Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest

message: Someone should add something regarding CSPI's corruption in its actions involving in the Quorn controversy (see corresponding wiki entry).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.133.193 (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah they have really got it in for Quorn. This needs to be mentioned. 82.113.148.68 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Quorn article is a mess and I wouldn't use it as a model for anything.  As best as I can find it, CSPI objects to the misleading claim that Quorn is made from mushrooms, and has raised concerns over a small but unknown/under-researched part of the population being allergic to the product.  I couldn't find any sourcing that this one stands out among the group's many food safety campaigns, and in a quick search I didn't see any significant claims of misconduct on the part of CSPI.  Like many industries accused of deceptive marketing or promoting unsafe products, this one accused the accusers, but that's not particularly noteworthy.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quorn

message: This is a slick piece; promotional throughout. Even the "criticism" section has been edited to make it sound as if only corporate evildoers oppose, for example, CSPI's lawsuits. This needs some work to balance. Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any specific edits you wish to call out on account of promotional or POV editing here?  Do you have any specific content suggestions for the article, or qualms about the sourcing or balance of any of the current content?  Is there noteworthy criticism or controversy coming from other than the corporate opponents of the organization?  Is any of that criticism not covered accurately or fairly?  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I have edits, I'll make them, but there is indeed noteworthy criticism of this group—a group that rejected early studies about trans-fat because it bumped into their crusades over saturated fat and coconut oil, neither of which are nearly as bad as trans-fat. Oh, and dishonest attacks against quorn, mentioned above. They've also been criticized from the left for attacking stevia, for example. Cool Hand Luke 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - to my knowledge we haven't seen any reliable sources proposed that show legitimate criticism of the group as being of due weight.  The defensive swipes at them from affected industries and the astroturf industry group are dubious as it is, as far as being of any weight.  Per WP:CRIT there would also have to be some reason to organize it as criticism, rather than working it into the discussion of their various initiatives.  The way it's written for the industry groups and CCF there is, but it's not obvious that's the best organization.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just linked one: a series of articles on their attacks on quorn. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I've attempted to counterbalance this some by adding a reference to current studies suggesting higher-fat dairy products are neutral or beneficial to cardiovascular health, noting that the science is as of 2018.  That section opens by mentioning the campaign was a 1990s campaign, which is important:  editing in that the science says they're wrong without the temporal information would directly accuse the group of ignoring science.  Leaving the article without mention of current scientific understanding gives the reader the impression that these positions are scientific fact (it is called the Center for **Science** in the Public Interest).  Higher-quality meta-reviews are favorable here:  individual studies can have conflicting results, and a review of the landscape helps avoid cherry-picking. John Moser (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance issue

message: Talking about the 3600 characters that 98.230.108.226 has been trying to add to the Criticisms section: 
# I agree with Wikidemon that, as written, the changes were not usable for a number of reasons: copyvio, tone, POV, WP:UNDUE, etc.
# That said, the new sources identified by 98.230.108.226 were very good-- a big expansion on one WSJ source we had linking CSPI to the creation of the trans fat problem in the first place.  
# Consequently, I've added some much more explicit language about CSPI's causal role in the problem, using the two new sources. 
# 98.230.108.226: I wasn't able to use your Mary Enig quote since it wasn't sourced; however, if you will bring me a source on that one, I will add her quote as well. 
Cheers,
--Rnickel (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort.  I wanted to avoid a copyvio but I didn't have the energy to get past that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulling out the good from 98.230.108.226's changes 

message: I removed the mention of the movie "Fat Head" for several main reasons:
# The item was unreferenced, and doing a search myself, I couldn't find any WP:RS sources that saw fit to mention Jacobson in the context of their coverage of the movie. (There were only a handful that even covered the movie at all, and they all focused on its criticism of Morgan Spurlock and Supersize Me.)
# This criticism section is already pushing the limits of WP:UNDUE. There it states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Nearly half of the article's prose text is already devoted to the criticism section; yet it is nowhere near the case that half of all mentions of CSPI in reliable sources are critical of the  organization. 
# The section's purpose is to fairly offer a representative cross-section of main points made by the organization's critics; it is not an indiscriminate list of every possible negative thing said about CSPI by anybody ever. At this point, it is hard to make the value proposition for any more "piling on" of "so and so also said something bad about them", unless it contributes something truly new. By these lights, the mention of "Fat Head" did not really add anything to the article. 
# Per WP:CRIT, even having a separate section within the article dedicated only to criticisms is really non-ideal. This seems clearly to me to be a case where a topic-by-topic approach would serve the reader better. Given that, to me, the next step for this criticism section would be to break it up and assimilate its content into the rest of the article... another reason why further expansion of the section at this point seems to me to be contra-indicated. 
--Rnickel (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference to the movie "Fat Head" 

message: I've removed the following content just added by an IP editor, and restored a brief section that was removed in the process. Although well written and seemingly accurate, this is completely unsourced - it needs reliable third party sources for verification purposes. As such, it will hurt the article progress and become something of a dead end unless we use adequate citations. I might try some pieces of this myself, but I can use some help. Another comment, the tone is slightly laudatory. Not so much as to be WP:ADVERT or PR-speak, just a little shy of the neutral authoritative voice of an encyclopedia. Finally, anytime we get a big chunk of text from an unknown editor, best to check for WP:COPYVIO. I spot checked and google didn't recognize it, but probably bears a few more checks. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content moved from main page pending sourcing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Center for Science in the Public Interest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530014421/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca:80/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tf-ge/tf-gt_app9iii_e.html to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tf-ge/tf-gt_app9iii_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Center for Science in the Public Interest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080918052026/http://www.fda.gov:80/fdac/features/1997/497_menu.html to http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/497_menu.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Center for Science in the Public Interest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/497_menu.html
*Added  tag to http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406357
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002085112/http://www.cspinet.org/nutrition/schoolkit.html to http://www.cspinet.org/nutrition/schoolkit.html
*Added  tag to http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406357
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531033114/http://www.cspinet.org:80/integrity/conflictedscience_conf.html to http://cspinet.org/integrity/conflictedscience_conf.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified