Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Media Coverage

See also: Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 3 § Media_reception, Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2 § Fringe tag, and Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1 § Media coverage section

One of several reasons I would oppose removal of the tags for now is the section "Media Coverage." Coverage in the media should be self-evident for any notable topic and obvious from the reliable sources. Instead of conveying useful knowledge, the section has become a hatrack for extreme opinions voiced by commentators, not objective journalists. This section has no purpose but soapboxing and should be removed entirely. SpectraValor (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me also say that, no, contrary to the disappointing accusations here, I am one editor of this page who has never received a penny from a biotechnology company. Nor am I a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of any other editor of this page. SpectraValor (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I previously suggested shortening the section, and I want to see if we can find a middle ground in which that becomes the approach that we take. Unfortunately, editors seem to be divided between those who want the section to be full-length, and editors who want it completely removed. Perhaps we could do something like keeping the opening part, about where it was covered, and then have just a sentence or two devoted to the view that the media ignored it, sourced to each of the sources we have now, but without going into extended quotes from each of those commentators. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We had a perfectly good situation earlier where we mapped out some of the coverage, and added "some commentators claimed that the media ignored the coverage" with links to a few of the op-eds. I'm still in favor of that as a middle ground, as opposed to removing the entire section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I wouldn't oppose the suggested shortening rather than complete removal. We should be judicious about the sources used for the op-eds to try to give balance without resorting to having to quote alternative weeklies. Another good addition might be the New York Times article about the march, which concentrated on the economic realities behind opposition to GMOs. SpectraValor (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm not deep enough in here to debate sentence by sentence. So I support a middle of the road highly respected editor like Tryptofish blazing through and getting this thing to the middle without spending a zillion hours on it. I think that Viriditas is at the extreme end of the spectrum here and can't be appeased. Stuff that multiple others oppose we should sat aside for now and more forward in the other areas. 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 00:07, July 24, 2013‎ North8000 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This is the fourth time this thread has been reopened. We have discussed this three previous times:

• Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 3#Media reception
• Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2#Fringe tag
• Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1#Media coverage section

You don't like the answers you get, so you keep reopening the same discussion over and over again until you get the answer you like. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Please review those older discussions and find any unresolved points that you feel need to be addressed, otherwise this is borderline disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

North, I'm respected? Nobody is going to blaze through anything, because the page is full-protected, and that is as it should be. Viriditas, there are 4 editors here in this talk thread so far who support a middle-ground approach that keeps the information about the lack of media coverage, but in a shortened form. You are the single editor so far who opposes any shortening of the media coverage section, so I think the burden is on you to justify having all the quotes at full length, or to just accept the current consensus. I've read the three archive links you provided, and there is, I think, a consensus to remove the undue tag, so I agree with you about that. But there wasn't any consensus against shortening the section. In fact, I took part in the latest of those three discussions, advocated the shortening there, and there was no consensus against it, just a degeneration of the discussion into a tit-for-tat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that I do not support shortening this or any other section. I'm actively involved with expanding and improving this subject, and if anyone wants to do the research alongside me and help, that's great, but nobody here appears willing to do anything but remove material. Sorry, but I think this topic can be expanded to twice, maybe three times its current size and I intend to do that. I don't see how "shortening" this article helps us write a better article, nor do I see any rationale for shortening it. Perhaps you will now explain why this section needs shortening. When you are done, I will reply showing you why it needs to be expanded. You say there are "four editors" here, but I don't really see them doing anything to improve this topic, only disrupting it, over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of those four, and if you say that I'm being disruptive, then you are in violation of WP:NPA. And, actually, those other three editors have done a perfectly good job of explaining the reasons for shortening the quotes. It looks to me like consensus is against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You added in content that has nothing to do with this subject after previous discussions confirmed this wasn't acceptable. Is it disruptive to add OR and to repeatedly shoehorn in off topic material? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall adding any content about media coverage. But I'm in favor of simplifying this section, and I'm in favor of removing the undue tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be productive to get specific about the content. Here is what is on the page now:

1. The first paragraph is about the news sources that did cover the March. I'm in favor of retaining that, and it sounds to me like no one in this discussion section so far disagrees.
2. The second paragraph reports the views of J. Kojo Livingston of The Louisiana Weekly.
3. The third paragraph reports the views of Thom Hartmann.
4. The fourth paragraph reports the views of Joseph Bachman of the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

The question here is how much, if at all, to condense paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. Those paragraphs all deal with views about the mainstream news media being cozy with Monsanto and other business interests, and therefore choosing to underplay their coverage. There is zero sourcing that such a choice has actually been made by the news media, either in the form of the news media stating their reasons for the amount of coverage or in the form of an exposé of their decision-making. Therefore, some editors have been concerned that it is UNDUE to devote three paragraphs to the speculation, although those editors have stated here that they are now willing to retain some of that material as a compromise.

