is inadmissible in the Wikipedia court of law.  The sources themselves represent expert witnesses whose testimony is admissible.  Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant WP:MEDRS. Furthermore the case brought before this court by plaintiff 75 is dismissed with prejudice. ;-)
 * Boghog (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page abuse
Per WP:TALK: A large number of off topic quotations were added to this talk page. Worse yet, they were highlighted with annoying colored text and backgrounds. The net result is that discussion is more difficult to read. This is not being respectful to other Wikipedia editors. Per WP:TALK, I have removed the off topic material. Please do not attempt to re-added this material. If it is re-added, I will delete it. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.   Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.