User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2019/August

edit
Hello. Would you please tell me what is wrong I did in editing Brian Krzanich? I checked the page again and all what I did is formatting a reference.Harley.M.X (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit in read mode, it somehow totally broke the formatting of the page and I'm unsure what you broke and how to fix it, so I just reverted the whole thing. I have no opinions about the content, but the formatting had fatal flaws. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that now. Thanks.Harley.M.X (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

CSPI and Type 1 Diabetes
The claim is that CSPI believes there is a link between sugary foods and type 1 diabetes. Two communications directly from CSPI support that claim (there are probably more if I look enough). My editing is based on the direct words of CSPI and CSPI staff themselves:

1. The first is a tweet of an ad campaign from Food Fit Philly. The misinformation in the campaign has been countered by many health care officials and type 1 diabetes advocates (see original news articles). 2. The second is from a senior policy associate at CSPI. Here is the direct quote:

“Snack cakes may be convenient but that convenience comes at a cost. Cinnamon rolls, doughnuts, cookies and other baked goods are a top source of sugars, flour and saturated fat. These are empty calories that fuel disease,” said Joelle Johnson, senior policy associate for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

This quote is, obviously, false. It's established science there is absolutely no link between "empty calories" and type 1 diabetes. You can consult any basic, introductory medical textbook, but here's a brief description: https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/types-of-diabetes-mellitus#1

So, I fail to see how the edits are "disruptive" when they are based on CSPI's stated position on the matter and it's own words. Additionally, the claim that "the sources in question do not support the claims made" is false. The sources are CSPI's words themselves. Literally. I don't understand the logic of how an organization's own stated position can't be gleaned from it's own words - please explain this to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlsmith1994 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the sources support your claim. The first source says nothing about the different types of diabetes. While it may seem frustrating that the author of that source failed to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, our job on Wikipedia is not to fix perceived omissions in sources, nor is it to demand an "apology or retraction" for those perceived issues. Neither of your other cited sources mention the CSPI in any way. That is a textbook example of prohibited synthesis. If we have an article on "Food Fit Philly" or its sponsor, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, some discussion of the material in question may be relevant there. But it's not relevant to the CSPI, because the reliable sources do not link it to, or discuss, the CSPI in relation to the apparent controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand how the argument of prohibited synthesis works the first source (the retweet). I am not convinced, however, in regard to the 2nd source. This source directly mentions CSPI in relation to Food Fit Philly's campaign - https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/07/17/philadelphia-health-department-debuts-campaign-on-dangers-of-children-eating-sugary-snacks-obesity-diabetes/. Here is the quote: “Snack cakes may be convenient but that convenience comes at a cost. Cinnamon rolls, doughnuts, cookies and other baked goods are a top source of sugars, flour and saturated fat. These are empty calories that fuel disease,” said Joelle Johnson, senior policy associate for the Center for Science in the Public Interest." Another source (assuming it's reliable) states CSPI and Food Fit Philly were partners in the campaign - https://www.phillyvoice.com/obesity-philadelphia-kids-public-health-diabetes-ad-campaign-sugary-foods/. Here, the prohibited synthesis test doesn't work because 1) it's reliabily sourced by a reputable news entity (channel 3 Philadelphia), 2) the individual making the comment is a senior policy associate and is clearly speaking for CSPI, not as an individual, and 3) the source states a causal relationship between diet and diabetes, which is false (hence the inclusion in the opposition section of CSPI's site).

Since CSPI has made an official statement to the press (as cited) and were direct partners in the production of the campaign (as cited), I think it passes the "explicit statement" by the source test of probited synthesis (unless the source is wrong about CSPI's direct role in the campaign). As a compromise, I can make the comment without manipuation or comment, something like the following. (I preferenced with a quote from Dr. Farley to clarify the disease the CSPI policy associate is referencing is diabetes, which I would think any reasonable person would infer from the source):

"In a news article titled "Philadelphia Health Department Debuts Campaign On Dangers Of Children Eating Sugary Snacks, Philadelphia Health Commissioner Dr. Tom Farley stated “We can’t let diabetes overtake the next generation." In the same article/source, a senior policy associate for the CSPI stated, 'Cinnamon rolls, doughnuts, cookies and other baked goods are a top source of sugars, flour and saturated fat. These are empty calories that fuel disease.' CSPI and Food Fit Philly were partners in the campaign.
 * You're missing the point. None of the sources you have cited which are critical of the campaign in any way mention CSPI. At all. Anywhere. So you can't use them to criticize the CSPI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Just a heads up if you want to take part, discussing Oath Keepers via dispute resolution, link here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Barwick (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)