I recommend keeping all three sources, and naming all three commentators by name in the main text. But I don't think that we need all three sets of quotations at a paragraph apiece. We could agree on a summary statement in Wikipedia's voice, summarizing the three views, and state that these three commentators have expressed that view. I think that would be enough, and it doesn't underplay or hide anything deserving of due weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I'm seeing the section, it's 25% actual media coverage, and 75% false claims about the media ignoring the march. For balance of truth and verifiability, those numbers should probably be reversed. I don't care how we get there, but I cannot support the section as it's currently constructed, nor can we per policy regarding verifiability or NPOV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

SpectraValor tried to make this edit: [1], but it was reverted. I think that the edit was consistent with most of the discussion here and was overall an improvement, but maybe the summary of the commentators' comments should be a little fuller. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the following language for that section of the page. It's condensed from what is on the page now, but provides more detail than the edit that SpectraValor made and Viriditas reverted:

The protests were covered by news outlets including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Russia Today, and CNN.

Some commentators, speculating that the mainstream news media were influenced by corporate ties to Monsanto, suggested that media coverage of GMOs reflected Monsanto's framing of the debate, and that the marches were ignored by the media, relative to the attention given to conservative protests and to the importance of the food supply.

Is that a reasonable solution to the disagreement about this section? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the following from #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the undue tag remains because the section is weighted toward an untrue allegation regarding media coverage of the march (or lack thereof). A proposal to shrink the section and note the contrary claims has been floated, is this doable? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) On the Media section I'll first try the following on a BRD basis. Condense/summarize it down to about 1/2 of its current size. Especially where it's a coatrack for other talking points and assertions that aren't about media coverage of this event. If it goes to "R" we'll talk here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Near the end of #Media Coverage, above, I suggested an alternative language that we may also want to consider. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it, I'll replace it as such with a minor tweak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 20:03, July 29, 2013‎

Thanks (and the tweak is fine with me). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's your text, so thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I don't WP:OWN anything here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

End of moved discussion.

• It seems like there has been an awful lot of reverting without any further discussion in this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion continued below, at #Media coverage 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to the lead section

At 00:39, 23 July 2013‎ SpectraValor made a change to the lead section with the edit summary, "This was a largely American and almost exclusively Western march on May 25, 2013". SpectraValor changed the lead section from

supporters participated in marches and rallies that, according to the organizers, took place in 436 cities around the world.

to

supporters participated in marches and rallies that took place in between 330 and 436 cities around the world, mostly in the United States.

To support his changes, SpectraValor cited a news report in The Post and Courier about the march in Charleston, South Carolina.[[2] The article says, "The march in Charleston was among 330 going on this weekend in 44 nations. Of those, about 250 marches were held concurrently in the U.S." Other sources in the article have reported that there were 436 cities in 52 countries. In any event, we do not have confirmation that 250 actual marches were held in the United States, nor do we have any source that actually says most of the protests took place in the United States. I will admit that it is likely that the majority of the marches took place in the U.S., but in controversial articles we need to go closely with what the sources say, not with what editors want them to say. The fact that the numbers used by this source differs greatly from other sources makes it even more important that we refrain from unsourced interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of this change in the lead. It is pretty clear that "most" is supported by the text in the article, and it's not synthesis or an unsourced claim (you actually just provided the source, so you shouldn't call it unsourced) that a majority of the marches occurred in the United States. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The summary here overlooks the fact that I subsequently edited that language, to help clarify the issues raised here, so it probably is more helpful to discuss what is on the page now, instead of trying to make a case against an earlier edit that is no longer in effect. Please look at the page now, and see what the footnotes to the sentence now say. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't love that option, to be honest, but I don't feel terribly strongly about it, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is disagreement about sourcing in the lead, although our policies and manual of style allow for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Moved from below by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Further discussion at #200,000. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Facebook message

For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism...Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world's food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

There is no reason that this initial Facebook message from Canal's group was removed from this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support restoring that material, so long as it is made clear that these are the views of Canal et al. and there is no issue of it sounding like it's in Wikipedia's voice. The reason that I support the material is that this page should make clear what motivated the subject of the page. I've lost track of when the edit was made that deleted it, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I Oppose this message being in the article in that form as it gives undue weight to and unjustified and unverified personal opinion on Monsanto. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask you to consider something that you and I have discussed about other quotes. As I said above, it's essential that we distinguish what is and what isn't in Wikipedia's voice. But as long as we make it unambiguous that these are the opinions of the people who said it, and the people who said it are directly responsible for the subject of this page, then Wikipedia isn't endorsing those statements as accurate (only as accurately quoted). We have links to the main pages about GMOs, so readers can go there. And if some reader is so naive that they just read the Facebook quote and never read anything else, well, WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course we need to distinguish between WP's voice and the words of individuals but we can do that perfectly well without using quotes. For example, 'X claimed that Monsanto had been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism...'. The problem with quotes like this is that they "stand out" from the rest of the text and thus give fringe views undue prominence. This is particularly so when the have strong (and unsupported) phrases like, 'political favoritism' and, 'monopoly over the world's food supply' in them. The words used by the speakers are intentionally emotive and unencyclopedic and repeating them without comment gives them improper authority. You do not see quotes like this in printed encyclopedias, only in the press. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• This material is appropriate as long as it's clearly attributed and presented as a direct quote. a13ean (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoration of this quotation. Editors who are more focused on protecting Monsanto than adhering to Wiki policy when editing this article need to really step back. Hopefully more Admin eyeballs will be drawn to this talk page and some self-correcting will occur as a result. The topic is the protest group, started by Canal and driven largely through Facebook posts. Ergo, OF COURSE this text should be included. petrarchan47tc 19:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose restoration except to the extent that this quote in social media is notable and verified by a reliable source. That is, if the New York Times has repeated it, then sure, put it in. Anybody can put anything on Facebook. How do we verify it was from someone? Should it be included in an encyclopedia? That's why we rely on, gee, reliable sources, and don't do original research with primary sources. Is it "protecting Monsanto" to suggest we should use secondary sources instead of cramming whatever fits our POV into an article? SpectraValor (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The quote is verifiable in reliable sources and is an important part of the history of the group. It was never sourced to Facebook directly to begin with, so SpectraValor's point is specious. We have always used reliable secondary sources for this quote. It was not removed because of a lack of sources, it was removed because an editor DOESNOTLIKEIT. Sorry, that's not how it works. The reliable sources have published this quote for a reason. We write articles based on reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoration of the Facebook quote as long as it is clear that it is a quote. Facebook is not a reliable source in general, but a Facebook quote is a reliable source as to the views of the person posting the quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Fringe?

There has been a very US-centric view of the anti-GMO movement here, specifically with folks claiming that this protest group has a viewpoint that is wacky and far-out, requiring tags, notices and proper science. However, I can't see how it is justified to call something fringe that has been embraced by so many.

A strong movement of opposition to genetic engineering in agriculture has developed throughout the world, particularly in some countries of the European Union (EU). The movement has led to a moratorium in the EU and hostility towards imported genetically modified (GM) products, as well as to acts of open opposition

The most recent Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology was taken in spring 2001, on a sample of approximately 16,000 people. Its results showed a high level of mistrust of GMOs. Outright rejection ("I do not want this kind of food") was the attitude of 71%. As to whether "GMO-based food is dangerous", a majority (56%) believed that this proposition was true, as opposed to 17% who did not.

From Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe in the Electronic Journal of Biotechnology petrarchan47tc 04:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Turns out this protest movement has Monsanto hiring a new PR team.

Monsanto has selected FleishmanHillard to handle PR duties, amid fierce opposition to the seed giant's genetically modified products. ' While the assignment will be led from the US, it is likely that its scope will be international, given the global nature of the issues that the company faces. For example, Monsanto recently confirmed that it will cease marketing new GMO seeds in the European Union, because of public opposition. While acceptance of GMO crops in other regions is higher, Monsanto has found itself battling US farmers. Meanwhile, two US states have passed GMO-labelling laws. source

Media sources always say the march had 2 million protesters, not a "range from 200,000" as wikipedia is claiming, based on one solitary news source. This is an example of WP:OR and (as everyone knows) goes against wikipedia policy.

This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries. In Miami, organizers lost count when protesters topped 1,300. From Miami New Times petrarchan47tc 04:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

[later addition] Americans overwhelmingly support labeling foods that have been genetically modified or engineered, according to a New York Times poll conducted this year, with 93 percent of respondents saying that foods containing such ingredients should be identified.

Three-quarters of Americans expressed concern about genetically modified organisms in their food, with most of them worried about the effects on people’s health. NYT July 27,2013 petrarchan47tc 08:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. As I've said above, the only fringe material in this article are the quotes from Monsanto claiming that GMOs will feed the world, improve crop yields, etc. Most of these claims are disputed in the peer review literature and amount to nothing more than marketing and promotion. Yet, we hear not a peep out of the so-called "fringe" crusaders who believe anything Monsanto says must be true. Turns out Tapper's coverage in CNN says otherwise, noting that the company has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", which is exactly what the protesters have been saying all along. Read our article on Steven Milloy to see what's really going on here. All of these claims of "fringe, fringe, fringe" are indistinguishable from Milloy's "junk science" propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, someone just removed that Tapper quotation because it wasn't "NPOV". This is very strange article to work on. petrarchan47tc 07:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it after making multiple queries, starting mutliple threads on the subject, and waiting 24 hours for a response. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it as a cherry-picked quote that serves no purpose other than to give your POV on Monsanto. Perhaps it would help to recognize that many editors have RL responsibilities and are unable to pay attention to Wikipedia or this article 24 hours a day. Thanks. SpectraValor (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to Petrarchan47:

"However, I can't see how it is justified to call something fringe that has been embraced by so many." - the issue of fringe is a scientific and evidence-based one, not one based on what certain people may or may not believe. Plenty of people believe that vaccines cause autism, yet that is considered fringe.

"Turns out this protest movement has Monsanto hiring a new PR team." - I don't see the relevancy of this to the article at hand.

"Media sources always say the march had 2 million protesters, not a "range from 200,000" as wikipedia is claiming, based on one solitary news source. This is an example of WP:OR and (as everyone knows) goes against wikipedia policy." - Media sources are based on unverifiable and logically absurd claims from the protest organizers. Assuming that their claims of 450 global meetups are true this implies an average of over 4444 people attending EACH protest, yet there isn't proof that even a single ONE of the protests hit that amount. I believe that the claims of 2 million violate the WP:V, as the event organizers have not cited or presented any proof. Since the claims are coming from the MAM organizers, I think this falls under the "Questionable sources". In addition, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources], which this claim is DIRECTLY violating.

In response to Viriditas:

"claiming that GMOs will feed the world" - Future claims are hardly fringe. The mechanisms exist.

"improve crop yields" - I believe that I have already presented scientific evidence that yields ARE improved above (in my previous reply to your claims that fringe claims aren't fringe), and explained the difference between direct and indirect yields as well as the mechanisms involved in sufficient detail.

"Most of these claims are disputed in the peer review literature and amount to nothing more than marketing and promotion." - Easy to claim, hard to prove. Find me something that isn't junk science.

"Turns out Tapper's coverage in CNN says otherwise, noting that the company has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", which is exactly what the protesters have been saying all along." - Hey look, another opinion piece! That's just as biased as citing Monsanto themselves!

So, now can we focus on presenting just the claims, and not lending undue credibility to WP:FRINGE claims? Firemylasers (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Firemylasers, this is the last time I am going to say this. Per talk page guidelines, keep your comments brief and to the point. Posting this continued page screeds makes it impossible for other editors to respond. If you want to address all of these points. Start with one, address it, wait for a resonse, and then move on to the next one. The marketing and promotion claims by Monsanto that it can feed the world, increase crop yields, and reduce pesticide use have been disproven by science. Therefore, they are not scientific. I hope we are clear on that point. 50 countries label GMO products except the United States. This is because we allow special interests to lobby our government and interfere with the democratic process, to the point where the will of the people is consistently undermined. And this is exactly what the protesters are upset about. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop posting junk science and fringe claims if you do not wish to have the data addressed.

"The marketing and promotion claims by Monsanto that it can feed the world, increase crop yields, and reduce pesticide use have been disproven by science. Therefore, they are not scientific." - ...an excellent example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU!

"I hope we are clear on that point." - absolutely not.

"50 countries label GMO products except the United States." - Ah great, time to dig out the logical fallacies again? Argumentum ad populum much?

"This is because we allow special interests to lobby our government and interfere with the democratic process, to the point where the will of the people is consistently undermined. And this is exactly what the protesters are upset about." - Or perhaps, just maybe, many of our regulatory agencies are more concerned with evidence/science-based regulations? Note how most of the countries labeling GM crops do so for POLITICAL reasons? Nah, that's crazy talk.

So not only are you WP:ICANTHEARYOU, you're spreading WP:FRINGE claims, complain about lengthy replies when an editor takes offense to your butchery of the scientific evidence, and promote claims from event organizers that blatantly violate WP:V, especially WP:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. It's quite clear from your edit warring, vague accusations of conspiracy on both this and your personal talk page, censorship of criticism from your talk page, and the removal of a RFC without following the proper guidelines that you have no interest in following wikipedia guidelines nor improving the article, and are solely here to WP:SOAPBOX. This is exactly the reason I left my account alone for a year - I had heard tales of situations like this, and as it turns out, the tales were true. This is incredibly disappointing. No wonder editors are leaving Wikipedia at such a swift rate. Firemylasers (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"Junk science" is a discredited term popularized by Steven Milloy, who was paid by special interests to debunk solid science that criticized their products, so you are revealing your true agenda here.[3][4][5]

"Junk science" quickly became the tag line of Steven J. Milloy and a group called TASSC—The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition—whose strategy was not to advance science, but to discredit it...It didn't matter who had done the work—the EPA, the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, or distinguished scientists at private universities. If the results challenged the safety of a commercial product, Milloy attacked them.[6][7]

Thanks for the honesty. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, WP:ICANTHEARYOU. And I love how you've decided that ANYONE using the two words "junk" and "science" next to each other automatically becomes a TASSC shill. Guess what policy you just violated? WP:Conspiracy_theory_accusations. Firemylasers (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Give it a break. You are obviously a SPA created solely to edit (or as I would put it "disrupt") this article. Your account does not exist for any other purpose, and since you are fluent with every aspect of Wikipedia, it appears you already have an alternate or primary account. Hopefully, your other account is not active at the same time. As for ICANTHEARYOU, I have already shown that is your MO. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah Viriditas... Is this your only response? Conspiratorial accusations? The only person here who is "disrupting" this article is you. You're the one accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being some sort of ALEC-funded propagandist/shill. You're the one violating numerous Wikipedia policies. You're the one who seems to have decided that their opinion trumps the scientific research and the scientific consensus. You're the one abusing WP:ICANTHEARYOU and promoting WP:FRINGE claims. You're the one who's promoting sources that violate WP:V.

I am asking you one FINAL time to STOP with the personal attacks. If you do not stop I have no choice but to bring this issue to the WP:ANI, which I do not in any way wish to do if it is at all possible to avoid. Firemylasers (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You do sound familiar. Once requested the same of me, using the same language. A newcomer doesn't speak with such familiarity to another editor, ever. You're not pulling it off well, and the bullying and threats do nothing to change that fact. You must know no one will take you seriously at an ANI with your edit history; SPAs are not looked upon favorably. Also comments like the one above are nothing but inflammatory, which is the last thing we need at this article. If you are serious about bringing a case against Viriditas, you will need to provide diffs and specific examples, rather than a slew of amorphous accusations - there is no way anyone can check your "you're the one" statements as written, so it's nothing but a waste of time and space. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how I sound. Take your conspiracy theories to some other site. I have no clue what you're talking about in regards to "familiarity". I don't see how you could possibly manage to twist my comments into bullying and threats - I'm asking Viriditas to follow Wikipedia's rules and to stop attacking me so that we can get back on topic instead of having to take the issue to ANI or wherever it'll be handled correctly, how exactly is that bullying or a threat? You're making the same accusations that Viriditas has been making, breaking the same policies... You want diffs? Fine, here's some diffs.

[8] (unfounded accusation of bad faith), [9] (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), [10] (direct accusation of being here to disrupt).

Viriditas and you both seem to have quite the track record of accusing people of being shills/astroturfers/sock puppers: [11], [12], [13], and of course your edits here such as: [14] and [15] Firemylasers (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

SPA much? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you done violating WP policy yet? This is getting quite tiresome. You appear to have a history of making paranoid accusations against any and all editors whose views clash with your own. Firemylasers (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My "views" have nothing to do with my edits. The "views" in this article are supposed to come from reliable sources about the topic, not from off-topic sources or what Wikipedia editors want the sources to say. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting back on track, petrarchan47tc has made the following points:

1. This talk page (and edits to the article in resposne) present a US-centric view of GMOs.
2. The opposition to GMOs is very strong outside the United States
3. Most Europeans oppose GMOs
4. In response to the latest protest movement, Monsanto has hired a new PR team in the US
5. Recently, two US states have passed GMO-labelling laws
6. Sources say the march had 2 million protesters, not a "range from 200,000" as only one sources says.

Let's keep this thread focused only on these points. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3 don't belong here, 4 is barely relevant at best, 5 is unrelated to the subject being covered, 6 violates WP:V (especially WP:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources). Firemylasers (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. petrarchan47tc 07:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I will say I recognize the editing style of firemylasers. I wondered why I hadn't heard from a certain editor, but it appears he has emerged with a new name. petrarchan47tc 07:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with your accusations, you and Viriditas are violating WP:NPA and WP:Conspiracy_theory_accusations. I have disclosed the only other account I possess publicly, it has no commits and has been inactive for months. I am quite willing to provide real-world ID to administrators via email or some alternate private communications method if desired. Firemylasers (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:petrarchan47, the problem is that the European popular viewpoint on GM food does not reflect the international scientific consensus. The fringe theories are what you're espousing above on a science topic, not the popular opinion. Compare it to global warming: even if a majority of people in the world tomorrow decided that it wasn't real, it would still be the fringe scientific position. You're misunderstanding the use of fringe theories in this regard, and this article is a mess right now as is, never mind adding more coatracked fringe science into it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully. We are supposed to cover the scientific consensus, not what people think. Firemylasers (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong. We cover what the sources report, nothing more, nothing less. Take your original research to the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone here has concerns about violations of WP:SOCK, please take it to WP:SPI. Further discussion of those concerns here only makes it harder to get to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is mainly cut and paste from my reply to Tryptofish above but I think it needs stating here. We need to distinguish between legitimate concerns about GE crops as presented in Genetically modified food controversies and the outrageous claims made by the marchers. The problem is that the marchers have made statements along the lines that GE foods are 'poison' and that there is worldwide media conspiracy against them. These claims do need to be stated in the article but in the same way that the Flat Earth Society's claims are in that article; in a way that it is clear to the reader that these views are extreme fringe. There is then no need to present the mainstream view.

I do not think the legitimate concerns about GE food have any place here. The marchers can lay no claim to them and they are discussed much more thoroughly elsewhere in WP. That is also where the European popular viewpoint needs to be discussed There are legitimate concerns about GE foods but that is not what the march or this article is about. The marchers made ridiculously exaggerated claims and in doing so shot themselves squarely in the foot. It is not up to us to try to rationalise their crazy arguments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I think that we may be misunderstanding one another because we are talking about two different things. What I am talking about is a sentence in the background section that reads as follows: "The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods,[8] and there is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[12][13][14][15][16]" I'm referring to the sources at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not specifically addressing any point by you but stating a general principle, which seems to have been completely ignored. Calling GM foods poison is not fringe science, it is not science of any kind it is just crazy rhetoric.

Regarding your point, I see no need for that much detail. We need only say that the marchers were pressing for the compulsory labelling of GM food in the US. It is obvious from that wording that this is not currently the case. Why say more? Doing so only drags us into a pro/anti GM argument that we should not be engaged in here.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As a general principle, that's fine (although, for Wikipedia's purposes, what you call "crazy rhetoric" is dealt with according to WP:FRINGE). But I was talking all along about what is now one, single sentence on the page. Which details in that sentence do you now want to take out? Please be specific about the exact words, in that particular sentence, that you want to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's an undercurrent in this discussion thread about the new PR team hired by Monsanto, that perhaps may imply that editors here may be editing as part of that team, or as influenced by it. If that is the case, then that's a very serious violation of, amongst other things, our WP:NPOV policy, and it must not be tolerated. On the other hand, such accusations should not be implied unless there actually is evidence that it is happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been happening for a decade. See George Monbiot's "The Covert Biotech War". The Monsanto PR team has been extremely active on Internet forums and discussion groups for a long time, and I've previously discussed this in the talk page archives with a link to the evidence. I've been on Wikipedia for eight years and I've worked on tens of thousands of articles, creating hundreds of new ones and improving many. During that time, I have never seen this kind of fervor, this kind of deliberate, intentional twisting of the sources, removal of anything critical of Monsanto, and new accounts created day in and day out, with still other accounts showing up to participate in the disruption. No, I'm sorry, the simplest explanation is that this is part of the PR effort, and some of the editors here are part of that team. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of making vague non-accusations about unspecified editors? If you really believe that some undercover Monsanto team is at work here then say so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the accusations. I'm the one saying that either the accusations need to be supported by evidence and presented at the appropriate noticeboard, or they should not be made at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already been accused as such. For the record, the accusation is false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

