Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

restored deleted material

Looks likes a substantial amount of material critical of GMO's was removed without input from other editors or any attempt at consensus for the deletion here. I restored the material here. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the edits. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy where edits should be reverted solely because they weren't discussed first. As Aircorn mentioned in their edits, they condensed content due to weight issues. The first was valid as they pointed out that a whole paragraph was dedicated to the fringe minority view, while the mainstream point of view on the consensus only had one sentence. Similar for the second. Considering the edits stood for about a week without complaint, it seems like Aircorn made some good edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes WP:DRNC as it mucks up the consensus-forming process. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored Aircorn's edits which I judge to be far better than the text David Tornheim reverted to in terms of WP:UNDUE policy. jps (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have once again restored the deleted material. This content is relevant and appropriately sourced and its removal is not supported by PAG. Please do not remove sourced content without discussing and getting a consensus for removal. Minor4th 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We had already mentioned that David's revert was inappropriate, multiple editors agreed Aircorn's version was better by resolving some weight issues, and you went and reverted anyways. I do suggest self-reverting at this point as your revert came at a time when multiple editors had already been using the talk page. We shouldn't need another trip to enforcement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my first edits and reasons given at the time[1][2]. One sentence covering the mainstream scientific view directly followed by a "however" paragraph from a "questionable" organisation and a two highly criticised studies is not close to due weight. If we wanted to include individual studies then in an ideal world all the studies that found no significant differences from feeding GM food should be mentioned as well. This sections should be written as a summary of the Genetically modified food controversies article which can deal with the individual studies better. Even in its current state it could be argued it gives too much weight to the minority viewpoint. Also given that the moratorium, which was the main point from the AAEM, is already mentioned then nothing has really been lost. Weight is part of neutrality, which is not just PAG but a pillor. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn:Your removal of sourced, relevant content that has been in the article unchallenged for months is disruptive editing - especially in this controversial topic area that is subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR editing restrictions. Please self-revert and engage in further discussion and do not remove the sourced content until a consensus to do so is reached. Failure to do so may result in a request for arbitration enforcement of discretionary sanctions. I will leave a notice on your talk page as well. Minor4th 03:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here so far is that the removal was good and no argument has actually been made above for keeping it in. The reason it was untouched for months (which is not a valid reason for not editing it out anyway) was in part due to the ARB case. Also see Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 15#Controversy: American Academy of Environmental Medicine. AIRcorn (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn:I second Minor4th's call that you self-revert. The material you removed has been in the article since its addition on October 27, 2015 here when it was added by Sweetbacteria. Although you and Ajpolino objected to it at the time, Kerdooskis and Petrarchan47 supported the addition by Sweetbaceria. In addition, two long terms editors in the GMO area (Lfstevens and Dialectric) were editing that same day and did not object to the addition. Two days later (October 29, 2015), Lfstevens made an extensive overhaul and cleanup to the article here and did not delete the material. Long term user KingofAces43 was editing on November 10, and filed no objection to. One of the ArbCom members NativeForeigner was also editing. Numerous other editors I am not familiar with made changes during that time and allowed the material to stand. You never responded to Petrachan47's last comment, and allowed the material to stay in the article over a month. You cannot simply edit war out the sourced material now that the ArbCom proceeding is over and after so much time has passed because you failed to act during the ArbCom proceeding. I will support action at ArbCom Enforcement if you do not self-revert. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC) (corrected 00:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

And for the record this is the paragraph that Aircorn is trying to edit-war out of the article:

However, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine ("AAEM") released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.[111][112] The authors asserted that "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects." The paper cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hill’s criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans.[113] A 2011 study found maternal/fetal pesticide exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec.[114] A leading critique, Gilles-Éric Séralini of theUniversity of Caen, and his team reported that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage in 2012 in theJournal Food and Chemical Toxicology.[115] After reanalyses of the results, and the paper was retracted by the publisher, Elsevier, on the ground that the study consisted of a limited number of test samples (Sprague-Dawley rats) to make any conclusive evidence on the adverse effect of GM on the rats.[116][117] Sprague-Dawley rats are known to develop tumours even under normal conditions.[118] But Séralini defended his study and republished the same findings inEnvironmental Sciences Europe in 2014, published by SpringerOpen.[119]

I did not see Petras reply until after she retired. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The deletion should be restored at once, in my view, per David Tornheim and others. I support action at ArbCom Enforcement if not done so. Jusdafax 08:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey all! I'm not sure why this conversation got so tense, but here's my two-cents:

I think the AAEM material should be removed. AAEM is decidedly a fringe group, they oppose wifi in schools, GMOs, fluoride in water, and thimerosol in vaccines. So when they criticize GMOs, it seems to me that it's not that notable. Their other position papers are not mentioned on Wi-Fi (or Wireless electronic devices and health), Water fluoridation, or Thiomersal. If someone feels a deep and otherwise insatiable need for having AAEM in the article, I'd vote we move it to the Genetically modified food controversies article. To have it here seems to give their position undue weight.

As for the rest of the paragraph, I think the back-and-forth about the Seralini paper belongs in the controversies article. It's definitely important material, but it seems like the dedicated controversies article is a better place for it.

Does anyone have a reason for why this material should be in this article rather than removed/in the controversies article? I'd be happy to discuss that! Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, AJpolino. The group is just about the most WP:FRINGE that we can find. jps (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That was part of the reason I decided to self-revert (even though I know it looks like I was giving in to the intimidation tactics above). I would like to see a response as to how AAEM compares to any mainstream science organisation, let alone the AAAS. I believe anyone who seriously thinks that this is a suitable source will call into question their competence at editing science related articles. As to the tension, welcome to a topic recently under Arb com sanctions. AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• AAEM is flake city. That suggests a compromise. Include the material on its other airhead views in this article, so that readers can make up their own minds about its weight. The other stuff is all primary research and should be removed unless/until backed up by a review. BTW, I hadn't noticed the recent appearance of this junk in the piece. That's why I didn't object back in the day. Shame on me. Lfstevens (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments about this edit I just made:

• I replaced the AAEM with a better source in the same edit. It is almost exactly the same length as the original. I was not familiar with AAEM when I first restored the deleted material. Thank you all for further information about AAEM. I believe the new source is much better, but welcome better sources that have called for a moratorium, and note that RS says that the EU has a "defacto moratorium", as do, I believe, other countries outside of EU.
• I moved the footnotes for AAEM to this sentence:

Some medical and environmental groups claim that the potential long-term impact on human health have not been adequately assessed and propose mandatory labeling[123] or a moratorium on such products.[105][106][108]

• I restored the deleted Seralini material, pending discussion on whether it is undue. I am open to the possibility that it is reduced, noting that it has an entire lengthy article devoted to it.
• I will further comment on mischaracterization of AAEM as "fringe". The group holds MINORITY opinions on at least some of the topics like WiFi and the group has accreditation.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite by Lfstevens

I am generally okay with the major rewrite by Lfstevens which appears to be more NPOV in the controversy section than some of the recent versions I disputed earlier as discussed above. There are few concerns about the content post change that I will post next, but overall I support the change. I had thought about adding it in myself yesterday rather than the reverts I made and discussed above. Thank you for your hard work! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Some concerns:

• Controversy: I think it is a mistake to say "both" sides. Often disputes have more than one side.
• Controversy: We should add links to the sections where the disputes occur, such as "safety", "testing", "regulation", "scientific consensus", etc. so the reader can learn more if their interest is piqued.
• Testing: This section needs to be written to make it clear that testing varies depending on which country.
• Regulation: Again should start by saying that regulations varies by country.

I'm sure there will be more, but that's a good start... I am waiting to actually make the changes to the article to see if the major changes stick.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Kingofaces43 has removed another 3k afterwards. In a contentious topic such as this why are editors making such large changes to the article without gaining consensus beforehand? AlbinoFerret 03:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec):::Agreed. Lfstevens edit, while bold, is also quite straightforward, as the material moved out of controversies clearly does not describe controversies, it is a reorganization of material based on a rewrite posted here yesterday, and it follows discussion over the last couple of days. Quite different, Kingofaces43 reversion, moving "Food safety" back to controversies with the edit summary: "Some slight tweaks and subsectioning for one area (see talk), mostly due to WP:SUMMARY." seems entirely unsupported by solid reasoning, and is followed by a substantial deletion, all without discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit war Tsavage. I already explained above in LfSteven's section that the safety section is part of the controversies article whether people like that or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a statement that consensus was achieved. AlbinoFerret 04:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Responding your your new edit conflict version, please also stop the drama raising. I already mentioned earlier on this talk page that creating a separate safety section would have problems, and I did not delete any significant content in my first edit. The unneeded sources were what resulted in the larger amount of kb being deleted, not content itself. You're also well aware that many editors in this topic do follow the WP:SUMMARY guideline, especially in how the suite of articles is set up and the in-depth safety section has been in the controversies article for some time. You've voiced your dislike of this general setup in the past, but you should not edit war in that regard. The fact of the matter was that LfStevens made an edit, I partially reverted some aspects, and that was the time to discuss, not revert my partial restoration. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:: WP:SYNC/WP:SUMMARY is not a new argument for this article, and it has been discussed right here in the last couple of days, and over the last few months. WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, which, like all guidelines, is "best treated with common sense." Deficiencies in one article are not required to be carried over to a parent article, to the detriment of that article (and it is unclear whether Controversies is a true spin-off article, or simply a parallel one). The content of the "Food safety" section does not contain controversies, it is a simple statement of the opinions of various groups, therefore, it does not belong under controversies. Multiple editors also support a Food safety (or however similarly titled) section. So your edits ignore both common sense application of the guideline you cite, and current discussion. This is not conducive to calm, collaborative editing. --Tsavage (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for going against what we've been doing as far as article structure for some time now. I'm well aware you don't like how that's been done, but trying to force it in isn't going to fix that. Again, I suggest you stop the drama-raising in order to have a calm, collaborative environment when you know what you're trying to do is controversial and been rejected many times in the past. At this point, if someone really wanted to include an individual safety section (completely unneeded in this article) we'd just simply say there is a scientific consensus that GMO food on the market is safe and not really much else. Because of the controversy around safety though, we do make note of noteworthy fringe views such as some of those in the opponents paragraph. That's why the safety section here is included under controversies. If we want to take the controversy aspect out of the safety section, we're going to be dealing with some different content in there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion on whether the controversies should be in the controversies section or should be elsewhere, or whether they should be individually specified and enumerated and discussed in sub-topics of the controversy section--whatever makes the material easiest to understand and for the reader to be able to find. As for food safety, I do see the argument that the portion without controversy should probably not be labelled as controversy, so the reorganization by Lfstevens makes sense. Lfstevens' overall edit improved the NPOV explanation of the controversy in an excellent summary that is easy to read, far better than what is in the badly written "parent" article lede, so I support it.

I did revert this removal of material that has been in the article for a while, because there was no discussion ahead of time to remove it, and it is relevant and helpful to readers.

I do find edits like this one and Lfstevens' rewrite irritating for this reason: If editors are going to move a block of material from one section to another, I strongly believe the move of that material should be done as a single edit (or two separate edits of delete and restore), such as this, and all the other changes are done separately. Multiple moves and changes in one edit are extremely difficult to follow. Observers may be made to spend 1/2hr or more trying to figure out exactly what was changed in addition to the move. Moves (or multiple moves) combined with other changes creates a lack of transparency in the diffs putting a big burden on anyone who is trying to follow the changes and evolution of the article. So please, break up the edits when you are doing a move, so the material move is just one single edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The revert you mentioned is not related to this talk section, and you have been explicitly warned about WP:DRNC multiple times now prior to it. I moved it to the appropriate article as this article is about food, while the content is specifically about crop production. This is the article to focus on the food, not the crop and related farming practices. It's also rather inappropriate to solely claim no consensus as a reason for revert when the edit has stood for some days, so please reread DRNC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well its now 3 editors who think the material should be in the article (if not 4). So my revert will be per consensus. AlbinoFerret 14:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

consensus is not supposed to be a vote. AIRcorn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If we are actually following what WP:CONSENSUS says, it would be appropriate to delete the content due to talk page consensus for it (or rather lack of any legitimate issue). WP:JDL and DRNC arguments don't contribute towards consensus, nor should editors hold up edits because they want the suite of articles restructured. The former especially has happened a few times now, so if the situation doesn't improve here with this sort of quasi edit warring, we might be at the point it's best dealt with at ArbCom enforcement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The material Kingofaces43 tried to delete has been in the article since its addition on October 27, 2015 here when it was added to the controversy section. This is very similar to what happened here where material that had been in the article for months was deleted per WP:BRP without prior discussion and the removal was opposed. Because GMO's are contentious, WP:CAUTIOUS applies for major edits (I'm not saying that this edit was a major edit), but editing policy does state "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." (emphasis added) . Please keep this policy in mind on this article and other GMO articles as this seems to be a recurring problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: We're faced with a delicate problem in improving GMO article organization and content, to ensure that we have easily accessible and balanced coverage over the subject area. In this case, perhaps the herbicide resistance paragraph is not logically best suited to the History section in a GM foods article, while the same argument can be made for a good deal of the other content in that section: for example, why are we mentioning Babylonians and Sumerians? If we are using ancient history to demonstrate that GE is a direct extension of millennia-old practices, then also indicating how it differs from previous methods in potential magnitude of effect, as with superweeds, would seem to provide reasonable balance. This piecemeal approach to balance results in choppy, inconsistent content (as opposed to on-point, readable content, with a logical narrative flow) and unfortunately it does characterize our GM articles. In light of that, as we improve, I believe we should not delete or move out items without at the same time examining and adjusting the larger context. --Tsavage (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

^I agree that narrative flow is important and that when material is re-organized this will become an issue. As I mentioned above, I support moving first, then rewriting in the new context (and discussing such moves and rewrites first, as Lfstevens did). One of the arguments Kingofaces43 made for deleting the material was that talking about superweeds was a bit of a non-sequitur to the history of GMO food. The material that was deleted was originally in the controversy section where it made sense. I think it makes more sense to have that issue in the controversy section for that reason--as a reader that is where I would look for it. I had thought that Lfstevens organization (proposed above) was going to have the subheading "farming" as PART of the controversy section, which makes it easier to read and find that original long controversy section, and that this would be an improvement. So I would support moving it back into controversy or perhaps having a separate section about farming of GMO food that differentiates it from the farming non-GMO food and put it there. Knowing where our food comes and how it is produced is important to many people and is no doubt why people want labeling on their food. So mention of the farming does make sense in this article, just like the controversies, but not be the bulk of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice when the superweeds bit was moved into History; my comment remains the same. I'm not sure how herbicide resistance is controversial, it's a well-documented, unintended effect and a problem - we should have agreement on the definition of "controversy" that we're using to organize content. --Tsavage (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe the superweed / herbicide resistance issue is an established FACT. However, because it is an unintended side effect, it creates a "controversy" as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks of the product. This is the kind of the thing that reporters like to put in the mainstream media. The use of a the product takes on a controversial nature that would not be the case if the pesticide had no negative impacts or no unanticipated side effects. Consider the issue of unintended safety issues for cars, such as exploding gas tanks (e.g. the infamous Ford Pinto [3] explained in our article as the fuel tank controversy) or the problem Toyota experienced with stuck accelerator pedals. These are characterized as "controversial" here. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"a "controversy" as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks of the product" - Yes, I agree, it's when the factual information becomes the subject of a particular dispute that the controversy occurs: superweeds exist and why (facts); people take to the streets to protest GMOs as cause of superweeds (controversy). As it stands now, we have non-controversial content concerning health and safety, also, public perception, economics, and environment (I'm looking at top-level sections in that article) included only there, and not mentioned here (or only minimally in the Controversies section). Which is why I suggest that we define what we mean by controversy when it's used as a content filter. --Tsavage (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't see it as being as simple as whether there is a dispute about facts, even though the technical definition of "controversy" has to do with disagreements. In one definition I found the word "heated" comes up and I think that is crucial to the definition. The controversial aspect of the Pinto case, IMHO, was the public perception following the Mother Jones article as to the ethics of how Ford chose to not spend the $10 on the fix because the costs of the lawsuits were less--similar to the McDonald's coffee cup issue. Even though Ford surely defended itself, I think the controversy had to do with the public's surprise of the kind of information that came out that was strongly contrary to what they expected of Ford or of car safety. To me controversy has a lot to do with an kind of emotional reaction to circumstances that defy expectations, especially in the way the media treat it. Now I thought the explosion of the Challenger--when people wrongly believed the space shuttles were unlikely to explode like that--would have been "controversial" in the way I described it, but that did not come up in Google searches of "challenger controversy" except with regard to Beyonce's use of sound from the accident and a documentary about it in 1980 [4], so my definition may be off in some way Is the definition of controversy handled somewhere in WP:PAG? I have heard editors like yourself say that controversy should be moved to the relevant section, but I am not certain if that is in WP:PAG or not either. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we agree on what a controversy is, but may be drifting apart on what I mean about handling controversy. What I mean is, an item can be handled first as a non-controversial fact or analysis, located by subject in the article, and then, if there is controversy around that item, we can cover that in addition, located in a Controversies section or elsewhere. It's not either/or, controversy or not, it is content item, and controversy surrounding item, two distinct things, that can be covered individually and separately.

What we seem to have done here is decide that, if controversy surrounds an item, then everything about that item is treated as a controversy. Why else do we have, for example, public perception info only in the Controversies article? It's pretty basic to wonder what the public thinks about GM food, and noting that X% of the population thinks this or that, as established by reputable polling sources, is not controversial info. Using that percentage to argue in the media that, say, the public is science-illiterate and should be ignored, is a controversial position, defined as such by the heated debate it inevitably triggers, and should be covered as the science illiteracy controversy, but not automatically bundled with the bare stats, public opinion stats on their own are not controversial. I will start a separate section. --Tsavage (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

^I agree with everything you said in the last post. Now it is making sense. Feel free to move all my comments regarding controversy into another section just dedicated to our discussion of "controversy."

(edit conflict)Please avoid now engaging in WP:ADVOCACY David in how you invoke labeling. This talk of restructuring the controversies section is inappropriate at this time. The content on this article in the controversies section will reflect the controversies article per WP:SUMMARY. If someone wants to make major changes to the section, the controversies article comes first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: What are you talking about? I am not advocating for labeling. Please stop with the false accusations. I thought that the desire for labeling by many people (or at least Americans) was an established FACT in WP:RS, e.g. [5] (If you do not think that is RS, I'm sure there are other more mainstream sources that provide statistics that show significant numbers of people. I believe I saw similar #'s in Huffington Post.). Are you disputing that a large percentage (if not the majority or 90%) of people desire labeling is a fact? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to ping. The issue is that the push for labeling is a fringe pseudoscientific point of view (similar to how such a climate change denialism is such a problem in the US) and is extremely apt to result in a coatrack effect here. We really don't even need to give the viewpoint the time of day in this article, so there's no reason to bring it up. Not to mention that this is getting extremely off topic from this talk section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So you really think that public opinion on GMO food labeling, or the fact that 64 countries (and Vermont) require labeling and that labeling is frequently the subject of ballot measures does not belong in the article at all? Wow. Even more bizarre is to say that those who have argued for GMO labeling are psuedo-scientists with a "fringe" scientific belief. Whether one wants labeling is not a purely scientific question, although one could make it a scientific question by doing a survey and seeing what the responses are, such as [6]. Labeling is not merely a question of science, because it involves public opinion, regulation, legislation and legal issues, all of which are relevant to encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a purely scientific encyclopedia. This use of Fringe is inappropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So much for avoiding controversy. I was prepared to include the subsections in the Controversies section, but I got pushback so I put them elsewhere. I have no problem returning them to Controversies, although I don't love that solution. (I'd rather get rid of them.) At any rate, I beg you all to stop making more changes absent consensus. Look at this page. It's ridiculous. These back and forth diatribes eat time and don't advance the debate. Please consider what we're trying to accomplish here. It's not about scoring points. Lfstevens (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

^"I beg you all to stop making more changes absent consensus." I agree! --David Tornheim (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving (difficulty of finding previous discussions)

@David Tornheim: A big problem I see is useful chunks of discussion (like the above) disappearing in the archives: 1) they may first appear buried in a thread that started on a somewhat different topic (like this); 2) they get archived. We should at least refactor useful discussions into their own well-titled sections, so they can be more easily found. And a page for useful discussion/key reference/RfC/etc could be attached here, where annotated links could be collected - can anyone just start a Talk page subpage that's permanently linked to the Talk page? --Tsavage (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Yes. I have been aware of this issue since I first encountered these articles and others have noted it as well. First my conclusion: I think we should organize the Archive discussions topics as a permalink, so it is easy to find the old discussions in the archives. History: In February 2015 when I first tried to understand why the articles took the American bias, it was hard to find the comments/discussions of those who saw the problem, because of this exact problem. I believe one editor had complained that the archiving was too frequent and led to this problem. Here are discussions about archiving time on GMO controversies: [7], [8] and [9] when it was increased to 84 days by here by Canoe1967 and used as a justification for a FAQ as if the matters on talk were decided and final [10], [11].

Since then, I actually make major posts with this problem in mind, by carefully titling the subject so that other editors (including myself) can easily find the relevant discussion if they look in the archives. I also carefully explain the first paragraph, so they know what to expect and do not have to wade through walls-of-text to find the meat of it. These were some of my early posts to the GMO talk pages with that in mind: [12], [13], [14]. Sometimes, when I see something like this that is unresolved, I may revert the archiving software removal of the discussion. Other times I just re-raise the issue, and point to the previous post, as I did [here. I also watch for new editors who note the problem but seem to be unfamiliar with the history, e.g. [15], and I point them to old discussions.

The problem has always been that those who prefer the status-quo often write walls-of-texts, objections and diversions on numerous grounds (I am not saying those arguing for changes do not do the same) that are so overwhelming that there is little hope that a new person can see the nature of the problem and make it through the discussion, and I doubt that problem is going to go away. So one has to pretty much start from scratch and make a very carefully worded and well argued and succinct post like you just did to make it clear.

I am not convinced a permalink will help, because of the wall-of-text problem, unless the permalink points to the archived discussions like the ones I just mentioned. I would support a permalink to organize the old discussions. And again, if there is an issue that is buried just re-raise it. I am also willing to help create a table that organizes the archived discussions.

Re: American Bias. I have made a proposal on how to deal with that in the above section --David Tornheim (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This article also has the unique problem of a misleading 2nd archive box on the right of the page which shows sections only up through 2011 and could lead new editors to miss more recent archived discussions entirely. I don't know enough about how the archive bots work; if I knew how I would remove this second box.Dialectric (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, yeah, I've noticed that, too - everything around here feels boobytrapped, ready to explode. :) If you click Edit for the lead section, you will see where the links like 2011 are manually created, mapped to individual archives, so you could add more links with custom text. For example, the last massive RfC is alone Archive 10, so you could link to that with the text being, "Last Massive RfC" or whatever. Or you could remove all the links, or the entire Archive box template - doesn't seem to need that for the bot itself to run. Try it! --Tsavage (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed it with this edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't think indexing by year is helpful or practical, as we have 16 archives right now, and 2015 begins in Archive 5. IOW, 70% of the archived material is from last year. More useful would be links to specific sections of significant relevance to ongoing discussions. --Tsavage (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

True. Let's make some rough drafts of what you have in mind. There is of course a lot of material there, so getting all of it does not seem straightforward, but the RfC is easy enough to link. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Health Section WHO statement

In this edit, Kingofaces43 says "The language starting this section was agreed upon by a lengthy RfC." Please provide a link to the RfC. I do not see any problem with adding the information from the WHO statement which has long been considered RS and to avoid redundancy, we could cut down the lengthy quotes from the National Research Council report that defends a primarily American approach to GMO regulation. As many have noted, the GMO articles overly focus on the American take on GMO's. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you were quite involved in the RfC and follow-up conversation on the scientific consensus content, so I shouldn't need to point it out to you. All someone else would need to do is search the archives and they have plenty or reading available. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

After making sure,you are incorrect, the RFC [16] was not on this section per the close. Health and safety didnt exist in the page at the time the RFC started,[17] neither was the section in the article when the RFC closed.[18] AlbinoFerret 05:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The RfC was on the scientific consensus language across multiple articles and not isolated just to a lede. The whole RfC was over the language itself and how it the scientific consensus should be presented. We're not going to have another RfC whenever articles are slightly restructured on a technicality, and the section would still follow the lede of the relevant part of the daughter article anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The RfC did not endorse a strong summary statement like "scientific consensus" (or "scientific agreement"), it suggested rewording a safety statement cited to multiple sources, and a revised version was not settled on - a moderate change in the wording, incorporating "general scientific agreement," was made and not challenged. In fact, in common sense and in content policy (WP:NOR), there is a critical difference between "several sources indicate" and "there is scientific consensus." Per WP:RS/AC - Academic consensus:

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

WP:RS/AC links to core policy at WP:SYNTH, regarding cobbling together multiple sources into a new conclusion. Only two sources among the 18 or so sources variously cited actually state that there is "scientific consensus," and both are opinion pieces from authors publicly active in promoting biotech and GMOs.

For a reliable conclusion based on a review of food safety sources, see the 2014 Library of Congress summary of Scholarly opinion on GM food safety, which incorporates the AAAS statement (the central source in arguments for a consensus wording) and others in a simple "several sources say" summary:

"Scholarly opinion: Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]"[19]

In considering a balanced rewording that properly represents the strength of the safety statement, a "several sources say" approach seems like the way to go, as supported by sources and policy.

In addition, concisely describing the case-by-case nature of safety evaluation, and the substantial equivalence doctrine behind government regulation and testing policies, seems like necessary context to ensure balanced coverage of GM food safety. --Tsavage (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of References to Single (disputed) Studies

I finally have had some time to try to decipher everything that was changed in this single edit. I discovered that the five references regarding the two individual disputed studies were removed, even though that was not clearly explained in the edit note, although it was touched on here. I do not see how removing this material benefits readers. The footnotes in the summary take almost no space. I restored the references here. Please note: I would have done this restoration with this restoration on 22:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC) per the note here, but because so many edits were combined into one it took me two extra days to figure out what exactly was changed. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the tendentious reverts even after multiple warnings. I explained the edit per WP:SUMMARY and references are not needed for lede or sections to daughter articles, so stop mischaracterizing my edits. We're also not going to list every disputed study as a reference, nor are they references that the studies are actually controversial. The daughter article is where that information is dealt with. All that's needed in this article is to say some studies have been controversial. Nothing more because we are writing a summary. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Synth and WP:Primary are two good reasons not to do it like this. Plus you are missing the most important study. Surly Domingo or someone has written a review or something we can use. Also not sure about the use of "multiple". I can only think of two disputed ones and two non-disputed ones. AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a better reference. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Domingo 2011 review is a good source. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Good find. I actually stumbled across that one and was going to add it until I realized you did it already. I was going to mention that we need to be careful about using Domingo from a fringe perspective as they often try to claim there isn't a scientific consensus etc. Moot point at this time. This is the only source so far that's actually citing (not that we need it) that there are indeed controversial studies. I think we should be good here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We agreed on Domingo (2011 is probably better than 2007) review articles. I do not understand this edit that includes a article that is inferior. I put in the agreed upon Domingo 2011 review with this edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The reference you added doesn't support the sentence it cites, whereas the "inferior" source does. AIRcorn (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Domingo article was published in Environment International which has an impact factor of 5.5. The recently removed ref was from the Croatian Medical Journal which has an impact factor of 1.37 - 1.6. In past discussions related to MEDRS sourcing, impact factor has regularly been used as an incomplete but important indicator of source quality.Dialectric (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how high the impact factor is if the source does not support the information in the article. If you want to use Domingo go ahead, I suggested it as the first place to look so obviously have no problems with using it as a source. However, the sentence will have to change to reflect the information in the source. AIRcorn (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I need to review the source more carefully to see what language is most appropriate and relevant. Possibly we might want to have two sentences--one from each source (or combine concepts into a single sentence citing each). --David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Using impact factors like this is inappropriate based on MEDRS discussions. It's ok to use it to determine if something has a zero impact factor or otherwise is a fringe publication, but once you get above that threshold, we don't go comparing impact factors to weight studies, especially for something non-controversial like the fact that these controversies exist.[20][21] Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those discussions you link show any sort of consensus over the use or non-use of impact factors except for the likely exclusion of near-zero impact journals.Dialectric (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion, there was not agreement to use Domingo. You replied "Domingo 2011 review is a good source." as if that's the source Aircorn posted, but it was not. Right now the Martinelli source actually sources the Seralini affair, etc., while Domingo does not. That's why it's inappropriate to use Domingo here among other reasons. We should have resolution on this discussion by using the Martinelli source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How about improving the Foods sections?!

