Talk:Environmental Working Group

Sunscreens: unexplained revert

@KoA another unexplained revert [1] claiming This was basically just repeating the same edits as the last time this was disputed..

• What "other time"?
• What is your issue with that edit?

Try to be more specific in you edit summaries if possible WP:EDITSUMCITE. Especially when reverting WP:REVEXP. It is quite a waste of time to have to ask for clarification every time. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for KoA, I can tell you that it looks like a wise revert. The statement and its source say nothing about the topic of this article, the Environmental Working Group. As such, it is not relevant to this article. If you're trying to use it to make some suggestion that EWG was right about something, that's WP:SYNTH. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler many sources link the two when commenting the FDA rule. A few examples:

- Chemical & Engineering News: [2]

- CNN: [3]

- CBS: [4]

- InsideHealthPolicy.com's FDA Week [5] Paywalled but here is the google snippet: Specifically, the two ingredients FDA deemed GRASE are the two EWG has ...

This connection is widely made by sources and is crucial context for readers who would otherwise completely misread that paragraph. We can add some of those sources if necessary or edit the copy to make it less "Synthy". What do you think? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am having too much of a busy morning to delve into those sources, but if they link EWG to the rule, they are better than what you had, but you have to not fill in the blanks above what is said. I will also note that the source you were using didn't fully support the claim that you made; the claim was that only the two substances were to be seen as GRASE, when the text merely said that the two substances were to be seen as GRASE, note the absence of "only". There is a big dfference between a rule that says that a cat may look at a king and one that says that only a cat may look at a king. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep agree we need to try to avoid synth. I will attempt an improved edit when I have time. With regards to the second point: indeed only TiO2 and ZnO are considered GRASE by the FDA according to the latest proposed rule [6]. The specific FDA article I linked was an attempt to use a more "readable" source than the raw regulation. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting, the FDA directly cites EWG in its monograph for nonprescription, over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug products when discussing oxybenzone (see ref.112 [7]) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Here we go: [8]. How is my driving? Suggestions and corrections welcome of course. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Grabbing onto that is just ramping up the SYNTH issues even more though. The citation is only used for very generic content saying oxybenzone is used in various products and not relevant to the content discussion here. Again, please take Nat's advice about filling in the blanks or mine about stretching sources to portray them as something very different in edits seriously. KoA (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you should be well aware you made much the same edits back in early June with plenty of explanation then. To paraphrase your language, it's best not to waste editors time by making them repeat themselves every time you reinsert an edit.

NatGertler summarized very well what's already been said on the content. If the EWG has more than just a passing mention, then that can be discussed in terms of WP:DUE, but the track you are taking is getting into WP:SYNTH territory. If the FDA specifically made decisions due to the EWG, then that needs to be specifically sourced. You've been repeatedly cautioned that your edits are running into this problem. KoA (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That edit is quite different. Please try to follow WP:REVEXP in the future. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems we've reached the point that you are ignoring the issues with your edits. I've gone ahead and undone your recent edit that continued the edit warring and just repeated the SYNTH and MEDRS issues. As before, you can reread the above conversations on those same issues since they are just being repeated.

As you're well aware, now is not the time to trying to reinsert that content or slight variations of it without getting consensus here first. That should not have to be repeated this many times. When multiple editors say you are having the same issues each time you tweak text and you claim it's entirely different, that's time to full-stop on editing the article directly and work here instead. KoA (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@KoA you are not trying to improve those edits. You are generically WP:STONEWALLING. Edits on wikipedia do not require to be WP:PERFECT. Stop reverting those clearly appropriately sourced edits. If you see some problems fix them or propose some fixes. Do not entirely revert everything without justification.

Either you PRECISELY point out an issue with those edits so that we may fix them or your reverts are not appropriate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been repeatedly giving you guidance on what is needed to improve the content to the point it would be viable. Again, please follow NatGertler's advice above related to SYNTH. You're still trying add in exposition about the FDA without sourcing directly saying the EWG has tied to those decisions. You really need a source directly saying the FDA was influenced by that to show it warrants inclusion in this article and to get consensus for proposed text here first. Again, this has all been discussed already. If you don't have such sourcing, there simply isn't consensus for the content. There's a very clear path for consensus to change that editors have made you aware of, so this is no place to be lobbing around accusations of stonewalling. On that, please refer to our previous discussion on your user talk as well as other admin discussions there. KoA (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This generic response is what you will use to reject any further change to the proposed text. I've included several additional sources. And they directly link the decision by the FDA with EWG. They are reported above in the discussion and in my edit. Either you PRECISELY point out the SPECIFIC parts of the edit which in your view are problematic or I must once again point you to WP:STONEWALLING and specifically the "Ignoring good faith questions" section. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This generic response is what you will use to reject any further change to the proposed text. That's really a behavior issue on your part that belongs on user-talk, but since you've made it clear you don't want me there, all I'll say is that you've been blocked for misrepresenting editors like that. You know better.

You don't have any MEDRS sources making the links you claim they do, which is what is needed. Even ignoring that, none of the sources you provided even make the kind of link you're trying to do about EWG's work being tied to the FDA's decisions, which yet again gets back to the SYNTH issues that have been repeatedly brought up. There's a point where other editors don't need to keep repeating themselves. KoA (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not apply to everything. It only applies to biomedical information. See the "Biomedical v. general information" section: Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.. Reliable sources directly link EWG and the new sunscreen regulation. And are included in my edit. Have you read them? That paragraph currently stops covering the subject in 2010 with a misleading and out of date statement. Crucial developments are missing and instead of improving the article you are just WP:STONEWALLING any change.

I will ask you once more: either WP:FIXFIRST and precisely point out which exact part of the edit you reverted is in your opinion problematic and why. Not vague statements. Or propose a different version if you believe none of it is salvageable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to try to claim a report about human health related to sunscreen exposure isn't biomedical content, that's a straightforward WP:MEDRS violation. Instead, you need to find a MEDRS source that outright says the FDA's decision was influenced or linked to the EWG. The sources you provided don't do that and at best just happen to mention EWG and FDA within the same article. Given the continued WP:TPNO issues though, I think it's safe to say these discussions have concluded and there's no consensus for this addition. KoA (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that is more WP:FILIBUSTERING. We are getting nowhere. I will post here the proposed edit and wait for others to comment.

Text already present in the Sunscreen section (it stops covering the subject in 2010): In July 2008, the EWG published an analysis of over 900 sunscreens. The report concluded that only 15% of the sunscreens met the group's criteria for safety and effectiveness. It called on the FDA to require that manufacturers provide more detailed information about the level of sun protection provided for both the UVA and UVB radiation. Representatives of the sunscreen industry called the 2008 sunscreen report inaccurate. Commenting on the 2010 sunscreen report, Zoe Draelos, of Duke University and spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, said the group made unfair "sweeping generalizations" about newer chemicals (such as oxybenzone) in its report and that their recommended products were based only on "very old technology" such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

The additional text proposed to update the section: In 2019, following its publication of new research regarding the skin absorption of sunscreen ingredients, the Food and Drug Administration proposed a new rule that classified only zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, as generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE), while requiring industry to provide additional safety data on other active sunscreen ingredients currently available in marketed products. The two ingredients given GRASE status were the ones highlighted as the best options by EWG reports. Following the release of the new rule, EWG told reporters that many of the concerns that it had expressed to the FDA had been addressed by the proposal and welcomed additional testing on sunscreen ingredients.

I'm fine with any proposal to WP:FIXFIRST this text or even to entirely substitute it with another proposal. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

References

WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. 'violations' are not actionable if there is consensus to include content. I suggest that if you cannot reach consensus, write a concise WP:RFC with the proposed text and references.Dialectric (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Dialectric. What is your view of the proposed edit? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

PFAS pollution

There have been repeated attempts to insert a section on "PFAS pollution" built totally around first-party sources. We don't automatically cover everything that a group does or claims to do in articles; we rely on third-party sources to show that the information is of sufficient interest. Once the section was objected to, it should not have been reinserted without such a source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a ton of reliable news sources covering advocacy by EWG when it comes to PFAS. It's been all over the news. For example: The Washington Post, Time, Bloomberg Law, NBC News. The list is endless. It seems super weird not to mention this in the article when it's one of the major topics they are lobbying about. Steven Walling • talk 04:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page, and NatGertler reiterating very well how things are supposed to work when new content has issues. The issue in the recent edits has been lack of independent sourcing and the seemingly repeated issue of just going to the EWG for sourcing. A related issue we often run into is that new sources often only give passing mention to the group, so it is a major WP:DUE question of whether something should be included.

Your sources get into another issue though for what we should be reaching for. Those aren't WP:MEDRS sources, and not higher quality WP:MEDPOP. Especially given the nature of this group in various subjects, we need to be careful about attributing science-based content in the article without qualified sources commenting on the activities. That's where a lot of the caution here comes in to play. Sometimes we can use WP:PARITY sources, but ultimately if the EWG has done something important in a particular space (for positive or negative), a MEDRS source should be outlining that context for us. Sometimes other sources can work depending on specific content, but that gets tricky. KoA (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

When a large number of sources cite a lobbying or research group as the source for their coverage, it is common sense that it is not undue weight to say a particular lobbying group is producing material on the group.

The previous text was also pretty neutral, because all it said was that they produce reports on PFAS (not that they should be trusted perfectly or something). In that sense, the correct text is probably something along the lines of "Recently, EWG has been producing reports that attempt to highlight what it considers to be sources of PFAS pollution in the United States. These have been cited in the popular media as part of recent coverage concerning the healthy and environmental concerns regarding PFAS". That's directly supported by the sources I cited, which only took five minutes of Googling to find. There are no doubt more. When I can find half a dozen or more major news sources citing a source, it makes sense to say that the source is doing activist work regarding a topic. We most certainly should not allow a section that implies EWG is some kind of perfectly trustworthy or scientific source regarding PFAS, but to say they aren't lobbying about it is also a major omission. Steven Walling • talk 05:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

it is common sense that it is not undue weight to say a particular lobbying group is producing material on the group. Not when it is a WP:FRINGE group like this with a reputation for misleading activism in science. Environmental_Working_Group#Dirty_Dozen is cited a ton by news groups, but it's the MEDRS context that it's mostly junk that really allows inclusion here. Then you have anti-GMO, vaccines+autism, etc. You're also going to get broken clocks being right for the wrong reasons twice a day situations too. If you say they do something but don't have the MEDRS context in there, it's very easy to run afoul of fringe guidance.

The key question to ask is is whether relevant sources consider the EWG's PFAS work important enough to mention, and if so, what do they say about it outside of passing mention. General news sources aren't really considered reliable for that. KoA (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant sources in this article are ones that mention EWG, because the article is about EWG... I'm not saying we should say that they're correct in everything they say. I'm just saying that it's completely obvious and well-supported that they are trying to push information about PFAS, and so an article covering their work should say that. It's exactly like how the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article has a section "Anti-vaccine advocacy and conspiracy theories on public health". To leave it out when there many many sources that mention the two topics in tandem would be ignoring the source material. Steven Walling • talk 05:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Kennedy article has content spelling out that those beliefs are disinformation like I was mentioning. Either way, if there are MEDRS sources that give some depth as to what we could say about their PFAS work, that would be great. I've gone looking a little bit, but all I've found so far are just citations only or passing mention. The same applies outside of MEDRS sources too. Pretty much everything described in an article like this though is the domain of MEDRS and not lay media though.

It's a bit of a dichotomy where if qualified sources really don't have much to say, we won't say much if anything, and if they do, then we'll reflect that. It's like if news sources make a big splash about a primary study, but it doesn't get any MEDRS coverage. That's generally considered not WP:DUE. KoA (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think you are overextending MEDRS somewhat. Going by Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_v._general_information, the claim that umpteen sites have dangerous pollution would be medical information, but the claim that EWG creates reports on sites they deem polluted would seem general information, and appropriate for an article that's on an organization. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on we're talking about specifically, and we've jumped around a bit between the original content a few different things. MEDRS comes into play in the discussion with the comments about many news sources mentioning the specific EWG report. Those don't really matter because it's MEDRS discussion in sources needed there to show scientific impact.

To say that they generally focus on PFAS is better and moves away from MEDRS to a degree, but you still get the lingering DUE question on validity of those reports that keeps MEDRS close by. The challenge is that MEDRS is always in the picture in some degree. Still, MEDRS or not, it's probably best to focus on a source that gives an overview of what they do in this field rather than one that is just reporting on the EWG report. That's been my challenge since most I've seen are one-liners at best like if you search EWG here. KoA (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS is always in the picture in some degree Not really. All we need to say is "this activist group talks about PFAS" and the topic of the article is solely that group, the article isn't a medical one and it's not making health claims. It's just saying "these people blather on about this". If their claims about PFAS are disputed we can also point to sources that say that, just like the rest of the article calls it out. Again, the neutral encyclopedic treatment is to cover it and provide all the context found in whatever the reliable sources are. Steven Walling • talk 06:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to have issues with MEDRS like that (especially in fringe subjects), but we can't bypass it like that when almost all of the work by this group falls into MEDRS topics. Like I said, it's still a matter of degree. The spirit of that guideline is that academic/scientific sources really help show us what is WP:DUE in a topic (and reliable) that lower quality sources like newspapers and useful for.

Either way, as I mentioned above, the starting point is to work with sources that actually give an overview of the group to assess DUE rather than focus on the individual report regardless of MEDRS or not. If scientific sources consider the group itself noteworthy in this particular subject, they will say so and make all of our lives easier here. If they don't though, or they just get citations without mention, then it is a pretty major due weight question.

Here's one source that cites the main paper in question. There really isn't even any passing mention of the EWG, no overview of their activities in the area, etc. Instead, it just uses the information in the paper and moves on. Normally we don't create sections for advocacy groups every time their paper gets cited like that, so that's why there's the caution of finding a good source with content we can use since we're within a fringe/medical topic. We need a source to say something about the group for us we can paraphrase, and that's been the challenge to find so far. KoA (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This argument is absurd. Scientific journals don't cite studies and go on a tirade about the author and their activities. That's not the job of scientific journals. The fact EWG's paper on PFAS is abundantly cited is an obvious indication of their relevance on the topic however. @Steven Walling is absolutely right and the reverted edit is absolutely fine. This is a no brainer and trying not to include this in the article is unjustifiable and unreasonable. Totally agree with @NatGertler and Steven that the fact that EWG covers PFAS and advocates for their regulation is WP:NOTBMI. And WP:MEDRS only applies to WP:Biomedical information. See previous discussion: Talk:Environmental Working Group#PFAS: Unexplained revert where any attempt to add coverage of this topic has been WP:STONEWALLed. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One last point: 2 IP editors and (with me) 2 other editors are in support of the inclusion of PFAS coverage by EWG in the article. @NatGertler you also seem to support? KoA is against. That seems pretty strong consensus. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't support it in the form that it was taking, which had no third-party sources and created a separate section of the article for about two sentences that might serve better as a list entry. I am recovering from Comic-Con and dealing with some of its fallout and have not taken the time to delve into these third-party sources to see if they say anything indicative of import or not.

And even though consensus is not a matter of counting, I will caution against assuming that two IPs that made the exact same edits are actually separate editors, or even separate from the named users. Folks who are editing on both their laptop and phone can generate different IPs, and named users can edit while logged out and thus generate IP edits. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure I meant: we have consensus that the topic should be covered. Let's start with that. We can then figure out how to cover this appropriately next.

Some sources we can use:

• Very in depth source on this topic CBS News: the Environmental Working Group, which has studied these compounds for almost two decades and The Environmental Working Group has sometimes come under fire for its research methods and for warnings that are not in agreement with other global organizations. and The EPA also provided a statement to CBS News about their response to the EWG's interactive map showing detection of PFAS at specific locations: "EWG's map seems to show any samples for PFAS chemicals that have been collected, which may or may not be detections. Because EPA has not fully reviewed the quality of the underlying data, and based on the agency's commitment to good risk communication with the public, EPA cannot recommend the map be used to determine where public health risks associated with PFAS chemicals may or may not exist. The agency's efforts continue to be focused on taking the actions committed to in the PFAS Action Plan." [9]
• The Guardian: The analysis was compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit that tracks PFAS contamination and developed an interactive map that shows [10]
• USA Today: Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst at the Environmental Working Group who has led many types of PFAS testing nationwide. [11]

{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The USA Today is an absolute nothingburger, a mere credential. The other two carry some weight, but it doesn't add together well because it's about two separate studies. If this were a basis for inclusion (and I'm not fully convinced), it would have to be only for the fact that such studies were done and that the EPA distanced themselves from the one study. These sources cannot be used for the result of the study due to WP:MEDRS reasons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think to Nat's point we should gather a few better sources (I linked a few above but can look more later) and also draft some new phrasing for the actual text. The actual text content needs to avoid making health claims or strongly stating that they did any kind of conclusive, well-founded research (because that's obviously disputed). Steven Walling • talk 23:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I just looked for sources focusing on the fact that EWG has been working on PFAS for a long time. I have produced 3 sources that claim that but of course many more are available. We even have the EPA commenting on their activities so that is further proof of their relevancy. I'm not saying anything about the conclusions of their research/studies. But this article obviously needs a PFAS section. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me just quickly note that the USA Today source does not say that EWG has been doing much such testing, it says that Evans has. The use of "who" rather than "which" in the quoted sentence is important. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst at the Environmental Working Group... according to her linkedin page she has worked there for almost 5 years. But I digress... let's use the CBS source which seems to be the most in depth. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of extra sources:

• Berghahn Journals "The Social Life of the “Forever Chemical” The fact that the still-unfolding social discovery of PFAS took decades is illustrative. We note above the fundamental role played by litigation as both a response to and catalyst of media exposure, regulatory action, scientific research, and community activism. Sometimes these realms directly overlapped. In the early 2000s, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) became involved in PFAS advocacy, serving as a media-savvy, science-based advocacy group. Researchers with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University have also been unpacking the social discovery of PFAS contamination, the factors shaping community exposure experiences, and why the risks associated with PFAS remained “structurally hidden” and unexamined for so long (Cordner et al. 2019; Cordner et al. 2016; Judge et al. 2016; Richter et al. 2018). The SSEHRI has partnered with NGOs to build citizen-science networks, and it maintains an online contamination site tracker in collaboration with the EWG (EWG 2020; PFAS Project 2020). [12]
• Ken Cook is interviewed as one of the experts in the documentary The Devil We Know (e.g. after 17:56 or 21:58)

I'd say we have pretty solid sourcing at this point. I will attempt another edit soon based on those sources to detail how EWG has worked on PFAS advocacy. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, we've talked about this already about not just charging ahead, don't assume consensus. The CBS source for instance is commenting on things very squarely in the domain of MEDRS. As for The Social Life of the “Forever Chemical”, that's a bit borderline as an anthropology journal rather than medical focused, but it still gives passing mention in pretty much a one-liner, like we've discussed before as a problem. If you have an edit to propose at this point, do it here, not in article space though. KoA (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have already pointed out that MEDRS does not apply to everything (and it's clearly stated in the policy) and I think we have consensus we should cover this topic in the article (we don't need any biomedical claims). I'll think about the edit (haven't written it yet) and evaluate if it is best to first propose it in talk. This discussion is too long at this point for a minor point and no new editors are joining so I would rather move back to article space. Don't worry: WP:BOLD but not WP:RECKLESS. It will be new content compared to the ones that have been reverted in the past but I will base it on this discussion. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works on talk pages. You need to get consensus for your edits first on the talk page at this point, not just charge ahead with them. Again, please reread the guidance you've been given here, on your talk page, etc. related to that (especially advice you got on UFOs) for how we reach consensus on disputed content. KoA (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You are disputing content that doesn't even exist yet? :) Jokes aside, I'll keep your advice in mind when I have time to rewrite this. Maybe you should do the same and listen to what everyone here has told you regarding WP:MEDRS. That way we won't have to deal with that issue again in the future. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• So the main issue here is that while we could mention the group's focus on PFAS using non-MEDRS sources, the lack of MEDRS coverage of the accuracy and validity of such focus muddles the inclusion, because without actual MEDRS coverage to account positive or negatively on the subject, we're basically treating the group's PFAS focus as legitimate for their claims. Silverseren^C 23:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  This isn’t that hard. We have numerous articles about oil and coal industry lobbying groups for instance, and those neutrally describe that they advocate for a point of view that goes against scientific consensus. The solution isn’t to ignore their work like ostriches with our heads in the sand, it’s to point out what’s supported by the preponderance of reliable sources. Steven Walling • talk 04:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely agree. This seems pretty obvious. And by the way EWG's research is pretty much in line with the EPA position (see [13]). It isn't like they are pushing some sort of weird WP:FRINGE belief. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  As above with the sunscreen section, if you have multiple WP:RS supporting your content, and we can't get consensus on talk, write a concise WP:RFC with the proposed content to get outside input. You do not need to placate all editors if an RFC supports your content.Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that saying they focus on ____ means we're treating that as legitimate. Imagine a sentence like "The Flat Earth Society says that the Earth is a flat disk, and issues a quarterly newsletter saying that the idea of a globe is a conspiracy against religion and the Moon landing was a hoax". I don't think anyone would consider that to be a statement saying that their beliefs are legitimate. The same standard should apply to any org. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• The article is pretty clear throughout that EWG's studies aren't universally accepted by the scientific community, so I don't really get the MEDRS concern, as long as the added text just says something general like, "EWG has done some studies on PFAS contamination in drinking water and produced an interactive map about it". The text that was removed here is mostly fine, but it should be sourced to the 3rd party references mentioned in this discussion instead of the EWG website, and it should probably not have its own section. Maybe it can be consolidated with the existing section on water contamination. I see a rough consensus for that edit if it is done correctly, but if it is reverted I would recommend an RFC as Dialectric suggested above. Larataguera (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've started an RfC below so we can finalise this issue. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Even if the studies aren't universally accepted by the scientific community, that doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong. Aside from the fact that even bad science can sometimes align with reality ("a stopped clock is right twice a day"), there is very little that is truly universally accepted, not even the connection between tobacco and lung cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: should the article cover EWG's advocacy for PFAS regulation?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the above discussion I propose that we add a section covering PFAS advocacy in a dedicated section and then expand it as necessary.

Here is a possible text with sources:

Title: PFAS regulation advocacy

Content: Since the early 2000s, EWG has conducted research and has been advocating for increasing regulations on the use of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).[14][15][16] EWG has collaborated with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University to publish a map showing detections of PFAS in water samples across the USA.[17][18] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as the original proponent I support both adding the section and the proposed text {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as this just repeating the same problems in the swathes of text between what happened at Talk:Environmental_Working_Group#PFAS:_Unexplained_revert and especially Talk:Environmental_Working_Group#PFAS_pollution without addressing any of that. There just hasn't been WP:DUE mention of the group's activities when you really dig into appropriate sources or even those listed here actually say, and there isn't really content within the sources tied to the proposed edits in many cases.

They key issue is that we are not here to promote whatever the EWG is working on that falls into medical topics. Instead, we rely on what WP:MEDRS sources point out as major activities by the group to mention here, especially because of the WP:FRINGE nature of the EWG. That's because WP:MEDPOP sources are often not very reliable related to this group's reports and how non-medical news sources often uncritically cite them. The CBS source mentions a EWG primary study, and is a pretty prime case for needing a MEDRS source to mention such a primary study. The NYT source only mentions the EWG once largely in passing. Nat Gertler already addressed those two sources earlier on this talk page: The other two carry some weight, but it doesn't add together well because it's about two separate studies. If this were a basis for inclusion (and I'm not fully convinced), it would have to be only for the fact that such studies were done and that the EPA distanced themselves from the one study. These sources cannot be used for the result of the study due to WP:MEDRS reasons.

The other source from the Environment and Society journal was also discussed before. It's an anthropology journal, not a medical focused journal (also low impact factor at 1.3) where we'd be looking for MEDRS comment reviewing the relevant literature. Even discounting that, it still only gives passing mention on the EWG in pretty much a one-liner in a single sentence, like we've discussed before as part of the problem of there not really being WP:DUE mention of EWG's activities in MEDRS sources.

That's all just for the first sentence. For the second, there's not even mention of collaboration in the Environment and Society article, and the most mention there is in the CBS article is from a small caption in a figure saying a map was produced by EWG and the SSEHRI. That's really illustrating the recurring problem we've had on this talk page of giving extremely minor details in larger sources undue prominence. Rather than create text and stretch sources to make them fit the text, a good source MEDRS should be provided to summarize the EWG's work in this area if it is WP:DUE. If there is such a source, it should be discussed so we can craft content by summarizing key points of a source. Passing mention like we have here just isn't passing the due weight bar. KoA (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out by several editors in the previous discussions: there are no biomedical claims in that text. It is basic general information about what this non profit does. So WP:MEDRS does not apply, and not even mentioning PFAS in the article doesn't make a lot of sense as it is one of their major activities. Those excessive sourcing standards are being used to remove any content from this article no matter how trivial it is. But let's hear what other editors say at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeating a claim doesn't make it true, especially for the guideline that explains how we assess medical claims by groups like this. EWG's work on PFAS is by no question biomedical content. If their work on the subject is worthy of encyclopedic mention, then such reliable sources will mention it in more than just one-liners. Not everything a group does will make in an encyclopedia. The problem is that MEDRS sources aren't giving EWG that kind of attention, and you've been repeatedly asked to bring such sources if they do. That and the cobbling together of sources that tangentially mention the EWG has been a recurrent issue in discussions on this. Again something like your second sentence just isn't going to fly with how you're sourcing it, and we've discussed issues that come from cherrypicking from sources plenty elsewhere already.

As for your comment and link in Those excessive sourcing standards are being used to remove any content from this article no matter how trivial it is, you've been cautioned about WP:TPNO here already on this page as well as your recent block related to casting aspersions. That diff isn't related to this RfC, but when you are loose with sources and add in things not even in a source, of course it's going to get removed. KoA (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@KoA, that's not really how it works. "Peyton Pseudoscience said something or another" is a statement about the speaker, not about the science.

The claims being made here are:

• EWG has conducted research.
• EWG has been advocating for increasing regulations on PFAS.
• EWG has done both of these things since the early 2000s.
• EWG has collaborated with a particular program at Northeastern University.
• Said collaboration involved published a map showing PFAS in water samples.

Do you think that any of those five claims are wrong? For example, do you think they didn't conduct research, they haven't been advocating for greater regulation, that they started doing these things in a different year, that the collaboration doesn't exist or involves a different university, or that it didn't produce a map? If so, that would be a serious concern.

If you think that all five of these are true, but you want to represent the PFAS manufacturer's POV that (e.g.,) PFAS are perfectly harmless chemicals that every baby should cheerfully drink daily, then we should discuss whether that's actually relevant to describing their activities, but it's not necessarily a reason to reject these two sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That's how it's worked for years when we deal with MEDRS and WP:FRINGE subjects like this. The question for all of the things you mention is whether they are WP:DUE. We don't automatically include something because it is merely verifiable. Right now, MEDRS sources are very silent on this subject when it comes to EWG and PFAS compared to all the other groups out there doing research on the subject.

Otherwise, please remember to strike your WP:ASPERSIONS. Such personal attacks and attempts to misrepresent editors have no place on article talk pages or anywhere on the project. KoA (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't have separate rules for FRINGE, or for what some editors declare (without sources, no?) to be fringe science. (NB that having your study design criticized is not fringe science.)

I'd invite you to read ASPERSIONS if you're going to cite it. I have not " continually accuse[d] another of egregious misbehavior"; I have not made "accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts"; I have not "routinely accuse[d] others of misbehavior without reasonable cause"; I have not engaged in a "consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct", or even "accuse[d] another of misbehavior" at all, much less "without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe"; I have not made "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view".

I have, however, written most of Wikipedia:Biomedical information, made more edits than most to MEDRS, and answered more questions on MEDRS's talk page than anyone else in Wikipedia's existence. I think therefore that it would be reasonably safe for you to assume that I know what MEDRS says. On the basis of my experience with MEDRS, I suggest to you that the WP:MEDPOP section, about "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information", is the most relevant one for describing what an organization does.

More generally, an encyclopedia can and should say that a homeopathic remedies manufacturer "sells homeopathic remedies", and should not say that it "sells pseudoscientific homeopathic remedies that don't work", even though it's true that homeopathic remedies are both ineffective and pseudoscientific. Similarly, an encyclopedia can and should say that the EWG did some stuff, even if an editor doesn't personally think their PFAS map is accurate (though it looks like the USGS has since done a separate study that produced a similar map, so I assume most editors wouldn't think the EWG map is entirely wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS are when editors saying things like but you want to represent the PFAS manufacturer's POV that (e.g.,) PFAS are perfectly harmless chemicals that every baby should cheerfully drink daily. When we crafted the most recent principle on that at the GMO ArbCom in 2015, it was because editors would frequently try to the poison the well hinting that someone is just trying to push an industry POV often completely mischaracterizing what the editor had been saying as you just did. It got to the point of ArbCom adopting that principle because people would frequently use such tactics to disrupt content discussions. That is why I asked you to remove that as a clear attempt to misrepresent me at this point, especially since addressing mischaracterizations like that just compounds the talk page length.

Also, you're not the only one who's been working in the MEDRS space for some time, and I was already guiding you to the MEDPOP section for the issues coming up. The whole core of this dispute is that the original content originated as trying to insert information focused on two primary studies by the EWG and related WP:MEDPOP sources. There was no indication that those studies were WP:DUE from a MEDRS perspective, so we weren't in a position to use the current news sources focused on those primary sources in any capacity to assess that WP:DUE question, especially with the fringe factor in play related to news sources and EWG. That's really the core of MEDRS too, what is reliable for assessing due weight in medical topics.

As for the map or second sentence, you are going on a tangent again. The topic of accuracy hasn't even come up. The problem there is that the collaboration it isn't mentioned in the first source at all, and the only other source barely even mentions any collaboration except basically as a minor figure caption comment. That isn't indicating WP:DUE even ignoring it being a MEDPOP source either for the collaboration or the map itself. A map instead from USGS is going to be much more reliable (and easier for us editors to work with), but that doesn't mean anything for the EWG's work here.

Again, all I've been asking is for something to indicate EWG's research on this topic (which is clearly in MEDRS territory) warrants mention in an encyclopedia. That has been the center of this the whole time. KoA (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that ArbCom has also had a few things to say about misrepresenting an editor's statement through selectively quoting, e.g., when someone quotes part of a sentence but skips the important "if" at the beginning.

I think you're having trouble separating "they said something" from "what they said". What's proposed is:

• Since the early 2000s, EWG has conducted research and has been advocating for their POV. EWG has collaborated with another organization to publish a map reflecting their POV.

It would certainly be UNDUE if the proposal sounded more like this:

• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are dangerous. EWG made a map proving that the public water supply is dangerously contaminated.

...but, again, that's not what's being proposed. The point here is "they did something". We're not writing about PFAS; we're writing about EWG. The question isn't whether EWG's results warrant mention "in an encyclopedia"; the question is whether this is a verifiable activity of the organization. People are coming to this article to read about what EWG has done and what positions EWG holds. They are not coming to this article to find out the truth about PFAS. If they want information about PFAS, they should go read the PFAS article.

All of which boils down to: EWG's activities are DUE in this article, but their research results are not (necessarily) DUE in the PFAS article. The USGS's research results are probably DUE in the PFAS article, but the USGS's work is not DUE in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The "if" still makes it an aspersion, and honestly makes it moreso. Instead of arguing about something blatantly disruptive like that, the best thing to do like I said was to simply strike it. No one, especially and experienced editor, should even be thinking of floating an idea like that in these subjects.

As for the rest, please focus on what is actually being proposed here. We're not writing about PFAS; we're writing about EWG is just misleading. We are talking about content on EWG's activities related to PFAS. For the question is whether this is a verifiable activity of the organization, you already know this isn't the case from existing discussion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion is policy. WP:DUE policy is what determines inclusion and to what degree. Not everything an organization does is automatically due on its page. Then you have questions like: Does it have major issues like their other topics? Is it widely referenced as useful/valid, or do reliable sources largely pay it no mind compared to all the other research groups out there on this?

It's quite a red flag as I've gone searching for such sources that it largely appears to be the last option or passing mentions discussed above. If it wasn't for that, then I'd be fine with some minor mention, but being more careful about source use in the proposed text. KoA (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not talking about the content of EWG's POV. We're talking about EWG's activities. We're saying that this is what they did. We are not saying that they are correct.

I am entirely convinced that the statements proposed above are fully compliant with WP:V. As you note complying with WP:V is necessary but not sufficient, but I think WP:V itself is fulfilled. Then the next question is: Is it DUE? Well, probably. However, the proper starting point for the analysis isn't "do reliable sources largely pay it no mind compared to all the other research groups out there on this [PFAS]?" The proper starting point for the analysis is "Do reliable sources, when they're talking about EWG, mention their PFAS research?" Because, again: the subject of this article is EWG and not PFAS, so EWG is the thing to be checking. An activity can be hugely important to understanding a specific organization even if it is of no importance whatsoever to the real world.

A quick Ghits check suggests that EWG gets mentioned online in the context of cosmetics and sunscreen a bit more than twice as often as it does in the context of PFAS. PFAS gets more than twice as much attention as vaccines, and about the same as GMOs and their Dirty Dozen list. So if vaccines, GMOs, and the Dirty Dozen belong in this article, then PFAS should, too. Ghits should be taken as no more than a rough estimate, but it's not necessarily a bad one for the purpose of estimating which verifiable things are more commonly written about than others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not talking about the content of EWG's POV. We're talking about EWG's activities. You appear to be responding to someone else. I suggest rereading what I actually wrote, namely We are talking about content on EWG's activities related to PFAS..

Now if sources did discuss if they had shoddy methodology on this subject, we sure can discuss that, but when MEDRS sources really don't say much on this topic of EWG + PFAS, we're not even to that step yet. That's part of the underlying problem. That and largely reaching for news reports on primary studies (the kind of thing MEDRS has us avoiding for multiple reasons) and stringing something together. If a reliable source actively details how this is a major activity of the group and not passing mention, that is what we need to generate content. KoA (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. It doesn't matter what they said about PFAS. It simply Does. Not. Matter.

Consider: "On March 25, 2020 Donald Trump tweeted that the pandemic was entirely under control." Reference: the tweet itself (contents: "Don't believe the lamestream media's fake news. The pandemic is entirely under control.", dated 25 March 2020) and a newspaper article saying that he tweeted this.

Do we:

• need a MEDRS source commenting on whether or not the pandemic is truly under control?
• or just a source demonstrating that he tweeted something again?

You are claiming that, to make the equivalent statement about EWG, we need a MEDRS source saying whether the speaker is correct. I'm telling you that when it comes to reporting what people say and do, we only need a reliable source that says they said or did it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTGETTINGIT we have been discussing this for months at this point. This is absurd for such a trivial point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they said about PFAS. It simply Does. Not. Matter. Please let it sink in what you just said there. Please reread my last reply, especially the first paragraph too when it comes to misattributing what has been discussed.

Here we are discussing an advocacy group's research activities squarely in a medical topic, PFAS. Right now we're looking for sources that indicate that activity is a major activity of the group that warrants inclusion here. Not cherry-picking primary studies as currently done, but instead getting a key-highlights source of the activity. The current sourcing doesn't do that, largely because it's just news articles focused on individual primary research (e.g., focus on the map output).

If someone wants to include that focus on including primary studies they put out, then WP:MEDRS sourcing is needed to pick out what is important. If someone just wants a single sentence to say PFAS is a major component of their work, then we need a source basically saying so beyond just passing mention. There are multiple things at play here. KoA (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that when you have multiple long news articles talking about this work in depth, then you already have multiple sources saying that this work is worth mentioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Unfortunately, I currently don't have the time to provide a detailed reply. However, without any doubt, the work of EWG on the topic of PFASs has contributed a great deal to the public debate, including media. EWG scientists are interviewed as experts in films/documentaries on PFASs (e.g. The Devil We Know^[19]). The US EPA quotes EWG's president in press releases^[20][21] and EWG representatives served as witnesses in hearings of the House of Representatives and the Senate^[22][23]. --Leyo 09:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The only thing in this statement that comes close to a biomedical statement is that saying they're making a map of the finding of PFAS in the water supply suggests there is PFAS in the water supply, and that suggestion is not strong enough (and is of information that could be easily verified, I reckon) to make it a WP:MEDRS problem. We should be careful of anything folks might start to hang on it, but this statement is fine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll mention the map sentence in that I don't think it can pass this RFC if WP:!VOTE is followed. The first source makes no mention, and the second is only passing mention in a figure caption. At best, it's a pretty classic verifiable ≠ inclusion issue, especially when we've been discussing cherry-picking issues on talk pages lately related to these sources. Generally primary study material like that is not going to get mention without an accompanying MEDRS source, even on an org article. KoA (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence from the second source begins with "A new report by the non-profit Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University finds...", which covers the first half of the map sentence.

The caption mentions EWG + NU + map in a single sentence, but the article itself mentions the map explicitly six times, including three times in which the EPA refuses to endorse it. The whole article is about the announced results and the map. This is a bit much to be dismissing as "only passing mention". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This source says "Environmental Working Group compiled PFAS reports from local utilities, the Department of Defense, and researchers at Northeastern University, and presented the information in a national map showing public water systems, military bases, civilian airports, industrial plants and dumps where contamination has been found at various times since 2013" and "The Environmental Working Group and the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, at Northeastern University, used public data to compile a map showing PFAS contamination in the U.S. as of March 2019."

I don't think we'll have any trouble finding sources that verify this content. What makes it appropriate for inclusion is: this is an article about EWG, and this is something the EWG did. That is the reason for inclusion: articles about an organization should tell the reader what the organization is and does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That is all basic run of the mill methodology information we wouldn't be using here for assessing due weight, nor is the source MEDRS. As for What makes it appropriate for inclusion is: this is an article about EWG, and this is something the EWG did., that is again a WP:DUE violation. Merely being verifiable doesn't automatically warrant inclusion. That an organization did something and automatically warrants inclusion at their page would be a major shift in policy and guideline you would need to get consensus for somewhere other than here for such a novel change from norms.

Again, if you want to say this particular primary research paper from the EWG out of all their other outputs is important, then please bring MEDRS sources. Otherwise we are just WP:CHERRYPICKING if we include it merely because it exists and it got coverage in unreliable sources. KoA (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If an article (any article) is about an organization (any organization), and you say that it's not DUE to say what the organization is (e.g., a non-profit organization) and does (e.g., advocates for a viewpoint), then what exactly do you think the contents of the article should be?

Think carefully about Wikipedia:Coatrack articles – for example, a tendency to "hang" information about the scientific facts about pollution in an article that is about an organization, instead of reporting what the organization is and does – before you answer that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think the strawman arguments need to stop regarding what I've said. No one is saying it's not due to say what an organization does, the problem is what sources indicate as a major activity. We can't create coatracks by just picking out individual primary studies and saying that's a major activity. We need sources to create that substance for us. KoA (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating the problems with the second source you mention that I missed. That's another case where there's only brief mention in a single sentence of the university. It's not some large or distinct collaboration, but still practically a footnote. That an org co-authored a single paper with university researchers is pretty run of the mill and not something we'd normally include in an article as an important detail in this manner. If there was a major partnership, maybe, but there's no indication of that going on in the sources.

As for your second paragraph, the only time the collaboration is mentioned is in the caption. Mentions of the map, EPA, etc. don't mention the collaboration either. That is one issue. As you mention though, the whole article centers around a WP:PRIMARY study. The source is not a WP:MEDRS source, but a news article, but this proposal is relying on that news article for information about the study. There are two problems in this subset: 1. Overstating the collaboration. 2. Bypassing MEDRS to include mention of a primary study's results. We don't go mentioning every paper that has a collaboration, nor do we mention every primary research paper a group puts out. KoA (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if the name of the partner is only mentioned once or twice per source, that's not actually a valid excuse to delete everything about a major organizational activity from this Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Again WhatamIdoing, please be more mindful about misrepresenting editors because it just means the misrepresentation has to be responded to in addition to trying to address the actual content being discussed. No one is talking about having no mention in the article, the focus has been on getting sourcing so it could be included.

This subthread is talking about the map sentence, not the whole proposal. The two issues here are that the sentence is using basic co-author information to make it seem like there's a much larger collaboration going on and that it's focusing on a primary research paper. The first would mean just reducing the sentence down to not include co-authors and just say EWG has worked on a mapping project, but the second issue means deleting the second sentence outright anyways. If you want to report on specific primary studies, that's when we step into the domain of MEDRS. KoA (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that (accurately) naming co-authors constitutes an attempt to "make it seem like there's a much larger collaboration going on". I think that's doubly true if the co-authors' name recognition is worse than your own. Whether Northeastern or EWG feels more credible is going to be a matter of the readers' personal biases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support a section covering EWG's PFAS advocacy. This is a well-documented area of focus for the organization, covered in numerous mainstream news sources. I also support inclusion of a sentence on EWG's work with PFAS mapping, though the wording could be tightened. EWG PFAS Maps have been covered in RS sources including the New York Times, CNN, Fast Company, and Business Insider. Several of these discuss EWG's mapping of PFAS in animals; as mentioned in bloomberg law this animal information could be a tool in guiding natural resource damage claims, demonstrating how this information is relevant beyond the field of human health.Dialectric (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Close?I think we can close this as approved. Any objections? Otherwise I will close it out myself (I don't think there's any point doing a formal close given there was just one oppose). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be up to the closer to weigh WP:PAG with the currently proposed sources (and WP:!VOTE). There are specific issues with each sentence that would benefit from a closer commenting on them. KoA (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've listed it at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Environmental Working Group#RfC: should the article cover EWG's advocacy for PFAS regulation? since KoA would like an outside closer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've added the proposed text to the page attempting to follow User:S Marshall's suggestions [24]. I've omitted the "research" aspect in the first part of the paragraph and have placed the section in approximate chronological order. Thank you everyone for the work on resolving this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Vaccines

Is anyone aware of recent EWG activities in the area of vaccines (other than on the effect of PFASs on the response to vaccines), i.e. similar to the ones described in the article? Leyo 23:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not recently, no. I think they gave up that particular pseudoscience line of argument once they realized it wouldn't make them look good to the general public or the scientific community after large debunkings of Andrew Wakefield's claims happened. In regards to that section though, we should really shore it up.

• New study links mercury in vaccines to autism
• Study: Autistic children struggle to protect selves from toxic metals
• Study sees possible autism-vaccine link
• Autism, Heavy Metals Linked Study Suggests Toxins Can Act As A Trigger In Some Children

These sources from that time period should allow us to better reference that section. Silverseren^C 02:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they were still doing the vaccines/autism thing in 2008.[25] and the OP's link is from 2020. So seems like a long-running strand. Bon courage (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the vaccines cause autism claim, which OP's link isn't about. Good to know about 2008 though. Might need to check if there was additional news coverage of this stance during that period. I wish Newspapers.com was available at the moment, since it would be useful for this search. Silverseren^C 04:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked newspapers.com, and a search for "Environmental Working Group" vaccine autism for the range 2007–2009 found no relevant articles. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems they are mostly highlighting the effects of chemicals such as PFAS on immune responses to vaccines etc. claiming that they might lower efficacy of the vaccines. That 2008 article from Bon courage states: CDC's recommendations on vaccine schedules, that space vaccines out during early childhood, are in place to help protect children from harmful side effects and still provide for crucial protection from disease. Seems reasonable. I don't think they have worked on vaccines a lot except tangentially to their other activities. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but the autism link is purely crankoid. Bon courage (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for digging into their past activities. So it seems that they haven't had anti-vaccine activities for the last ~15 years. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a brief note on this in the section Activities → Vaccines? --Leyo 21:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC) PS. The link of exposure to PFASs with reduced antibody response to vaccination is not really anti-vaccine (EFSA used this association to derive a TWI, see doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223).

Sounds like it would be WP:OR, unless there's a source saying soemthing about this. Bon courage (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I Agree we need a source for something like that. I am concerned this might be a WP:DUE issue though. Is this old episode the single instance of something "anti-vaccine" that we can find? It seems a bit much to focus so much on it and to add the organisation to the anti-vaccine organisation category [26] especially since they clearly recommend vaccination (most recently during the COVID-19 pandemic) in their materials.

• In this recent campaign they describe vaccines as "vital" (emphasis mine):

The scientific research, including epidemiological studies, that shows damage to the immune system and decreased response to vital vaccines with early life PFAS exposure should strengthen the argument made to policymakers about a sweeping package of reforms to address the unfolding[27]

• Here they state (emphasis mine): “Everyone should get vaccinated once safe and effective vaccines are available,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs.[28]

So this categorisation seems inaccurate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet they still have tons of anti-vaccine fearmongering articles on their website, such as "Court Case Highlights Children's Vulnerability to Exposures Linked to Autism" with no sort of note or other attempt to retroactively acknowledge or deal with their pseudoscience pushing. Since we also know they push plenty of other pseudoscience nowadays (anything to do with biotechnology, for example), this isn't a good look for them actually being pro-vaccine now. Them flogging their new PFAS push and putting in the comment about decreasing vaccine efficacy in order to push their PFAS claims isn't really explanatory on their current stance on vaccines one way or the other. Silverseren^C 18:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your bolding was suboptimal. Everyone should get vaccinated once safe and effective vaccines are available is better. What anti-vaxxers never mention when this comes up is that they will never accept that safe and effective vaccines are available, so, effectively, they are saying that nobody should get vaccinated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That does not seem the case here. From their website: "The scientists on the press call last month, hosted by the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group, emphasized people should still get the vaccine, currently given in two doses." and "Tasha Stoiber, senior scientist with nonprofit Environmental Working Group, has advised health authorities to “consider moving those exposed to PFAS up the priority list for COVID-19 inoculation and perhaps even offer them extra vaccine booster doses to ensure adequate antibody response.”"[29] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the above? I think we should at least remove the "anti-vaccination organisation" category from the article as it seems WP:UNDUE. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the category. I guess if someone wants it in the article the WP:ONUS is on them to ensure they have consensus here by providing appropriate sourcing. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Timeliness

The introduction currently concludes with this sentence: "Despite the criticism, EWG and its reports are influential among the public and companies have partnered with them to certify some of their products." The problem that I see with this are:

• The source used is now five years old, and thus a bit dated for making current statements. As such, "are influential" should be changed to "have been influential" to avoid making a current claim.
• "among the public and companies have..." is just awkward phrasing. Best to split it into two sentences: "among the public. Companies have"
• Despite being in the source, "partnered with" is one of those corporatisms like "solutions", trying make things sound like friendly pals when the article makes clear that "With verified products, it offers companies a choice between paying a percentage of sales, or a flat fee." While the word "partner" is used in the source, it's only applied to P&G, not to multiple companies. So, "Companies have paid them to certify their products." (And even that's going beyond the source; again, it only says that one company has done this; multiple companies have been offered it, but that doesn't tell us how many selected to. We may need to source a second company for the plural)

I'm avoiding article edits at this time, I ask that others review this request and implement as they see fit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The first suggestion seems fine to me. For the second, I would suggest adding a comma to make it clearer: "among the public, and companies have". --Leyo 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A comma would at least be an improvement. (I'd suggest replacing the "and" with a semicolon, but the antisemicolonialists would just show up.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler Looks good to me as well. I would also vote for comma vs the semicolon. Did I just discover I am an antisemicolonialists? ;) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)