To both Thargor above and Spectra below, thanks, and that should be accepted by any other editor. If I see further accusations against you, I'm going to take the accuser(s) to ANI. Sadly, after I posted the comment about this concern, a new flurry of accusations of WP:SOCK have taken place in this same talk thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The accusations continue... Firemylasers (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So I see. After I start the discussion at ANI, I will post a link to it on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the accusation is false for me, as well. I have never received any funds directly or indirectly from Monsanto or other GM food producers, and I have never been asked to make edits to Wikipedia. If there is evidence that specific editors are editing for profit or have COI, this should be presented on a noticeboard. Frankly, if Monsanto is paying people edit this page, they are wasting money. I don't see any evidence of coordination, and certainly no one has approached me on my talk page or in RL even to thank me for my efforts here or support careful changes I made that were reverted in their entirety by the POV pusher.

But back to what started out as the issue of this TLDR thread, the issue of fringe science and the issue of perceived US bias.

• Fringe. The NPOV on science-related issues is the consensus of the scientific community. That consensus has been demonstrated. As I said yesterday, "fringe" is not a slur, it's a Wikilabel for a position that is opposed by scientific consensus. The idea that a supreme being created the world in six days and that animals do not evolve is a popular position in the country I live in, and no matter how I feel about that, it could not be called a "fringe" position in terms of numbers of adherents. But it's absolutely a fringe position scientifically, and we would have to mention that in an article on creationism.
• US bias. If there is a strong US bias in this article, I don't think that's a violation of WP:WEIGHT since most of the marches (250 to 400, depending on which source currently in the article) and most of the marchers were in the US. And please, remember this article is not a showcase for opposition to GMO. It's an article about a specific protest march. SpectraValor (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Almost none of the sources about the march say anything about a scientific consensus. That was added back into this article based on a now-removed opinion piece by ReasonTV, which is not a realiable source. In somewhat of a tricky and sneaky set of edits, someone removed the neutral secondary source and replaced it with the wording from the unreliable source. I have now remedied that situation. There are no sources that say most of the protests took place in the US, that's an editorial interpretation of a source and it should be removed. Further, the march took place in 52 countries; the number of marches in the US is proportional to its size, not to its relevance. This is yet another fallacy you are trying to spread. If there is bias, it is source bias by American media sources, and I do have foreign sources that take an altogether different perspective. The specific protest march is against Monsanto and its GMO products, no matter how hard you try to deny it. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the key question here is whether the article contains psuedoscientific views. We have a policy on this which states,

Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly.

This is not negotiable, but policy. Considering this article from a WP:FRINGE perspective, the concern has been that quoting protestors' concerns in isolation is a way of admitting pseudoscience into the article in a way which undermines this rule. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with WP:PSCI. Please quote me the exact sentence and source where NPOV is being violated. You should know that nobody has been able to do this, as this question has been asked dozens of times. At no time has any pseudoscience found its way into the aricle. We have an enormous amount of sources to go on to write this article and all significant POV are duly represented per policy. Perhaps you will take a moment to find a specific part of this article that you believe violates our policies. Good luck, because nobody has ever found one. To be very clear, while improvements are always welcome (and encouraged) using sources about the subject, we have a small group of editors who are hiding behind our policies and guidelines to push a specific POV that is at odds with our sources. This article cites the AP source about this march to say "Many scientists and U.S. government agencies maintain that GMOs are safe. The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods." That's what our sources say and that's what we report. Our source(s) also note that "Some people are concerned about whether 'genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment'." There is no violation of any policy or guideline here. The Associated Press reports it as do a multitude of reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I want to get away from discussion of editors and focus on policy and content, as it is the only way forward here. Taking a step back, I see Wikipedia has an article on Genetically modified food which states in its lede: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food", which appears to be strongly-sourced. If this is correct, contrary views are pseudoscientific/fringe. Is this right? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. I specifically asked you to identify content in this article that violates PSCI. You do not appear to be able to answer this simple question. Instead, you've attempted to wikilawyer over how we might be able to interpret a policy. Please identify the exact passage or passages that you believe violate our policy, not your interpretation of the policy. Contrary views are reported based on their source coverage per the NPOV policy in question. And, we are not discussing the risk posed by GMOs vs. the risks of conventional produce. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, it's not me changing the subject. I started by stating there is a crucial question of policy here, and that we need to determine whether pseudoscientific views are present. You have challenged me to name specific content, and then cried foul when I didn't play to your rules. However, it is not possible to achieve consensus on whether (or not) a given piece of content is a "pseudoscientific view" if we do not have consensus on what the mainstream view is first. So I ask again, do we have consensus that the view as stated in Genetically modified food, that "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food", is something we can use as a basis for assessing specific content here for its fringeiness? If so, we can then move on to examine specific content in that context. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not how it works. We already have a policy and we already have this article. The talk page is used to improve the article. If you see a problem with the article, you identify it on the talk page and present the problem with our current policy framework. What you are not allowed to do is comment on some other article and then use that other article to interpret our policy anew. Those are not my rules, that's how we use the talk page. Again, if you can't specifically identify a problem, then your discussion belongs on either the NPOV noticeboard or on the talk page of the NPOV policy itself. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, in my experience on controversial articles where editors hold strong views it is quite usual to come to a general accommodation/understanding as a basis for proceeding in an orderly fashion. Allow me to suggest gently that the current interactions on this article and its talk page are not working well, so this may be worth a try.

There is no question here of interpreting policy; we must apply it, not "interpret" it. You write above that "At no time has any pseudoscience found its way into the aricle"; yet other editors seem to view some of the views expressed (e.g. in the "Concerns" section) as being pseudoscientific, and so needing to be contextualized with a mainstream "counter-view". This is the crux. So (to boil this down to a specific), is the statement that the protestors espouse "Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health" an inclusion of a pseudoscientic view, or not? If it is then policy dictates it must be qualified with a mainstream counter, in my understanding. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A few things. First of all, you just edited this article to add a link to GMO controversies to the "Concerns" section. That link already exists in the GMO controversy section above it. The concerns section is not about GMO controversy, it is about the concerns expressed by the protesters in reliable sources, including their platform, agenda, and so-called rationale. Every protest movement has this and all of these concerns are found in reliable sources. Second of all, pseudoscience has a specific definition and usage. Either you are ignoring this definition and usage or you are blissfully unaware of it. The concerns of the protesters have nothing whatsoever to do with "pseudoscience" and nowhere do the protesters claim they are engaging in the scientific method. So, either you do not understand how the word is used or you using it in an erroneous context. It might help to review our article on the history of pseudoscience to give you some ideas of how to recognize it. Finally, the "mainstream" scientific POV is represented throughout the article. Given the fact that you just placed a duplicate link in the wrong section, I'm getting the sense that you haven't actually read this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On the link, you are right - it is not needed since it's a duplicate. On "pseudoscience" - great, you've made your position very clear. To paraphrase, I think you're maintaining that unless the holder of a view is "engaging in the scientific method" their views as reported are exempt from being categorized as pseudoscientific (and, presumably, fringe?), and - that being the case - we can relay that they are concerned (say) about the risk of GM food to human health without having to explore whether that view is scientifically supported or not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, and I wish you would stop wikilawyering. If you want to improve this article, do the research, read the sources about the protest movement, and help improve the coverage. There's a lot that needs to be done, and there are many views that haven't yet been added. Perhaps you could add more about the scientific view of the marchers and their claims from these sources. Right now, we really only have a general statement from AP, a statement from Monsanto and their lobbying group, and little to nothing about how scientists see the protest movement. If you want to help, then help find this information and add it. Please remember, only sources about the march. Here's some more information about the relevant science from another Monsanto rep. you might want to add. And here is a response from a protester to those arguments. We don't need a tit for tat call and response here, but we do want to make sure the most significant POV are represented. And both of those links discuss how the regulatory process works and impacts the science, a problem that is more political in nature. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you wrote "The concerns of the protesters have nothing whatsoever to do with 'pseudoscience' and nowhere do the protesters claim they are engaging in the scientific method". Let's leave it at that. So, applying this to specific content, the first bullet point in the Concerns section is that the protestors have "Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health" (sic). What actual content is this sourced to? In the cited sourced the nearest thing I can see is a reference to "... Monsanto, the biotechnology company whose genetically-modified crops are said to be harmful to the environment and can lead to serious health conditions." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That particular concern can be traced to concerns about health and food safety originally listed on their website[16] and later covered by the secondary sources in the article (for example Case 2013, "citing concerns about food safety"). A brief overview of the health risks the group is concerned about is found in the E source. The quote you are referring to says, "Tami Canal created a Facebook page, calling for a rally against Monsanto, the biotechnology company whose genetically-modified crops are said to be harmful to the environment and can lead to serious health conditions. The March Against Monsanto was born." Canal has also commented about this primary concern many times. She has told media outlets that she feels that the health of her children is threatened by Monsanto. Those particular concerns became paramount for the group and the sources cover this in spades.[17][18][19] At the Los Angeles march, an activist told the media, "We want to stop GM crops, or at least get them labeled. We want to get more people aware of what's going on so we can come together to have healthy food. Our health is more important then their profits." (Philippines News Agency). Further, these concerns are supported by the sources already in the article. I can easily tighten up the sourcing however, by expanding this concern. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link to the MaM site and read this: "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects" - which seems to be pure pseudoscience (even in your terms), is a self-published claim regarding a 3rd party, and falls afoul of WP:MEDRS; I don't think we can uses this even to report what the MaM campaign holds to be true unless it's properly contextualized. The dailyinterlake.com piece does this, taking care to quote an oncologist stating "there is no real mechanism in GMOs that could even cause cancer" (a model we would do well to follow, I think). The syracuse.com doesn't seem to mention food safety. The stuff.co.nz quotes the "lead to serious health conditions" phrase from MaM.

