Talk:Dewayne "Lee" Johnson

WP:DUE
, I'm struggling to see how the information you added is WP:DUE for this article. This article is a BLP and doesn't make any BMI claims requiring MEDRS. Furthermore, with Johnson being a groundsman, his exposure to these chemicals would have been significantly higher than the subjects of the studies you cite. Do any of them mention Johnson? LondonIP (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Like the glyphosate articles themselves, if we're going to mention carcinogenicity claims, we have to have the scientific viewpoint that it's generally not considered such. That said, it might be moot considering this looks like a WP:1E BLP. KoA (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the cancer risks of glyphosate are WP:DUE here. I also don't think this this BLP is a WP:1E as his case has reportedly set a significant legal precedent, even after the settlement. I will add some of these newer sources. LondonIP (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The first part would violate WP:DUE. You can't exclude the scientific context, otherwise this is now a WP:POVFORK. As for the rest, that was WP:OR. It's still about the case, which we cover in DUE fashion in multiple articles for this very content that isn't focused on the BLP themselves. KoA (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE tells us that any mention of a fringe viewpoint must be accompanied by the mainstream view. That is what's been done here by KoA, and it is entirely appropriate. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said in the AfD, I don't see how WP:FRINGE is at all relevant here, as this individual had significant exposure to this Glyphosate-based herbicide, and the UK Cancer Research source you added clearly distinguishes risk by light and heavy exposure. This section is definitely WP:DUE for the Roundup and Glyphosate-based herbicides articles, but not in this BLP. LondonIP (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not add any citations whatsoever. I converted your URL citations (WHICH SHOULD NOT BE USED) to template citations. This is a task you should be doing, I just did it because it needed to be done. I take no stance on whether that source is useful for this article or applicable to that statement. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment was directed at KoA. LondonIP (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My response would still be the same as Shibbolethink's except that the cherry-picking needs to stop. WP:OR is policy, and Wikipedia isn't a forum to try to misrepresent the scientific viewpoint or insinuate your personal claims about Johnson. KoA (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)