Talk:Codex Alimentarius

message: The Ron Paul comments are WP:UNDUE. Or, more broadly, the random comments of any given politician about the Codex are WP:UNDUE. Paul is not a recognized authority on the subject, he is not directly involved in major legislation related to it, and thus his opinion simply isn't important.  As such, it violates WP:NPOV to include the comments here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting argument, as this clearly runs contrary to the approach on other WP alt-med related articles. To take but one example, in the Alternative Medicine article, we find the anti-alt med opinions of an Australian comedian, Tim Minchin, being quoted. Many people have tried to remove these comments, quoting essentially the same grounds as yourself, but without success. I'd therefore be interested in your thoughts on this. Vitaminman (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read Vitaminman's comment. I thought it was inappropriate for the opinions of comedian Tim Minchin, who is not a recognized authority on anything remotely relevant to medicine (neither alternative, complementary, integrative nor orthodox traditional) to be quoted in the Alternative Medicine article. I confirmed that there is no such citation in the Alternative Medicine article at the present time, nor does the article link to any page associated with Mr. Minchin. The article on Mr. Minchin quotes a single statement he made, acknowledging the possible effectiveness of reiku therapy, but nothing else specifically pertaining to medicine that I could find (I emphasize that that was on Mr. Minchin's own biographical article, NOT on the Alternative Medicine article). --FeralOink (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, but bear in mind that my comment was made back in March. At that time, the Alternative Medicine article did contain the Minchin quote:  Fortunately, and sensibly, it has now been removed. Vitaminman (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul comments 

message: I have added a new section Vocal concern to Codex Alimentarius and opposition to the article. This contains people in vocal opposition to Codex Alimentarius. Now I have no doubt in my mind that there is an angenda here to censor certain information that relate to certain issues. Having been here for a short time I have had 2 articles deleted. In my opinion, the second one was deliberately and strategically vandalised in a way to make it seem worthless in the eyes of others. Perhaps some people who normally would rescue and improve such an article wouldn't when it was made such a mess. 
Now I've addeed this section here with the nammes of people that some here may find controversial. I know that some here would do anything to censor this info. Wikipedia should not be censored and if it continues I will take the matter further. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed your extreme fringe edit. Per WP:BRD please now tell us why you think it should go into the article, Many editors have told you why not already. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: QUOTE Roxy the dog: I have removed your extreme fringe edit. Per WP:BRD  Reply -  It is not an extreme fringe edit! Total and utter rubbish in what you say! Are you saying that the Hindu and Financial times are fringe media ???? - Please read the following ...... THIS IS WHAT I EDITED IN: Dr. Rima Laibow has been described by The Hindu newspaper as prominent personality in the anti-Codex alimentarius movement. The newspaper reported that she was to arrive in Mangalore on the 9th of July 2006 to address a select group and then meet President A.P.J. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Renowned doctor, B.M. Hegde said that she was invited by a member of the "Whole persons healing" organisation and that Laibow was heading the anti-Codex Alimentarius movement. The Hindu July 5, 2006 Rima Laibow to deliver lecture in Mangalore also in Financial Times Ltd., 2006 July 5 Rima Laibow to deliver lecture in Mangalore Quote Roxy the dog::  please now tell us why you think it should go into the articleReply: Easy and simple, the edit I did belongs in the article because it shows that there is opposition to Codex Alimentarius and the fact that Rima Laibow went to India and met with the President of India!! Leaving this out is like leaving out some of Kenny Rogers history juet because someone doesn't want others to read it. Quote Roxy the dog:: Many editors have told you why not already Reply - Many editors ???? Besides LuckyLouie there's only yourself and DougWeller. The latter is behaving like a censor and both of you have deliberately vandalised the article to censor certain info. One could be forgiven for thinking that there may be more to these actions.
(Boss Reality (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text:  Could you clarify what you mean by "take the matter further"? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do. I see you have also ignored my question, and edit warred your point of view into the article. Honestly, you'll get nowhere this way. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to Roxy the dog, Quote:, I see you have also ignored my questionReply:' I haven't ignored your question. I've answered it already. And when you posted on 12 July 2014 , I had other things to do. If you believe that people don't have a life outside of Wikipedia then you'd be in just as much in a fantasy as someone who thinks censoring certain articles is going society a favor. Actually someone who is censoring articles and deliberately blocking info may be doing themselves a favor in the short term but in the long term the benefits don't pay off.Quote:edit warred your point of view into the articleReply: I haven't edit warred anything in here. All I have done was add a credibile and useful edit into the article about the stance against Codex Alimentarius that already exists. To deny this, censor and valdalise this is like having an article about Anti-Apartheid or the Anti-Apartheid Movement movment deleted and censored from Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd like to do that. I know that there are some special interest groups that would thank you for that just as there are some now that would be pleased with your efforts so far!(Boss Reality (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text:  Reply to Dougweller, Exactly that. If you continue the destructive vandalism and deliberate censoring info you don't want here. I'm talking of the edits of myself and others. If you continue this then the matter will be taken further. My advice is for you to discontinue this. For starters you're being reported! (Boss Reality (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: This is a bit silly. You haven't reported anyone and no one is vandalising. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to Dougweller post on 12:56, 15 July 2014, No not silly at all my friend. Real and true! And who said I am the one that will be doing the reporting. ..... Big sigh ..... Like I said, The matter will be taken or is being taken further. And about the vandalising, well it depends on who's doing it and how they view it in their minds. From what I can see, you deliberately damaged the Rima Laibow article in various ways to make a complete mess of it. You have done and have continued to censor information. Sometimes it seems that were doing a rehearsal for a stage play of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. It's sad that Wikipedia is spoilt by this behavior. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BossR. Why have you censored part of one of my comments on this topic? Please explain yourself. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Reply to Roxy the dog, I'm not sure what you're trying to say young friend. Please, if I've forgotten to reply to part of something that you said then my good friend, please let me know. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship and vandalism 

message: As it stands now, the critics have been smothered and their claims (which I don't understand) have been smothered. If there is a Controversy section, other editors should respect the right of the critics to speak their minds, however wrong they are.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that anyone who follows Wikipedia guidelines finds their place here. This happens when people summarize information from a reliable source. Summarizing published criticism is encouraged here. Writing original criticism or using Wikipedia to publish new interpretations is not.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that the Controversy section is incoherent. It would be better to delete it entirely.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy