Talk:The Future of Food
Latest comment: 8 years ago by MichaelQSchmidt in topic NPOV dispute
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article's neutrality disputed but there is no discussion
editWhere is the discussion regarding the use of weasel words and other non-neutral content?
Issue has been dealt with, and weasel removed (or attributed). Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
editAt the very least it should have all of the alarmist words edited out. "Disturbing facts", "Alarming Information" etc.Jvbishop 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The First paragraph is verbatim from the films website.Jvbishop 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to get rid of the worst offenders but the article could still use some work.Jvbishop 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- As regards neutrality of the article, the article is describing a film. The issues of the film are controversial. But the question of neutrality needs to be about the object described, which in this case is a film. I have seen the film, and the description sums up the film. I don't believe it is controversial in terms of its description of the film. Is there something specific in the film that you think it not accurately portrayed here? Also, regarding the words "Disturbing facts", sure its ok that these words are removed. But if you have seen the film, you would note that the characterization of the information is presented through use of music as 'alarming'. So, in the voice of the film, which is what we are talking about, not the issue of biotechnology (which I have my own opinions of but that is not relevant), the film portrays the information as 'alarming' and 'disturbing'. Bgoedecke 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then the article should write it so as to make it clear that characterization of the facts as "disturbing" and the information as "alarming is a characterization made by the film not by Wikipedia. Plus there is just no way to really get around the fact that the first paragraph was verbatim from the film's website. Jvbishop 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't write the article. Is it wrong that it is verbatim from the film's website? Anycase, the presentation is given in a passive voice (at least in my reading) although some of the 'facts' conjectured could be construed to be opinions. I don't mind that the adjectives disturbing or alarming are not present, as the description as it stands, from my point of view, expresses the description of the film. Do you think that 'unlabelled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly made their way onto grocery store shelves in the United States for the past decade' is an opinion or something to be sited? Or 'and highlights how international companies are gradually driving farmers off the land in many countries' is also something to be sited? Such information conclusions made from multiple sources. Tell me what you think should be changed specifically. Bgoedecke 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That the text is taken verbatim from the film's website seems to me to be a roundabout violation of WP:AUTO. I agree that the article is improved by the more passive voice that it has with the deletion of the afore mentioned words. It could use more though and I hoped that by tagging it someone else would come along and do this. I have other priorities but will get to it eventually if no one else does. As far as citing those facts I would say yes but this is due mostly to the fact that philosophically I'm a "citationist" and would argue that everything needs citation, even the accepted facts since once examined these can be found to be wrong. However as a realist I realize that the work to gather all of these citations is immense and thus let uncited facts that I feel are uncontroversial and correct slide by. So while I would like those facts to be cited I do not insist upon it. Jvbishop 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will see if I can get to it sometime in the next month or so Bgoedecke 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- That the text is taken verbatim from the film's website seems to me to be a roundabout violation of WP:AUTO. I agree that the article is improved by the more passive voice that it has with the deletion of the afore mentioned words. It could use more though and I hoped that by tagging it someone else would come along and do this. I have other priorities but will get to it eventually if no one else does. As far as citing those facts I would say yes but this is due mostly to the fact that philosophically I'm a "citationist" and would argue that everything needs citation, even the accepted facts since once examined these can be found to be wrong. However as a realist I realize that the work to gather all of these citations is immense and thus let uncited facts that I feel are uncontroversial and correct slide by. So while I would like those facts to be cited I do not insist upon it. Jvbishop 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't write the article. Is it wrong that it is verbatim from the film's website? Anycase, the presentation is given in a passive voice (at least in my reading) although some of the 'facts' conjectured could be construed to be opinions. I don't mind that the adjectives disturbing or alarming are not present, as the description as it stands, from my point of view, expresses the description of the film. Do you think that 'unlabelled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly made their way onto grocery store shelves in the United States for the past decade' is an opinion or something to be sited? Or 'and highlights how international companies are gradually driving farmers off the land in many countries' is also something to be sited? Such information conclusions made from multiple sources. Tell me what you think should be changed specifically. Bgoedecke 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then the article should write it so as to make it clear that characterization of the facts as "disturbing" and the information as "alarming is a characterization made by the film not by Wikipedia. Plus there is just no way to really get around the fact that the first paragraph was verbatim from the film's website. Jvbishop 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Its a small part of the artical and the "documentary", but the irish potato famine wasn't caused by a lack of bio diversity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.4.8 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2007
-That isn't what wikipedia suggests... just look up "irish potato famine" for yourself. Secondly, it is "article" and not "artical". Third, if you have a statement to make (i.e., "it wasn't this"), then follow it up with "it was this instead". A negation without explanation is the worst possible deconstruction there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.197.144 (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2007
- "It gives farmers in disagreement with the food industry a voice to express how their lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology, and shines a light on the market and political forces that are changing what we eat."
This sounds very biased... Gelsamel 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Matters have been dealt with, article has been rendered neutral and is now far better sourced. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)