Talk:Environmental Working Group/Archive 2

"Funding by organic industry" source?
I have not been able to confirm this statement in reliable sources hence I removed it. @KoA since you reintroduced it, what source did you use? Thanks &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth: EWG denies it. Is EWG funded by the organic industry? EWG is an independent nonprofit organization largely funded by individual donations and grants from charitable foundations. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What it's always been sourced to, and a source you had previously removed and then later said you couldn't find it in any sources. We've discussed that source on this page already too.
 * You can also go right to their funding page directly where they admit being funded by organic groups to promote other fringe activities like GMO labeling, denying the scientific consensus, etc. Often groups like this will use corporate-speak to make it seem like they don't or haven't taken funding from those industries while they still do. If there are more sources you'd like to add about their ties to the organic industry, it would be great to discuss them here first, especially since I already cautioned you about expectations not to edit war here and to get consensus for new edits like this. KoA (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That source is not reliable per WP:FORBESCON. Do you have any other source that supports this claim? Basing it on any assessment made by us of their funding page would be WP:OR. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those and other sourcing issues have also been reintroduced into the article with your last mass revert. I provided very clear and concise edit summaries to every change I made to that section. What problem do you see with those edits? Why did you revert all of it? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FORBESCON basically says to treat it like a self-published source (WP:SPS)... .which means it can be considered reliable if it's by a subject matter expert and not about living persons. Previous discussion on this has held that Kavin Senapathy is indeed a subject matter expert. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have a link to those discussions? I see Talk:Environmental Working Group where only 1 editor supported this assessment. Is she the ONLY source for this claim? It is a quite grave accusation and I don't think we should accept such weak sourcing per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If no other reliable, independent source confirms this it must be removed. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at Talk:Environmental_Working_Group, you'll find a couple other editors supporting that evaluation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see very solid support for Senapathy's credentials but let's ignore that issue for a moment. Why is she the ONLY source for this claim? She states Largely funded by organic industry sponsors like Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farms. That's a very specific and precise claim but she provides no proof at all and EWG's financial disclosure are radically different. They claim that 47% of donations are from individuals and the rest from non-lobbying foundations, events, etc. . Surely, given the vast coverage and criticism of EWG some source would have covered this major issue with their disclosures (which would have to be entirely fabricated and false). This is a huge WP:REDFLAG:
 * Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; CHECK
 * Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; CHECK
 * We have a problem here. Either this content is backed by other reliable sources or it should definitely go. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Senapathy is generally considered a viable topic matter expert, especially in terms of WP:PARITY when we follow talk page discussion. As for funding, why are you trying to source things to EWG of all things? Self-sourcing to an advocacy/corporate group is really only for extremely uncontroversial things like where they are headquartered, etc. They are not going to be WP:DUE in regular topics for much else, and generally not even reliable when we're in WP:FRINGE territory. KoA (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we need to use them as a source at all. I'm saying that it is a Surprising or apparently important claim that would require massively fraudulent disclosures by a 13M$ organisation with a lot of enemies. Someone would have noticed and multiple mainstream sources should have covered it. The fact that nobody has except a small blogger 10 years ago in a self published article (and one that has even recently admitted to being manipulated by the agricultural industry lobby in the past I Was Lured Into Monsanto’s GMO Crusade ) is an obvious reason for being skeptical of this claim. At the very least we should give it extremely limited WP:DUE weight and specify who made the claim clearly and when. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You concerns have already been addressed in terms of policy and guideline. Please slow down and reread the conversation. As for Senapathy, it's no secret that Monsanto had horrible PR on the subject that she discusses even among independent scientists that are pro-GMO. That's very different than her being unreliable, and I've cautioned you about pushing ideas/person opinion not in sources. KoA (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed anything. This claim remains clearly problematic per WP:REDFLAG. So unless those issues are addressed (by finding another source) that text needs to go as it an unverified claim. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Try reading the relevant sources and this talk page again as we're getting into WP:IDHT territory, and I've been pretty patient with you in that regard. If you want to provide more sources on the EWG's relationship with the organic industry, especially when you look at board of directors, interactions with organic industry, etc. you are free to do that, but we have plenty of sources already for that type of statement. If you want to get into how many of those boards are intermingled with organic industry reps (especially Hirshberg), that may be worth mentioning, but I passed it off as unneeded at the time. We're well past the point of claiming it's unverified though. KoA (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is WP:OR. We need a source or this statement cannot be included in the article. I will start by tagging the statement with "better source needed". &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto, we've already had conversations about misunderstanding OR policy. We already have sourcing for the existing content (the single sentence alone has four sources). The remainder of my comment above was that the burden is on you to find more sources if you want to flesh out the content beyond what already exists.