We currently have three sections that together cover specific GM foods. I find there are numerous problems with the overall organization and content. The main issue imo is imbalance on several levels: uneven amount of detail between items and seemingly random inclusion and exclusion of products (in crops), overly detailed coverage of derivative products (much of that stuff is better suited to the respective main articles), no summaries for each main section, and so forth. And it's just not easy to read, and develops no narrative.

There's probably too much to try and usefully discuss/argue about in one go, so I suggest the following immediate, non-controversial step: write brief leads for each of the three Foods sections: Crops, Derivative products, and Other uses.

This is proper article form, subsections shouldn't be stuck directly under bare top-level headings, with no introduction to and overview of what follows. Writing leads will make the article immediately more useful and readable, and will also help naturally highlight editorial problems within the sections.

WDYT? --Tsavage (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I agree there is a problem. As you have correctly observed, redundant information, poor organization, poor unfocused narrative are problems with nearly ALL the GMO articles--obviously the result of individual editor's contributions without a vision of the whole, adding whatever pet information they think belongs in the article, sometimes adding information that is already there, as others have observed at WikiProject_Genetics/GMO_articles by Yutsi especially regarding his/her Issue 3. More like a PILE of information than an encyclopedic content. I have decided to try and slowly read through and learn all of the material and organization in all of the GMO articles so that improvements like what you suggest will be easier to identify. It is a huge project. It will also make it easier for me to understand whether edits to articles are improvements or just making them more complicated and confusing. I would still prefer the discussions about the organization that relates to ALL or multiple GMO articles at once to be at WikiProject_Genetics/GMO_articles than here because it relates to all or multiple articles, not just this one, and this talk page should only be about this one article. Also I support that because of the issue of archiving. (One exception: the GMO "scientific consensus" issue and RfC was moved here from the first RfC at GMO controversies and should be locked here and definitely not be moved again.). I *do* think that discussion of the foods to be included in this article could all be made here.

One of the problems I noticed is that the distinction between food, agriculture and research is quite significant and complicates organization of the articles. Consumers will likely be more concerned with the regulation and testing of their food they eat (e.g. FDA) than say pesticide resistance, yields, affects on soil, etc. (EPA) or the regulations on researchers. Yet all the issues are often treated together such as in this important article I think we need to rethink the organization of the GMO regulations because they are getting virtually no views relative to the other articles, and I think readers do care about regulation (e.g. the strong desire for labeling), so for some reason they are not finding the appropriate articles that discuss it. And that's our fault. I imagine the same problem occurs with regard to GMO crops vs. GMO food. I think we need to more clearly delineate to the reader what they should expect to find in each of the article when they look there, so they know whether they should be reading GMO food or GMO crops to get the information they need. I think because we lack a comprehensive and organizational plan for the articles, we have failed to do that and this is one of the major reasons for posts like this from you.

As for rewriting the leads, I am hesitant to go there as the leads must reflect a summary of the material in the articles. If that would be the basis of the rewrite, then yes, I agree, especially if the lead does not do that. Although I do think Lfstevens did an excellent job with GMO controversies here, I am not sure I would support rewriting the other leads at this point unless the rewrites follow WP:PAG on leads. If the plan is a kind of reorganization, I would rather work on OUTLINES than leads first, because the reorganization and change of focus will obviously impact what would be in the leads. For example, in regulation, there is no section on legislation. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What I meant about leads was, adding leads to the three food sections in this article, where there are none. I will start them or contribute if someone gets to starting first.

Central organization and discussion of overall structure is great and necessary (and I'd definitely participate). At the same time, improving one central article, like this one, is complementary, it's also part of the process. I think they can be simultaneous. --Tsavage (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Yes, rewriting the leads here is fine and consideration of new outline for just this article. I can help with that. Can you take a look at what I wrote over on the controversies talk page here? It is another organization issue. I only recently discovered that there are far, far more articles on Wikipedia about GMO's than I ever realized. I was about to start work on a sidebar template like the ones I found in this and this article to organize the GMO stuff, only to see that all the work had already been done here: {{Genetic engineering}}

I think we might consider using a sidebar those I mentioned here and here and to make it more prominent so people know where to find more related and detailed information. What do you think? I will make a separate post on that. I wonder how many of our readers know to go to the end of the article to find related information like this? I have almost never used categories found at the end of articles for this or any other non-GMO topic. Maybe I am the exception? Did you know about that template for Genetic Engineering? Since February 2015, I thought this was the go to place for the most important GMO articles. But in fact, that is a very small subset.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Side Bar

I propose we turn the genetic engineering template ({{genetic engineering}}) into a sidebar as is done here with the {{farming}} template and here with the {{creationism2}} template. The GE template is buried at the bottom and I think it makes it harder for readers to find more detailed information. (see also my more detailed comments in the immediately above section here). I'm not sure what the best picture would be. If the sidebar is GMO's the genetically modified fish found in the GMO article is not a bad idea. If just GMO food, then it would have to be something else. This is the GE template:

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Holy Hannah! No, I hadn't noticed that. I see those collapsed footer navbar menus everywhere, but I almost never use them. I do use the sidebars sometimes. I think we can have both, like in Agriculture. I didn't look at the Ag ones closely enough to tell if they're good examples of organization, but they do have different content between sidebar and navbar.

I agree, imo the sidebar seems more accessible, more likely to be seen and used. The navbar seems better for presenting a lot of links. Using both, the GM sidebar could focus on the main articles, omit stuff like the individual crops (Bt corn, etc), and maybe include related links (see Agriculture). Wonder if it's possible to link to the navbar from the sidebar, so people know it's there. --Tsavage (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Good. We are on the same page--exactly my thinking about a reduced set for the sidebar. And, yes, I think a subset is indeed possible: The {{creationism2}} is probably one of a few different varieties. I did make a copy of that sidebar to mess with and it is not that hard to adjust. We might even be able to have different sidebars for different parts of the GMO food article. I'll start working on it when I have time and provide a link to he page I am working on here. I hope we don't have arguments about what should and should not be in the sidebar. I think the sidebar will really help the reader not to get so overwhelmed, as I still do when I get to some of the these articles! --David Tornheim (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it better to make a GM food sidebar -or- a GMO sidebar? Note: There is already a {{Genetics Sidebar}} that looks like this:

It will make a big difference which one we choose. I think the GMO food sidebar would include crops too.

Please note, one list of sidebar templates are here; the list of "Part of a Series" sidebar templates, including the one on genetics is here. In terms of general articles about templates, I found these:

1. This has a list of articles about "template management" Wikipedia Template Management
2. and guidelines for templates
3. Probably the most complete: Template Namespace
4. And this: Wikipedia Templates
5. And this: Help:Template

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't read some of those links yet, I will. Meanwhile, imo:

• we should continue to use and update the footer navbar that's already in place
• I think the sidebar title/scope could be "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)" (but see below)
• there would be overlap with any other sidebars like Genetics, but that shouldn't be a problem, we'll see
• there should be only one sidebar for ease of use: multiple navbars at bottom of page, as is already the case here and common practice, can handle anything else
• the sidebar doesn't have to be reciprocal for every entry, i.e. links to broader pages like genetic engineering need not have the GMO sidebar, links into the GMO group will reveal the GMO sidebar

Considering the last three points, I think a first draft of list of articles to be linked to may point up some wrinkles in the area of scope and overlap that can be worked out as discovered.

As for scope, I agree that GMO vs GM food is an important call. The good GM food article we're all working towards should be one-stop reading for many readers interested in a comprehensive high-level overview, so I'm not sure how many other articles would make sense in a reduced set for GM food alone. We should probably draft sample lists for both and take a look.

Subsection sidebars sounds like not so useful (we should have meaningful wikilinks in text, and then Main article and See also links where needed). But I guess we'll see as things rapidly shoot forward! --Tsavage (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! --David Tornheim (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Scientific agreement"

I see nothing on this page that says it is OK to switch from "consensus" to "agreement". Did I miss something? Are going back to war? Lfstevens (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Going back to war"? If you're referring to the food safety statement, "agreement" has been the standing wording, post-RfC, for months: 31 Aug 2015, 1 Oct 2015, 1 Nov 2015, 1 Dec 2015, 1 Jan 2016.

Not sure why an effort to restore the specific word, "consensus," was started on Genetically modified crops, since the statement has focused on GM food, and the discussion has been here. The disputed "broad scientific consensus" statement was inserted in multiple articles, perhaps a dozen or more. For practical purposes, discussion should be in one logical place, like in the main article it refers to.

Also, I don't see a difference in literal meaning between "scientific consensus" and "general scientific agreement." They seem equivalent in meaning if not in tone, and any good source should support either wording. WP:RS/AC doesn't suggest using the source wording verbatim, it is a warning against synthesis: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view... illustrates its intent and scope quite clearly. --Tsavage (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Tsavage is correct about the history, which I described here and explain in more depth with my comment at 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC) in this discussion.

I disagree that the word "consensus" has the same meaning as "agreement". There is some overlap, but consensus tends to indicate a strong level of buy in and acceptance. Even the section you cite, WP:RS/AC, says "all or most". That it starts with "all" is indicative. Agreements can be "hashed out" in politics, where no one is satisfied, but they agree for the sake of ending a dispute, or a vote is made by majority rule and every one agrees to abide by the decision that may be disagreeable to almost everyone. In consensus decision-making the difference is more clear where there is a real effort to get everyone to participate and agree and be heard [22]. The ideal goal of consensus decision making is to get 100% buy in, although this is not always practical. This is also explained here in our article on consensus decision making. My guess is that one of the reasons that Prokaryotes agreed to the change in language from "consensus" to "agreement" as it is a better reflection that there is not such a high level of buy-in as is reflected in the word "consensus". That is why I prefer the word "consensus" over "agreement" for the sentence in question. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)