Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Questioning the "scientific consensus"

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.

---

I am afraid that Wikipedia is pushing a line that may be out of step with global consensus - which is that there is no consensus. From the Canadian paper The Globe and Mail, "many industry experts believe genetically modified crops negatively affect our health".

From Fox: GMOs have only been on the market since 1995, but they’ve recently sparked a national debate over the potential impact they could have on the environment – and our health. Dr. Michael Wald, of Integrated Medicine of Mount Kisco in New York, said more research needs to be done in order to prove that genetically engineered foods are safe to eat. “The studies that have been done on different animals – and also reports from farmers – seem to suggest health issues, including intestinal problems, inflammation of the colon…and problems with the kidneys, the liver, the lungs,” Wald said.

From AgWeek " Most studies show GMO foods are safe for human consumption, though it is widely acknowledged that the long-term health effects are unknown." (Our reader is given the idea there is no question and that the protesters are quite full of it).

There is a further problem that should bother any scientist working on this article, when we quote consensus, is it coming from truly independent scientists, or should we specify to the reader where these studies originated? From Food Science News: "Anyone who buys GM seeds is required to sign a technology stewardship agreement that says, in part, that they cannot perform research on the seed. Without express permission from the biotech patent-holder, scientists and farmers risk facing lawsuits for conducting any studies. “Any study you want to do with these engineered crops, you need to get the company’s permission,” Hansen said. “Could you imagine if tobacco research was only done when the tobacco companies had the final say?”

From US News (Opinion) Potential harms [of GMOs] to human health have been identified by the World Health Organization as including direct health effects (toxicity), tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), specific components with toxic properties, the stability of the inserted gene, nutritional impact and any unintended effects that could result from genetic modification. Harm to the environment has already been documented with the development of "superweeds" that are resistant to the herbicides embedded in the GM crops. Several incidents involving contamination of non-GM crops have also occurred, which were further exacerbated by the fact that these GM seeds are not labeled or segregated in the food supply chain.

From the American Academy of Environmental Medicine: Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3 Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.

From Grist regulation of the safety of GM food is virtually nil, and research is scant and largely industry-funded. In a 2010 paper PDF in the journal Food Policy, researchers looked at all the papers on the health and nutritional effects of GM foods published in English between 1996 and 2009. Of the 94 studies they identified — not a large number, given the surge of GMOs into our diets over that period — 80 delivered “favorable” conclusions about the novel foods, while 10 had “negative” views and two were neutral. That sounds at first glance like a positive near-consensus around GMOs. But then the researchers dug deeper and looked for industry ties. In 44 of the 94 total papers, one or more of the researchers had a financial or professional tie to the agrichemical industry. Of those 44, 43 had “positive” conclusions and one turned out “negative.” Meanwhile, 37 of the studies were done by independent researchers. Of those, 27 came back positive, eight came back “negative,” and two were “neutral.” In other words, near-complete consensus reigns among industry-linked scientists as to the safety of GM foods. But among independent scientists, the issue is much more contested.

This calls Wikipedia's GMO "scientific consensus" into question, and highlights a need for more context about the science. Our readers deserve this. petrarchan47tc 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• As has already been explained to you and should be bloody well self evident, newspapers are not reliable for controversial science since they have a history of misrepresentation on nearly every science topic. If you were to judge climate change from cherry picked newspapers you'd think we weren't experiencing global warming, or if you were to read about vaccines you'd think we were all about to drop dead, if you were to read about diets you'd rush out to try the latest one etc etc. Go look at some science articles on wikipedia and tell me how many newspaper articles you see in the good ones. And picking the Anti-water flouridation, anti-vaccination AAEM is a complete joke (or did you not read about them before cherry picking what they say?). The largest general society of scientists in the world, the AAAS, says the consensus is that it's safe, that's good enough for wikipedia. If you want to know what the WHO thinks, get it from the horses mouth: [1]: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods." Do you seriously learn what you "know" about science through newspapers? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The AAAS statement is not "good enough for wikipedia", especially when higher-quality peer-reviewed sources are available. As Michele Simon has written, that statement you continue to quote comes from the AAAS Board of Directors, acting in response to a political issue. It cannot be construed as a referendum of the world's scientists. For you to continue representing it as such is (a) original research, (b) incorrect, and (c) dishonest, given information you have seen to the contrary. It's very hard for me to assume your good faith under these circumstances. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what good it's going to do to bring the "scientific consensus" argument to this talk page about a protest and I'd like to see the author of it collapse this discussion. While most people are not aware that chemical-related industry does its own research and then governmental agencies base their policies on that research, this is not the place to conduct an argument about the chemicals that are legally being introduced into our bodies and into the environment. As has been said time and again, lets stick to a discussion about the protest and leave the "scientific consensus" arguments for other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I second all of Gandy's comments (with proviso that some summary statement is probably necessary). DanHobley (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's fine if people don't want to have the "scientific consensus" discussion here, but then at the same time we should not include a questionable statement about scientific consensus within the article. The "scientific consensus" claim is heavily contested at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, so it's not appropriate to include it here without discussion. Considers how strenuously some editors have objected to sources that don't explicitly address the March. Why, then, do these editors feel comfortable including the "broad scientific consensus" sources, which were mostly crafted for political reasons in advance of California's Proposition 37 vote? (I have presented a lengthy argument that these sources do not support the claim being made.) How can IRWolfie reject petrachan's sources as unscientific, when they themselves favor these (non-peer reviewed) institutional statements over literature reviews published in scientific journals? How can they promote an undated, authorless section of the WHO website (which, from context, seems not to be more recent than 2007) as more reliable than recent journalistic sources? The double standards are clear. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Of course the WHO is more reliable than newspapers. Newspapers are garbage for science reporting, and that is hardly new or a startling revelation. Newspapers are not reliable for controversial statements about science. To draw a comparison, see Scientific opinion on climate change where institutional statements are exactly what they note. The AAS institutions represent tens of thousands of scientists. And Petrar herself picked an institution in here list, it just happens to be one with no scientific respectability at all and is anti-vax anti-flouridation and promotes bogus science. And can you please stop promoting your unqualified original research, it was rejected then and its rejected now, cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, I would suggest you stop trashing sources and focus on article improvement. IMHO your own opinion is reflected far too much in this field. An RS is an RS. Your opinion of those RS is not valid, nor improving the articles. Focusing on one field related to your opinions will have you labeled as an SPA very quickly. This may cause your input to be ignored altogether. We go with what RS states, not your opinion of RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie is not trashing sources and he has just as much right to his opinion as you do. I will say again, this discussion belongs on the GMO controversy page, not here on this protest movement page. It is hard for me to understand why editors do not seem to understand that just because they do not agree with the present position of every major body of science that speaks to the question of whether or not GMOs adversely affect health, they, un-named Wikipedia editors, should have the authority to adjust WP articles to suit their beliefs. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This discussion is out-of-order here, and after the RfC on the GMO Controversy page attempts to replay that discussion in other forums begins to feel a bit disruptive. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have ten thousand more edits than you Canoe, nearly all unrelated to this topic area. Are you seriously going to argue I am a SPA? A cursory glance at my contributions would make it obvious that I'm not a SPA. And no "An RS is an RS" is not true. Reliability is and always has been dependent on the context, see Wikipedia:RS#Context_matters, see WP:MEDRS etc etc, read WP:NEWSORG "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context ... Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.". Basically, go to WT:RS and tell them "an RS is an RS" and tell me how far you get, because it is just not the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with numerous editors above who have expressed the view that this talk thread is simply rehashing earlier talk threads in the hope of getting a different result, even though there is no new information and no change of consensus. That said, I will stipulate to the fact that the scientific consensus is not the same thing as the political consensus, the cultural consensus, or the societal consensus; indeed, science may be finding itself at odds with all of those. But Wikipedia is within days of having an editorial consensus about what we should report as the scientific consensus, at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus". Someone said above that the discussion there is very contested. That is only true to the extent that a small number of editors who do not have consensus feel strongly that the consensus is wrong. But the overall direction of the discussion there is unmistakable to an objective observer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is more than one consensus then why is only the un-quantified scientific consensus included in our articles. The EU seems to have a legal consensus, the above trashed newspaper polls seem to have a social consensus, and the Vatican may even have a religious consensus. To only include one consensus is POV. This reminds me of the scientists arguing with the romanticists. Love cannot exist because we can't measure it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way than IRWolfie did, I'm very much in favor of this page reflecting the fact that the protesters and others express the views that they express, but we should not present those views as being science. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is my view too. This is simply not the place to discuss the controversy itself. Those who want to argue the toss should do so at Genetically_modified_food_controversies where there are probably people who actually know something about the subject. Our 'scientific consensus' should be based on what is written there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is scientific consensus even mentioned in this article then? If we wish to include that consensus then the others should be included as well. Anything else would be POV of science and not the protestors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be joking. When it comes to questions of scientific questions, the scientific consensus is what matters. If you want to consult the religious or social consensus about health issues that's your own issue, but there is no reason why it would have weight in a scientific question. This is a serious encyclopaedia, and serious encyclopaedias aim to summarise and respect the scientific consensus on scientific questions, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Most scientists don't even know which needle points south on a compass. Only electricians and pilots need to know that. This article is not about a scientific consensus. It is about a social and political consensus. If we sourced a bishop in the march then we could probably include a religious consensus as well. Since we didn't source any scientists as protesters then we shouldn't be including their POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The compass points to ending this discussion thread. There's no need for endless debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm off the grid right now Tryptofish, but strongly concur with both your last two comments. DanHobley (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2013 (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.

Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?

I made the closure on the recent ANI thread filed by Tryptofish, with his post-posting approval. I had hoped since that time that there would be some improvement in the clashes here, but that does not seem to be the case, both here and on editor Talk pages. I consider myself a friend of a few of the editors on both viewpoints on this page, and because of my closure at ANI feel qualified to comment here regarding the future of this article, which I have never edited. (Full disclosure: I do see an editor here who I have urged sanctions on in the past, but I don't recall any personal interaction.)

As I have commented previously, I believe this overall matter is likely to wind up at ArbCom. As someone who follows the proceedings of that body, and not always with approval, I suggest here as I have elsewhere that the following possibilities be considered first:

• Taking this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Frankly, if there are successful cases of resolution there, I am unaware of them.
• An Rfc, though the battle would quite possibly shift or expand to exactly how to word the Rfc and what it would consist of.
• Finding a widely respected member of the community who has unanimous approval of all the principal editors at odds here, most likely an administrator/bureaucrat/past or present ArbCom member/WMF employee, to come in with fresh eyes and do some arbitration, possibly binding. This is a non-standard but potentially highly effective method.

Finally, I must note that I have been looking into some of the Monsanto and related articles. Today I made a deletion of one sentence that has now been reverted twice at the article Glyphosphate which I found interesting. I will continue to look into this matter, but my preliminary sense is there are some issues in Monsanto-related articles that need scrutiny. With cordial concern, Jusdafax 06:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN and RfC are rarely useful, and it should be noted that Viriditas has been blocked for three months by an uninvolved administrator for his conduct here. I do believe that, without the poisonous accusations coming from one corner, we may have a better opportunity at coming to a consensus on the issues at hand. Seeing how poorly Arbcom handled the Tea Party movement case, I'd like to think we'd be able to hash this out on our own without significant further intervention. I will again suggest we make some sub-discussions below regarding what the remaining issues are and we can hash them out. I'm certainly willing to treat a lot of this with a clean slate if others are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the second and third bullet points, especially the third. petrarchan47tc 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do indeed approve of Jusdafax's close and thank him for it, although subsequent events, including a massive display of bad faith towards me on my talk page, a waste-of-time new thread at ANI, and a three month block of Viriditas, seem to show that the problem is not settled. About content RfCs, this talk page already has numerous talk threads, each about a specific issue. I don't think a general RfC about the overall state of the page will generate any light. But if we want to identify specific questions to ask about specific things in the content, that could make for one or more useful RfCs. I suggest looking at the numbered list of unresolved questions at #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward, identifying which ones are still, today, matters that remain sources of disagreement, and then opening separate RfCs for each of those if we can't resolve them amongst ourselves. Before the block occurred, I began the early stages of starting what I hope could be a constructive WP:RFC/U about Viriditas. If the troublesome conduct continues after he comes back, I will resume that process. And if that process doesn't resolve things, then I am prepared to be the filing party of an ArbCom case that will scrutinize all parties involved. But let's hope that things will not have to go that far. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• As I was hitting the save button, another idea occurred to me. A variation on Jusdafax's third bullet point would be to ask someone like that to mediate a mediated discussion of the content issues. (That worked very well a year or two ago, for the lead section of WP:V.) That might work better than content RfCs, or might work as a way to construct content RfCs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for changes (I've copied part of this from my comment at the most recent ANI)

See the changes I made by this comparison of diffs, where I order the issues in a common sense flow, and put the introduction the first section at the top (it was hidden at the bottom of the first section for some reason, and is again), and made other stylistic edits. There was no reason given, but all of my changes were reverted between 4 edits/3 editors. I can't see what the problem was with my version, and would love to hear the reasoning from those who reverted everything. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

At the bottom of #Changes, just above, I made three comments indicating my objections. I want to admit that there were probably some things that could be restored from what you did, so my apologies if my contribution to the reversions seemed overly sweeping to you. Let me take some of your edits one-by-one:

1. [2]: It seems to me to be more logical to have the response come directly after the things (concerns/positions/issues) that it was responding to. It wasn't a response to the media coverage, and the effect of the edit was to move that aspect of the POV lower on the page.
2. [3]: A lot of things going on here, but you are incorrect about the consensus here about the science, and again, you moved that information lower on the page. Other editors in the discussion above pointed out how questionable it was to add the content about bees.
3. [4]: I've left out some fairly trivial edits about images before this one, but why add that abbreviation?

Given how everything on this page has been contested, you would have done yourself a favor by making a list like this and discussing it in talk before making the edits. You don't have to, of course, but bold edits risk WP:BRD reverts. After all, look at how long I've been asking other editors' opinions about changing a header from "Concerns" to "Positions" without actually making the edit. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan's attempted list of outstanding issues

I have a rather shocking alternative view on this article - as things stand right now, the article as-is is actually in pretty decent shape. I challenge other editors to attempt to forget all of the heat in these talk pages, and actually read it again. The typical WP editor, with no knowledge of this controversy would IMO see this as a perfectly reasonable small article, and I'd say due to all these eyes on the page, it actually meets WP policy way better than the vast majority of small articles out there. Note however that this way of looking at things doesn't recognise conflicts over what could be in the article but isn't, but that kind of problem is surely better than material in that isn't appropriate. The majority of reverts recently have largely been essentially arguments about wording, or at a slightly more detailed level, whether additional clarifying clauses are appropriate (e.g. "Protesters concerned about GMO effect on environment" - should it have an additional "...especially bees"?)

Inspired by the above discussion, I thought I'd try and compile another, fresh (nearer the bottom...) list of outstanding issues as I see it. I would encourage others to add items to my list, and sign them. The idea here is that we can have the very tightly defined issues at the top, and subsections below to define the problem, and try to thrash out a specific compromise position. This might not work, but I thought it would be worth a try. I have tried to blend this with Tryptofish's list from a week ago. Note that entry zero is a statement of "philosophy" for this page. I've seen many voices on both sides of these arguments say it, so I'm hoping consensus already exists for this. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is well-said, and I too think that the page is in surprisingly good shape (which will probably be something that I will come to regret having said). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

0. This page is about the protest, and reactions to the protest. It is NOT a forum for science arguments.

The exception would be the GMO controversy section and a sentence in the lead, where material already established from the main controversies article could be deployed - explicitly to counter WP:FORK concerns. I'm thinking in particular of Jytdog's consensus statement from the other article, which has been largely approved by a RfC. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of us disagree with this statement. The FORK issue is important, but the FRINGE one is too just to ensure that this doesn't become something for the worst of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support and Oppose, in equal measure. I think that covers it, doesn't it? The problem with general philosophical statements about Wikipedia pages is that they run up against conflicting details. I do agree that we should not make this page a WP:POVFORK about the GMO debate in general. But I also feel strongly that we must present the marchers' reasons for the March. We have to do that! And once we do that, we run up against, well, you pick: fringe, POV-fork, POV, balance, whatever. If all we do is report the marchers' reasons, then we have a problematic page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The marchers views are fringe and so long as we report them in the appropriate way we need not run into any problems. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously A little background is required but no more. We should not be addressing issues here that addressed more fully elsewhere. This is not a soapbox for anti-GM or pro-GM views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The opposite would go against WP:FORUM. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Details surrounding the presentation of the 2 million marchers number, though not the philosophy of what should be in the article.

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We agree - I hope - we should recognise the lower (200k) and higher (2M) numbers, and describe their origins. We already do this. Ongoing revisions govern whether we should actively note whether other news outlets "churnalised" the protester's number, or not. I honestly can't bring myself to have a strong opinion. I don't think it matters. I note the final discussion of this below seemed to have come to this conclusion (?) DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I, too, see this as a minor issue. As long as we present both the high and the low numbers, and don't particularly endorse one over the other in Wikipedia's voice, I'm complacent about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• We need to make clear that the 2 million figure is the organisers claim. That is what the sources say it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• List and attribute. Crowd estimates are very inexact, so there's no issue with offering both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support with representing the range going from lowest to highest, as presented by WP:RS, and also present the number according to the organizers. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

2. What's the source for the list of the marcher's positions? (I'm hopeful I resolved this this evening).

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the primary source for the protesters concerns this evening, per WP:ABOUTSELF. This material is all now directly cited (though the positions of the actual ref numbers may not be ideal), and IMO it's very obvious this is the protester's opinions, not scientific fact. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I redacted your unsourced personal opinion on a talk page that attacks the subject of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(comment restored) Never make changes to other people's comments, Canoe - per WP:TPO. You know how rude this is, right? Diff for anyone reading this later: [5]

I think you've misunderstood anyway, there's absolutely no attack there. I 'm trying to make the point that FRINGE isn't relevant here (in my opinion), as the context is clear enough. DanHobley (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I read it as an unsourced attack on the article subject. Your opinion is that they either don't believe in science or don't trust it. I don't really care if you wish to leave it. Others may request you redact it as disruptive. When you make POV comments like that I can see why many other editors will go out of their way to simply ignore your input or counter it. If Louis Riel were a BLP subject it would be the same as voicing your opinion on what you believe his ideals are based on. Even though this isn't a BLP article it is all about people. If they came here and saw your comments I can understand why they would just retaliate my slamming Wikipedia in the media for being POV on their motivations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, attacks on the article subject are permitted on the talk page; that is its purpose. As Dan says you should not remove comments from others except in very specific circumstances. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan, I agree with you. So long as it is clear from the context that the marchers' position is fringe we need not go into the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ugh. Dan, now you can see why I have concerns about the general philosophical concept in item zero. I do not think that saying that "this is the protester's opinions, not scientific fact" is an attack that violates WP:BLPGROUP. But I think that what you really should have said was "this is the protesters' opinions, not the opinions of Wikipedia or of the majority of mainstream science sources". What should be the underlying issue is actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Anyway... I think it's good to use what the marchers themselves have said, as a primary source. I also like the idea of using mainstream news reports (secondary sources) to report things like "many of the marchers said that they believed that...". I think that we need to avoid commentaries from people who may or may not have been associated with the March, particularly in the form of cherrypicked quotes, because that has historically sent this page down the road of battling quotations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

3. How much of the marcher's concerns over human health risks should be included? Should the direct quote "cancer, infertility and birth defects" be present? Also, more detail on the other entries?

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale for removal, as IMO it's clear this is the protester's position. Primary sources support the factual accuracy. I can't see how more detail on the organiser's objectives (e.g., additional sentence or clause) could really cause any more concerns than what we have, if you're worried about WP:WEIGHT. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion again. I always thought talk pages were not for voicing your opinion on the subject? If a protester claims to be marching against "cancer, infertility and birth defects" that they believe can be caused by GMO then we include it as a sourced motivation for the protest. This article isn't called 'motivational basis of the protest' so which science they base their protest on probably doesn't belong. Statements by protesters yes, second guessing the motivation of the statements, no. If a protester states "Dr. Sues says we don't want green ham." then we should be able to include that as a quote. We shouldn't go into the Science of Dr. Suess though. We could mention that Dr. Suess made lots of money by creating Green Eggs and Ham or was critizedd for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is expected to more than make simple statements about the march, it is expected to analyse it while deferring to sources. We aren't a newspaper. We know that the opinion of the marches is not valid because it disagrees with the consensus position, yet for some reason you want to include it anyway without including the scientific perspective. Also, on "... so which science ...", there is only one science. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It should only be included if it can be put into context that it is ill-founded, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Less than now, and this is a big problem with the article. "Covering" their view has become a soapbox/coatrack for promoting their views. Also, paraphrasing their views in neutral terms rather than repeating their talking points is a needed change here. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'd be looking for, specifically. It's one of the fringe viewpoints guideline and policy require us to deal with. Thargor Orlando (talk)

This seems to be the issue that will continue to create controversy until it is decided once and for all whether or not it is Wikipedia's place to limit and counter the protest's views on what some editors believe is a fringe viewpoint. Assuming that there is no disagreement on whether or not the protesters are holding fringe beliefs when they express concerns re Monsanto's conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, claimed economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply, and concerns about GMOs harming the environment, we need to decide if it is the mission of WP to step in to limit what we include re the protest's viewpoint on health issues. A comparable article would be the War on women article where there is a sharp disagreement as to whether one even exists. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, our guidelines and policies insist on it. To claim GM food causes "cancer, infertility, and birth defects" is a fringe viewpoint, period. It is not supported by the science. That statement alone is what is causing strife, and a simple note after the sentence about the scientific consensus will solve the protests here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• If we have reliable sourcing that the marchers themselves have said it, then we can reasonably include it. If it's only some secondary commentator, then leave it out. If it is WP:FRINGE or violates WP:MEDMOS, then we have to do some specific things. First, we present it as a direct quote, in quotation marks, and attribute it clearly to them. Second, we provide on this page, in some fashion, correct information reflecting mainstream science (also reliably sourced, of course). It doesn't mean that we have to have a point-counterpoint over every last issue, but it's a great reason to retain a sentence or two about mainstream scientific consensus in the GMO background section. It's a mistake to try to purge the page of the protesters' views, on the grounds that they are fringe and will mislead our readers, because it's not our job to assume that our readers are unable to read, but we correspondingly should not make this a POV-fork that only reflects the protesters' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We stating what the marchers' concerns are but not in a way that gives them undue weight, prominence, or authority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No undue authority, I agree completely. About weight and prominence, the fact remains that this is the subject of the page. I think that's a significant distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is hard to separate these factors. For example, to have in the lead, the marchers stated, "GM foods give you cancer" is, on the face of it, a neutrally stated factual statement about the motivations of the marchers. However, by giving an extreme fringe claim high prominence within the article, we give it publicity and credibility that it does not merit. I do agree that we should give the marchers' motivations but not in a way that promotes them.

I do not think that giving the mainstream science view along with the marchers' claims is the solution. For example, having something like the marchers stated, "GM foods give you cancer" although this is contrary to the mainstream science view has several problems. It shows a fringe view on apparently equal terms with a mainstream view, it invites arguments and sourcing battles between editors, and it slightly glamourises the marchers position as 'freedom fighters'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, that's what I've just done since (after kicking this issue around a bit) I now think it's fairly clear that this is what WP policy requires, since WP:PSCI states that fringe views "should be clearly described as such". I don't think there is a false equivalence here, since we're showing that one view is a fringe view, the other is scientific consensus. What a reader chooses to favour between these is really beyond our control as editors! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After a few edits back and forth between Alexbrn and myself, I thought we had a version that satisfied Alexbrn's concerns while also satisfying my desire that we avoid too much of a point-counterpoint. Subsequently, User:Gandydancer reverted it, and I would welcome Gandydancer's comments here in this talk section. But, that said, I think that Gandydancer has a valid point. I went back and carefully reread WP:PSCI, and although it does indicate how fringe views should be rebutted, it doesn't actually say that the rebuttal has to come in the next sentence, only that it has to be easily found on the page, and we do already have the GMO background section. I think that this question really gets at exactly where the remaining disagreements about how to write this page exist, and therefore I'd very much like to see further discussion about it, from multiple editors. I can see a rationale for leaving it as is, or for a version that I had tried in one of my edits, where the rebuttal came in a footnote, or for a third way, in which we rewrite it slightly, to more clearly emphasize the attribution, somewhat as I recently did with the Tami Canal statement about anger, frustration, and concern for her children. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for your careful consideration of this point. I really should not have to clarify my position on this particular point, but I will do it anyway. In my opinion, Wikipedia's position is correct when they say that currently there is no evidence that GMO foods are not safe. On the other hand, my mind remains open since current science has also shown that (surprisingly) sometimes genetic ill effects do not show up in the first generation, and sometimes even show up in the third generation. Furthermore, current science also shows that some chemicals, which apparently are not harmful when exposure is single, turn out to be toxic when in combination with other chemicals, which could apply to GM products as well. And of course, the problem that an industry peer reviewed study can be made to say anything that a manufacturer wants it to say. Even so, none of that should, or does, have any bearing on this article. The article stated that the protest's views are what WP calls fringe and they have been countered with what WP considers the scientific stance. That should be enough. It should not be necessary for WP to hound the protesters and put WARNING!!! signs throughout the article as though readers are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that trying to neutrally paraphrase their views rather than letting the article become a soapbox. The worst example is allowing their description of the law via it's affect on a non-existent hypothetical situation "even if they are shown to be unsafe". That's like describing the diplomatic immunity law as one which excuses the diplomat "even if they personally murder 1,000 Americans". North8000 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifically about the health claim, I'm going to make a WP:BOLD edit along the lines of the third option that I described in my previous comment. Please see if it helps, and if not, please revert and comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I took that one phrase out. I'll be mostly off wiki for over a week. With Tryptofish being an objective expert person "in the middle", I give them my support and if I had a "proxy" I'd give them that too. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In anticipation of the predictable reaction to that, no, there is no cabal. And no, I reject the role of speaking for anyone other than myself. But thank you for the compliment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And this is a very minor observation, but I think it's kind of ironic that the sentence I rewrote about Canal's motivations has now been removed (but I'm OK with the removal). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

4. Is the amount of "the science" in the article appropriate? (in those restricted sections)

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is, as long as it remains restricted to a minimal statement in the lead, and the single GMO controversy background section. I agree that WP:FORK is a legitimate thing to guard against in this article... but what we have is NPOV. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In terms of fringe science, we're basically okay in its current incarnation except for the Concerns section. Once we address that, it appears the article will meet what policy demands. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think my answer here is really the same thing as what I just said in the section immediately above. I think that the science consensus information in the GMO background section is essential to keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• We need minimal science in the article. This is not a science article. The science is covered better and more fully elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

5. Issues regarding the background on the HR933 signing timeline, which appear to have been largely championed by the currently-blocked Veriditas.

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion. To me, the article looks fine without this information, but wouldn't object if it went in avoiding WP:SYNTH. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I think that Viriditas was partly correct (note!!), and we should not simply blow this issue off. Go back to the earlier discussion for the details, but I think it's very relevant that the protesters said that the signing of HR933 by President Obama was something that played a big role in motivating them to protest. We are going to have to be careful about how we write about the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, because many of the protesters' assumptions are at least partly in disagreement with other source material – but the issue is actually very noteworthy for the purpose of explaining what led to the protest. What Viriditas and I were disagreeing about was his stated plan to make a dedicated section of the page (probably after what is now the Positions section), going into the bill in a lot of detail. Per WP:Summary style, I strongly oppose doing that, because we already have a main page about the legislation, and that page includes the controversies about the bill. What I recommend instead: in the background section of this page, we already have a sub-section about a bill in California. We should expand that a little bit, to cover both the California law and the Obama signing of HR933. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds sensible, Trypofish. As you seem on top of this, I reckon just trying to add it would be fine. That might let us also alter the formatting of the last bullet point of Positions, which has good content but poor format/style. DanHobley (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly, that you are referring to taking it out of the Positions section (as opposed to adding it there)? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Expand the Background Californian bill section, and move background type material out of positions and into the background as appropriate? (but not all of it?) Certainly let's not decrease our total coverage of this issue, just reorganise it. DanHobley (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, good. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

6. A facebook post describing the movement's aims was removed, and hasn't been reinstated.

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We now use the primary website source for the protester's concerns, so hopefully this has mostly been superseded. Though I wouldn't object to working it in again, per WP:ABOUTSELF.DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is a guideline option. I think the guideline may be changed to include more links. Some readers like to link to the subject websites. The guideline was written based on one main website. Now many subjects have Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a main peacock site. Twitter is probably the fastest updating and the peacock one the slowest. What we should be including are at least two. The peacock one for extreme detail showing all of their feathers and the faster social one that they are most active on. We have a bad double standard now with one site as the minimum and 8+ as the max. I think talk pages get consensus on the count on a case by case basis. Two should be fine for this article. I assume they post regular updates on Facebook and the main page is just a database. I haven't looked at either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent. If you look back at the earlier discussion, I argued for putting it back (again, please note that I agreed with Viriditas about it!), on the grounds that the statement reflects the views of the subject of the page, but I also see that some editors felt that Facebook fails WP:V because we cannot really know who posted the comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint

Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree The marchers made the ludicrous claim that Monsanto orchestrated a worldwide media blackout. The article should not directly or indirectly support this crazy claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree. It's not overwhelming. That is unhelpful hyperbole. It's one sentence about someone who felt that the media accepted Monsanto's terminology, and two sentences about two persons who felt that there was too little coverage. It's true that there are fringe-y people who believe the conspiracy theory that the media are in league with big business, and those three commentators are probably in that group. They appear to have said it elsewhere. But they don't say it in the quotes that are now on the page. The article, in its present state, does not directly support the crazy claim. Does it indirectly support it? Only if one knows what else the sources have said, and thinks that because Wikipedia cited those sources, Wikipedia accepts as "true" everything in those sources, even the things Wikipedia never quoted or mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not about crazy claims. This is about a section being balanced rougly 5-to-1 in favor of a false claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I was referring to where Martin called it a crazy claim, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree, per Tryptofish. Also, if protesters were making a claim that a media blackout was organized, that should be in the article!? Certainly more appropriate than the 3rd party discussions we have, which have this innuendo but don't say it. Again, we can trust our readers to understand that's a primary claim, and unsubstantiated. If a 3rd party source exists saying this is nonsense, fine - but if not, it's not for us to editorialize this claim away (i.e., this isn't necessarily a fringe claim without the refs for the opposing view). We already note wideranging coverage did happen. DanHobley (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Could one of the disagreers above explain to me what encyclopedic purpose the media section currently serves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'll do that. First, WP:RGW. We're really not here to set the record straight. You don't need to purge the page of every bit of opinion, held by the protesters, with which reliable sources disagree. Now, that said, I'll admit that it's the least important part of the page, so I don't want to argue that this stuff is a really big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, I am not arguing that this is a fringe point of view, but rather that we're giving significant undue weight to a false claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And for the record, I'll point out again that it's a total of two sentences, and they don't even contain the false claim. Please consider also: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • As of this moment, it's two paragraphs. The Livingstone claim which is okay, the Alternet claim that is demonstrably false, the Hartmann claim that is demonstrably false, and the Bachman claim that is demonstrably false. Yes, it's not the biggest issue in the article. It still needs to be solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 18:45, August 9, 2013‎
        • Wow, you are right! I went and looked, thinking that there wasn't anything there from Alternet, but there it was, a third paragraph that I somehow didn't previously notice was there. I don't remember who added it (without taking part in the discussion here), and I'm not going to go back and find out. But I am going to remove it right now. It's obviously a false opinion represented as fact, because it plainly contradicts the first paragraph. There is absolutely no place on this page for obvious falsehoods like that. That said, we will have the first paragraph, which I increasingly think we need to make sure that what is here is true, in contrast to some falsehood out on the Web, and the second paragraph. If we agree that the Livingstone claim is OK, then I'd like to live with the Bachman and Hartmann claims that are presented as opinions without repeating the parts that are obviously false. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The Alternet source seems to make the distinction that the mainstream news coverage wasn't live coverage, presumably on a medium such as television, but that seems to me to be too minor a point for us to include here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Abstain I have some sympathy with the complaint (and note how ironic it is that in the just-failed AfD a clamour of voices were arguing that the March had - and has - a great deal of mainstream and in depth media coverage). However, I can live with the text as it stands. I don't think this is a big issue any more. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Needs slashing The wording on this item/question is not very good. But the second 2/3 of the section should get deleted. It's just talking points of one side, not a description of media coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Do people think it would make the situation better or worse if there were actually a sentence in this section explicitly acknowledging that the protesters themselves believe there was inadequate coverage? Assuming such a reference exists? (FWIW, the current rewrite of this section looks like an improvement, though I'm having a tough time getting particularly worked up about the detail in this section.) DanHobley (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It might marginally improve it, but the point is more that the claim is demonstrably false. A simple nod that there were complaints about coverage would suffice, but not lines and lines of things we know to be incorrect. It's not that the theory is fringe, but that we're giving much too much weight to this claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Dan, I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. There is no point in putting that the marchers were generally disappointed with the media coverage and would have preferred more. This would apply to the organisers of any publicity event and it is not the least bit important or notable. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that we mention the, plainly crazy, claim by some that there was a worldwide media conspiracy, orchestrated by Monsanto, not to report the march we could mention this but only in the same way that we would mention the moon landing conspiracies or flat earthists' views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I suspect it would be easier to respond to Dan's proposal if we actually had such a source to look at. But anyway, I just deleted the title of Hartmann's piece, because it didn't really add to the section (it implied that the "liberal media" might not be so liberal, which is not really an issue about GMOs). With that, this whole discussion comes down to: "Joseph Bachman, writing in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, questioned what he saw as a lack of mainstream media coverage.[47] Radio host Thom Hartmann compared what he saw as scant coverage of the protests to the greater media attention garnered by small Tea Party rallies.[48]" Sure, there are also conspiracy theories out there. But, for what is on the page right now, is this really too much weight? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section?

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. Because they are not cited to support a sentence about the March. It's a sentence about the scientific consensus. And it's appropriate to have this one sentence about the scientific consensus, to provide proper context for the views of the protesters. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, per Tryptofish again. DanHobley (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, but we must be wary of starting any mainstream/protestors scientific argument on this pages. I would prefer that we make clear that the protestors' arguments are fringe by our wording rather than by presenting contrary arguments here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, in fact neutrality requires it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

9. Should we add more quotes from Dave Murphy, at the end of what is now the last bullet point in the Positions section?

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. Doing so would only be cherrypicking quotes to push the protesters' POV. Let's stick, instead, to what the protest itself has announced. (I added points 8 and 9 because they were also some leftover issues from earlier discussions, and I want to make sure we establish consensus about each of them). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. We are not here to improve the protestors' arguments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. That would be to give undue weight (and it's "Dave", not "Dan"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 09:29, August 8, 2013‎
  • Woops, sorry, fixed! Thanks for pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

More Monsanto censorship

Why are we edit warring of the media coverage now? If mainstream press is claimed to be censored by Monsanto then we should reflect that here. Not be guilty of the some whitewashing and censorship.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a section where this was discussed, use it. Stop opening new sections willy nilly on an already bloated talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The opening post of this thread asserts that editors are acting on Monsanto's behalf to censor what Wikipedia says. If that assertion is made again by Canoe1967 on this talk page without evidence, I will bring that editor to WP:ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, you make a rather strange assertion, that the mainstream press is claimed to be censored by Monsanto. There have indeed been such claims, but only local TV stations and newspapers. On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence that any censorship has actually occurred and it is very hard to see how such censorship could be possible, thus any mention of it would require solid evidence.

So, yes, there are sources that claim there was Monsanto conspiracy to suppress media coverage but that does not mean that we should mention them here. It would be akin to saying in the Moon article that some sources had claimed that there was WWII bomber on the moon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If mainstream media didn't cover it well and a smaller media outlet reports this as a blatant lack of coverage then that is noteworthy. If we don't include it here then we are just as guilty as mainstream media for trying to censor and/or whitewash Wikipedia. This article is about a protest. Protests like media and Wikipedia attention. If there is an obvious lack of attention in Wikipedia then we could be considered as part of the problem and not part of the solution. I am not saying that editors are acting on Monsanto's behalf but readers may see this differently if we don't provide them with complete coverage. This may have been discussed on the talk page before but I didn't see mention of a talk page consensus in the edit summary. We could take it to RfC or other drama boards but they will probably end up as endless discussion going nowhere as they have before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There actually is no agreement as to whether mainstream media did or did not cover the march well. In the AfD discussion the claim was made that the march was notable because it was well covered yet those same editors want to say here that it was poorly covered. I have absolutely no problem in sayinq that the march was well or poorly covered (whichever we decide is correct) but I strongly object to the insinuation that there was a Monsanto conspiracy. At the moment we refer to a 'concern'. What on Earth is that meant to mean? Either it is utterly meaningless waffle or it is an insinuation of something sinister. Either way we cannot say it if our aim is to write a serious encyclopedia. Please will someone remove this nonsense. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you simply conflating the time frames of the coverage being addressed in the various statements?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I really do not know, but it is far from clear to me what the news coverage was. However I a have no strong objection to stating exactly how strong, or weak, the media coverage was at various times, although I find it hard to see any encyclopedic value in this information. What I strongly object to is giving any credibility whatsoever to the conspiracy theory that Monsanto orchestrated a worldwide media blackout. 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6. There are more.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hands up, anybody who thinks canoe's links are reliable and suitable sources for our use? Roxy the dog (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

These sources are utterly unreliable, and Canoe should know better. I always find the sources people show give a little insight into the garbage they read. For example, the first source has an article saying you can get rid of cancer by not eating refined sugar. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Monsanto COI edit 1. I will keep looking.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with this article? This is a discussion talk page for article content ... IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Those refs are entirely unreliable. I am excited about the sugar thing though. Heh. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If we put references to those links in we should also put in these: Link1, Link2, www.infowars.com/monsanto-investor-bill-gates-says-gmo-crops-needed-to-fight-starvation/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} Link3], Link4 Link5. Those links took a minute to find. The internet is awash with claims and opinions about Monsanto. Let us stick to facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Those don't mention the march. You could try including them but someone will probably just revert them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to include either, that is my point. I am happy to include verified facts about the march but we cannot include opinions expressed by every local news source, blog, web site, or YouTube post about it. That is not the function of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The local news covered it better than mainstream though. Most mainstream news just runs all the snippets they can in short time blocks and then just repeat the same every 15 min to 1/2 hour. They aren't in depth anymore.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we first be clear what we are talking about

Canoe, what you are asking us all to is to add to Wikipedia text that says that there was a conspiracy by Monsanto to prevent media reporting of this march. Is that correct?

Your links say, 'Corporate Media Blackout of Anti-Monsanto Protests Exposed', 'Media Coverage Blackout Over Anti-Monsanto Protests', 'A Total Censorship Blackout by Corporate Media News on the March Against Monsanto as Millions March Worldwide'.

Regarding Roxy's poll my hands stay firmly down. This is moon landing conspiracy material. The links are not the least bit reliable. Since when was YouTube an reliable source? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This site should be reliable. It was win two webby awards for news. How can anyone expect the major news sites to actually report that they failed to cover the story adequately. YouTube is a fine source if it isn't a copyright violation and published by the true authors. In the case above it is.Monsanto accused of having propaganda accounts on the internet. Monsanto accused of dirty tricks. Corporate censorship of any independent studies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to follow the links. There may be something wrong with them, but I didn't see any confirmation that we should state that Monsanto was censoring the media. I think that the argument that Monsanto has been suppressing coverage of the protests is nonsense. Of course Monsanto is doing what any corporation does, and that is spinning the news, but I see no evidence that they are censoring it. The fact that they are providing their own spin is simply a matter of the corporate response. The arguments about censorship or a conspiracy are wasting our time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, what on earth does this have to do with this article? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have taken this off-topic witch hunt to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canoe1967_-_GMO. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Bringing this back around

As one of the chief complainants(?) regarding the media section, I'm happy to see some progress made during my absence. With this said, we should be able to handle the criticism section without using outlets like Alternet (which isn't really good for our purposes here). I'm also not seeing how Alternet's claim is at all true, and why we should include it. I understand the use of Hartmann's opinion, but the Alternet claim is treated as fact, the text lifted directly, and is contradicted by the sentence before it. At this point, I think the section would be in good shape by removing the Alternet claim completely. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia and we should aim to give our readers the straight facts, as supported by reliable sources. It is not our job to allude to or hint at things. There is therefore no place here for vague and unsubstantiated claims or assertions by local media sources.

As Wolfie has said above, it is true for all news topics that news media generally tend to report events more when their political stances are in line with the aims of the events. A right wing news source is more likely to give coverage to a right wing march for example. There is nothing notable or unexpected about this; it has applied since there have been news sources and is likely to continue as long as they they exist. Although it should not be in this article any more than all other article about politically sensitive events, I would be happy to give a general statement about news coverage here if it would lay this issue to rest. I am thing of something along the lines of, 'Generally speaking news coverage was better in local environmental sources than in national right-wing US news sources'. I do not think this should really be in the article but, if it prevents the degradation of WP by the inclusion if crazy theories, it would be a worthwhile compromise for me.

If anyone wants to say more than that they must make clear exactly what they are suggesting happened. We cannot print every claim, rumour, or conspiracy theory that we can find in any source be about Monsanto or the march here. This is not how WP works.

So, what is it that is actually claimed. Is anyone saying that Monsanto somehow orchestrated a worldwide media conspiracy to censor reporting of the march, or is it something else? Please make your claim here so that it can be openly discussed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Caneo, you seem a little reticent to say why you want a media section and what you want it to say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to my mention that the media section should go before the industry response section? That one may need a re-name if others than Monsanto responded. A reactions section would cover industry and governments. The media section should be kept separate because it is journalistic material and not official reactions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The current wording of what that section cites to Alternet was pretty much written by Martin, and it says: "No major corporate media outlets in the US covered the live event. CNN ran a followup short on the event on May 28, and there was sparse mainstream coverage after the event." I'm open to wording it differently, but I think that it was pretty reasonable. As discussed recently, Alternet's point is largely about live coverage, so I think the first sentence, about no live coverage in the US, is factually true. I don't think anyone would question the truthfulness of the statement about CNN. Maybe the last part of the second sentence, about "sparse" is questionable. And maybe there is a due weight issue about the whole thing. But I really don't want to scrub this page of everything that is from the marchers' point of view. How about this: change the two sentences to a single sentence, slightly rewritten from the first sentence: "No major corporate media outlets in the US covered the event live.". Then go right to what Hartmann said. Would that remove anything objectionable? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to reduce the wording further than the already bare bones representation of what the sources say.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me, too. It was just an idea, not something I'm enthusiastic about. I, too, see the current wording as being quite succinct, and I'm unenthusiastic about attempts to scrub the page further. I suppose a case can be made that this talk section, just like the talk section immediately below it, reopens discussions that really need not be reopened. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's actually the direct text from Alternet, a source I still see no justification for using in any form. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal opinion that isn't helping expand the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Alternet source is a personal opinion that doesn't help expand the article, which is why I'm in favor of its removal. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like Alternet or what the article being cited says does not undermine its status as a reliable source for the content cited in this context. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether I like Alternet or not has no bearing on whether it's a reliable source, which it is not for our purposes here. That's the sole reason I'd prefer its removal. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim that is is not reliable for the cited content in this context is baseless, and no one at RS/N has adopted such a position, particularly among uninvolved editors/admins.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The brief discussion on RS/N pointed (obviously enough) to Alternet being a reliable source for Alternet's view. The question we really need to answer is: is inclusion of this material neutral (i.e. is it a significant view, the inclusion of which does not bias the article)? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternet's "view," in this case, is not being presented as an opinion, but rather reported fact. Even as an opinion, it's couched in highly partisan/ideological language ("corporate media") of questionable truth, never mind questionable relevance. I've continually been in favor at this point of giving Thom Hartmann's claim some space, even though it's factually wrong, because he's actually a voice of note. Alternet doesn't even reach that point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the facticity of the statement is not being questioned, only the publication making the statement and the political slant ("corporate media"). It would be easy to represent the material in an attributed manner. As far as I'm concerned, it is a noteworthy aspect of this event that it was not covered by the larger media outlets. If there is doubt regarding the power of corporate advertising money to influence the media, there are many studies available examining that phenomena, and it doesn't delve into conspiracy theory.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Thargor, you previously wanted to delete Hartmann. I agree with Ubikwit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reworded what the page says, a bit. Please check if that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As it's still using Alternet, I'm opposed, but it's better than it was. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it now? I have changed a word. I think the media section is pointless but at least it no longer implies a conspiracy theory, it just states some rather unimportant facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem for me is more the use of a source we should avoid. Otherwise, it's okay but not great. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, I agree with you about the use of sources here generally. There seem to be the view that anything mentioned about this subject in a local newspaper, a local TV station, blog, forum or ejournal must be added to the article. The media section now is only pointless, at least it does not try to promote a crazy conspiracy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yipee! That's an improvement! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"At this point." I've come around on it that it should be noted for some time now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we even have a media section

I know many articles do have media sections but, as far as I can see the only consensus reached on the subject here would be to have something along the lines, 'There was some coverage in the media'. Hardly something of great encyclopedic value. I do not see any consensus for anything more that that, especially local media reports claiming or alluding to a conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think our readers would doubt our integrity if we didn't include a media section in a media event. I don't see a consensus that the media coverage was only one sentence. The small media commented that the big media was lacking greatly. That in itself is notable. We may have few sources that actually covered it properly but they are sources and they need to be included to show the notability of the event.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that there was consensus that the media coverage was only one sentence, I was pointing out that only one sentence in the current section has a consensus.

Encyclopedias do not contain crazy speculation by local media. We should remove it from here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is called a BLP attack. You may wish to rephrase it if you expect a response.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Que??? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with having a media coverage section for the time being. Part of what makes this discussion difficult is that we are talking about events that are still rather recent. In this recent context, I think the content we have is alright. Maybe a year from now it will appear trivial and be deleted. Or maybe a year from now it will look much more significant than it does today, and will be expanded. I really believe we are spending too much effort worrying about Alternet. The brief content is just not that big a deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think that the media section should contain? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What it contains now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we also have comments like, 'the only thing that’s truly being poisoned is the biotech debate by such rhetoric. I’m also willing to bet that organizers are being as truthful about the number of marchers as they are about the science on genetically modified foods.' from [7] or 'Today was the March Against Monsanto. There was an event in Seattle. I didn’t go. I think the entire thing is misguided' from[8]? I think not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you propose expanding the Response section to include that, except that I'm afraid that you would actually take me up on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I really do not want to include those quotes. I am trying to show that we cannot include everything from any media source in this article. I think this must be obvious. Why then do we include just two local newspaper/TV quotes? Who chose them and why? Apart from the conspiracy theory, the media do not have that much to say. As might be expected some commentators supported the marchers, some opposed them. Why are we putting this in an encyclopedia? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Above the section break, you said, "The media section now is only pointless, at least it does not try to promote a crazy conspiracy", and I facetiously said that was an improvement. As long as it was promoting a fringe view, I was interested in working to fix it. Now, as you say, it just presents a bit of content that is of questionable significance, but without actually misrepresenting the sourced facts. The reason we do include that stuff is, in a practical sense, because other editors objected to removing it, and their objections had about as much validity under policies and guidelines as the arguments from editors including you, that the material should be removed. You have presented reasonable arguments for removing it, others have reasonable arguments that it ought to be here, and, on balance, there is no absolutely right answer. We can remove it, and then there will be another dispute about it – just as there would be if, instead, someone tried to expand the conspiracy theories. For now, it's a reasonable consensus. Check back in several months or a year, and maybe the consensus will be that it's too trivial to retain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There are no policies or guidelines that tell us to include wild conspiracy theory claims by local media. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with including it as long as its attributed and in the way it is now [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to fight over it now. In its present state it does not degrade WP by giving credibility to a crazy and completely unsupported conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientific consensus - case closed

The idea of officially closing a talk page section is new to me. Seems weird and rude, but whatever. An important part, Trypto, that you did not highlight from the closing statement was this : "I also looked over the report by groupuscule, and while there was consensus that their concerns did not affect the accuracy of the proposed statement, it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight." Due weight isn't an option, it's a ground rule for an encyclopedia. Please don't ignore this. petrarchan47tc 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

it may be helpful. That's an option. Stop misrepresenting basic sentences. Now stop starting irrelevant sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That section never should have been closed. An RfC for one article doesn't cover all articles. ArbCom would be needed for that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

ARBCOM does not make content decisions. Read policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I too do not like the arbitrary closing of discussions and also find in rude and contrary to the basic WP principle of civil discussion.

That being said however I think we should not be discussing what the scientific consensus on GM foods is here. We have an article on that very subject, which is where this discussion should take place. This article is about a specific event and it is not a place to discuss general controversies about GE. Of course, we need to give a little background and say what motivated the marchers but editors must stop using it as a WP:coatrack on which to hang anything they can find on the internet about GE. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the same about the coatrack but the opposite. If sources in this article don't specifically mention the march then they should be excluded. Otherwise it coatracks the opposite and strokes Monsanto.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be very happy to work with you, Canoe, to remove all extraneous content from this article. We should give the marchers' motivations and Monsanto's response once only. We should also briefly state the mainstream position on the subject, as it is described in the relevant WP article.

I mentioned that the sections were out of order and that seems to have been ignored. The media coverage should go before the Monsanto response. Monsanto responded after the coverage, not before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why we even have a media coverage section. What exactly is it that you want to get across to our readers? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you suggest we remove media coverage from all of our articles then? I think the subjects of BLP articles would be very happy with that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but I do question the purpose of a media section for this article. What exactly do you want it to say. There is only a consensus to say that there was some media coverage. It is not our job to include every comment on the march made by every local media source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We aren't including all 5,000 local reports. We just need to include the media reaction to a media event. If the smaller media found it was notable that the larger media didn't cover it well then that is notable in itself. I can see if it were a case like David S. Rohde but that isn't the case here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I support Tryptofish's efforts and actions. The impact is just for this article. Let's move on. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

30% of the sources by my count don't even mention the march. Some go back to 2004, I think. We could start by removing those sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

1. If Petra and Martin think that I was rude, that was not my intention, and I don't really believe that I was. It would be easy to find much more dramatic examples of rudeness on this talk page. Overall, I think I have been one of the least rude editors in this talk. But I'm delighted to see Petra and Martin agreeing about something!
2. Is it too much to ask that editors be careful about signing their comments on this talk page? I find it difficult, sometimes, to figure out who is saying what.
3. In that section, numerous editors were complaining that the discussion was unhelpful and ought to be closed, because it was just reopening the same thing over and over again. (Perhaps the same can be said about this talk section, as well.) There were a lot of complaints asking that the section be closed.
4. In that section, let's note something that I said there: "That said, I will stipulate to the fact that the scientific consensus is not the same thing as the political consensus, the cultural consensus, or the societal consensus; indeed, science may be finding itself at odds with all of those." I don't think it's unreasonable to cover the science in terms of science, and the other things in terms of what they are.
5. In that section, let's look at what Petra presented the question as being. The header is: "Questioning the "scientific consensus"". That sounds to me like a discussion about how this page should write about the scientific consensus. Petra concluded the opening post by saying: "This calls Wikipedia's GMO "scientific consensus" into question, and highlights a need for more context about the science. Our readers deserve this." That, too, is about the science, rather than about such other things as politics, culture, society, etc.
6. Taking those things together, I felt that it was reasonable to conclude that the consensus at the other page applied to the the question raised by Petra here, and that discussions here would best be served by moving on. Nothing I did stopped anyone from opening this new talk thread. (And nothing I see in this new talk thread really does us any good with respect to improving the content of this page.)
7. The RfC closure at the other page does, indeed, refer to: "while there was consensus that their concerns did not affect the accuracy of the proposed statement, it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight." I read that as saying that (1) there was no impact on how we summarize the mainstream science consensus, and (2) we should give WP:DUE to alternative views from outside mainstream science. If someone has good ideas about presenting those alternative views on this page, instead of complaining about being mistreated, then let's discuss those ideas. But if anyone wants to claim that the scientific consensus is other than what this page currently says it is, well, that's just POV-pushing on behalf of WP:FRINGE science. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those rare cases where mainstream science is POV though. This is an inherent POV caused by Monsanto's legal contracts that don't allow studies without their approval. Science has its hands tied because of this. Any study done on a Monsanto protected product can never be NPOV until they do away with those contracts.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the guidelines. Wikipedia:FRINGE#Identifying_fringe_theories. We give most weight to the mainstream scientific point of view. That is what we do. WP:DUE is the most basic element of wikipedia. We are not here to right great wrongs. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and if there is some doubt about what the mainstream scientific point of view is, the place to address that is (yes you have seen it before) here.

Not according to Scientific American: "... their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research." Contract. I don't know if the contract has been doctored or how RS the site is. If the studies are only done by Monsanto then they must have a lot of scientists to get a broad consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In no way does that address what I said, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, if you want to try to argue that point this is not the place to do so, This is. It is not a difficult concept that I am trying to get across; this article is about a march, the Genetically modified food controversies article is about controversies about GM food crops. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why do we have a GMO controversy section here? The two are intertwined. The march is just another spin off controversy article since the main one is too large and bloated with non-controversial material.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream science is not POV. It reflects the mainstream of scholarly thought. There are dissenting views about it, but WP:RGW makes it very clear that we do not rebuke the mainstream in Wikipedia's voice. We have the sentence about the scientific consensus on this page. The very next sentence cites the Epoch Times as noting that there are dissents. There it is: we have the mainstream view, sourced, and the dissenting view, sourced. And, because this is WP:Summary style, with a link to the main page, we don't need to expand it any more than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I am not sure what the "Epoch Times" was doing here anyway (now removed), since this isn't summarizing the main article but introducing novel information via a new source. Which is a big no-no. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Until the list of completely unrelated "GMOs are safe" links are removed, your argument does not hold water. We can't have those links without due weight given to the side of the subject of this article - namely folks who question GMO safety. petrarchan47tc 10:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNC is Wikipedia's guidance, and it's pretty straightforward. In a summary section we summarize the detailed article. We certainly do not misrepresent it by including stuff it doesn't contain; that might look like trying to sneak in material which the consensus on the detailed article had rejected! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The "list of completely unrelated links" exist to combat the fringe points of view put forward by the protesters. It's one sentence and we move on from it, and is more than appropriate and, in fact, required by our WP:NPOV policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, there is no stopping you all from adding this list to wikipedia, but I am saying that since this article is about folks who question this consensus, and who have some scientists and others behind them in this questioning, it makes no sense for anyone to argue for the removal of this information and refs, which give a fuller picture of the article's subject. petrarchan47tc 23:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Petrarchan about this latest point. I don't think that it was SYNTH simply because it wasn't in another article, and I meant what I said above about how we should include something from the people who dissent from the mainstream view. However, the wording from the Epoch Times that got removed did seem to make it sound like there are more doctors and scientists than there actually were. I tend to think that there might be a better way of putting back a bit more of the protesters' side of the argument, and I'd be in favor of doing that, but I think the best approach would be to frame it in terms other than the scientific and medical, more like the non-acceptance of the science by the (non-scientist) public. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)