PFAS: Unexplained revert
@KoA could you please explain this revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_Working_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1166018519 due to "Undo slow edit warring and due to misleading edit summary". What exactly is misleading? Seems pretty clear to me: Reintroduce edited PFAS paragraph: sources are MEDRS, correct study year (2020), remove final sentence. Study is one of the most cited on the subject according to google scholar. Scientific American published an article on that study specifically. It is notable.. The study in question is published on a peer reviewed journal and according to Google scholar is the most relevant for the query "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Drinking Water United States" and has been cited by 112 other studies. When it was published Scientific American published an article on it. Those sources are included in the proposed edit. So what is the issue here? &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto, first please knock off the tone with the talk section titles as I already explained this the last time you tried this.
 * You claimed you had WP:MEDRS sources when you did not even after so much previous guidance when you last tried to insert this type of content. This source is not only primary, but it was written by the EWG. It's not what we reach for in terms of medical content. If MEDRS sources do significantly discuss that primary source, what the sources say can be considered instead of this text you've been trying to find a source for. Like the section below though, passing mention about the group even if the study gets some attention in MEDRS sources doesn't mean we're going to include this content as is either. We instead let the sources lead us. KoA (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS only applies to WP:Biomedical information. What specific biomedical information do you believe is not sourced correctly in that paragraph? The paragraph is about EWG which is an organisation not biomedical material. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think trying to claim biomedical information isn't biomedical information is going to go very far here. If a paper related to health effects is WP:DUE, it will be summarized by MEDRS sources. When it is not or only has passing mention, it generally does not warrant mention on Wikipedia. KoA (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. You are claiming a WP:MEDRS source is missing. Fine I'll add one or remove the claim. But I can't if you don't specify for which claim in the edit the sourcing insufficient. Please answer or once again I must point out WP:STONEWALLING. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your question was already answered at the top of this section. If the primary study is covered significantly by MEDRS sources, those sources will inform us if the study was important for certain topics and if the topic of this article is one of them. No such sources have been included yet. It's been over a month since your original edit, so if you do have such sources, bring them to this talk page so others can figure out what content should be crafted. KoA (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to move this forward. The proposed edit is 3 sentences in total:
 * In 2020, EWG published a peer reviewed study which found widespread exposure of the U.S. population to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through tap water.
 * In 2023, the EPA proposed the first nationwide limits for PFASs in the U.S. water supply.
 * The EPA expects the rule to potentially "prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses."
 * Since the last 2 are covered by an FDA source (definitely WP:MEDRS) I'm assuming you are referring to the first sentence? The fact EWG published a study and that it was in 2020 and that it was about PFAS is not biomedical information and is solidly sourced. If what you are contesting is the found widespread exposure part we can substitute it with In 2020, EWG published a peer reviewed study which claimed widespread exposure of the U.S. population to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through tap water.. If instead you just wish to add a MEDRS source to support that claim we can use something like this review: Surface water and groundwater are the primary sources of drinking water in North America, and PFAS are frequently detected in these water resources. A comprehensive study investigating the occurrence of 17 PFAS in source water and treated drinking water from 25 drinking water treatment plants across the United States (24 states) reported that PFAS were present in all drinking water samples.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As you're aware from previous discussion, none of that includes any MEDRS sources where needed. In bullet 1, Scientific American is WP:MEDPOP only. Good for background if you have MEDRS sources, but not for our purposes here. For the other two bullets, those aren't directly related to the article subject and go back to the SYNTH issues myself and others have been having repeatedly address. If bullet 1's primary source actually did have some MEDRS coverage, we likely wouldn't even be mentioning the EWG itself (just study found X) when it comes to relevant scientific content in other articles, so that's why there's such a high bar to overcome to show that this one study is worth of such specific mention and background at this page.
 * Normally we don't go into every study an organization commissions at their article, and that goes back to previous concerns about stretching to include things or filling in the blanks. If MEDRS sources have something to say about the study, then we can bring quotes from those sources here to figure out content and if it belongs here. KoA (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of this WP:FILIBUSTERing lets start from the basics here: we agree that the fact that EWG has been pushing for PFAS regulation should be included in this article right? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)