I am wondering, why not state bluntly what MaM's concern is about health (cancer, birth defects, etc.)? What we've got doesn't seem to be sourced and is a bit vague. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What isn't sourced? The concern appears on their website and is repeated by all of the secondary sources, and E source covers those concerns. If you want to look at the sources and rewrite it, then have at it, but don't rely solely on the primary, use the secondary. When you do, it's going to be worded in the exact same way as it is now. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The "... can lead to serious health conditions" bit in the E source source seemed to be in E source's own voice; but maybe it's just badly written? Isn't there a stronger source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There are in the reference section but I have to log out. You can pick and choose from the sources in the article to find what you need. I trust you'll do a great job. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

break

Okay, I've re-sourced to a newer source (International Business Times) which has the merit of plainly re-stating MaM's own concerns. But now I am twitchy again about pseudoscience and biomedical claims. I don't think the claim that GM food causes cancer (etc.) should be allowed to stand, even as a reported view, without some corrective context. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. [20][21] Where's the pseudoscience? This is also covered by Benbrook in the E source. If you are twitchy about what you perceive as pseudoscience and biomedical claims, then why did you add them? It's almost as if you added them for the sole purpose of adding a "corrective context". But you wouldn't do that now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it is what MaM are claiming, as relayed by a reasonable source. We should neither promote it nor suppress it, but report it neutrally. And the concern they have is about GM foods broadly, not more particularly about Glyphosate. Viriditas — would you object to adding material that makes plain these biomedical claims are not supported by science? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, their concerns are with GM crops that are resistant to glyphosate. These concerns are covered in the article on glyphosate, so they are not "pseudoscientific". They are legitimate concerns and that article discusses them and it's been the subject of a lot of research and debate. We aren't supposed to have a back and forth on this between supporters and opponents. That kind of discourse is reserved for the GMO controversy article. In this article, we summarize the positions of the movement (the reason they "march") and the response in their respective sections and leave it at that. The previous text you removed ("Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods on human health") did just that. The response section currently addresses this directly, as does the GMO controversy summary style section. This way, the article does not fall into a claim/counter-claim debate article and sticks solely to the subject. What the March Against Monsanto are claiming is that the reason they protest is because of their concerns about the the safety of genetically modified foods on human health. Now, we could conceivably expand that into a separate section (along with all of the other concerns, but it would have to be done very carefully. Unfortunately, in this context, we really only have responses from Monsanto officials, not from scientists, so even if we wanted to do this, we couldn't because we don't have the actual sources we need. So any expansion of the concerns would have to be expanded within the context of the movement which at this point has a very limited number of sources to draw upon. Viriditas (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, neither MaM's official site nor the secondaries (E souce/IBT) mention Glyphosate is relation to the protestor's concerns about food safety. What they say is "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Their official website refers specifically to Roundup and glyphosate in relation to their concerns about food safety "to learn more about genetically-modified products and how to avoid them"[22][23] and the secondary sources (like E) specifically mention it.[24] In fact, that phrasing ("Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects") refers directly and only to Samsel's review of glyphosate, popularized by Common Dreams[25] and added to their website as a source.[26] Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's your synthesis, not what the sources state. Would you have us think the protestors think GM food is fine if it hasn't been in contact with glyposate? Nowhere do they make such claims - their claim on the adverse health effects of GM food is unqualified (again, they state: "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects" - glyphosate is not mentioned on the same page; nor is it used to qualify this claim in the secondaries, but raised as a distinct issue). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Where's the pseudoscience?" - Oh boy. [27] [28] [29] [30] Firemylasers (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The old "bloggers are more authoritative than journal articles and news sources" gambit. How crude. And where is the pseudoscience? Have you even read our article on glyphosate? Obviously not. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the good old appeal to authority gambit. If we're going to play games with reliability of sources, then why are you citing a research scientist from the CS/AI lab at MIT whose work was "published" in a pay-to-play journal whose topic isn't even related to the article at hand? A journal that isn't even indexed in PubMed? A paper that involves no actual research? A paper that cites Andrew Wakefield, whose medical license was revoked and whose paper was retracted? A paper that cites Seralini's 2012 study, one of the most thoroughly debunked fraudulent studies in recent history? A paper that makes completely insane assumptions based on null evidence?

Speaking of the article on glyphosate, I think you should go take a look at it, since you obviously haven't read it. Firemylasers (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is quite clear: "While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is widely used, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist." Are you and your friends going to try and delete that as well? The rest of the article goes into these concerns and they are well documented. There's nothing pseudoscientific about these concerns and they are covered widely in the literature. What you are basically saying is that there are no risks to any of Monsanto's products. Now that is pseudoscience! Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point you're just embarrassing yourself with these posts. I must say, this has been an amusing experience, but I have far better things to do than to spar with an editor who doesn't seem to be capable of grasping core concepts of risk assessment and who is actively ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter. The fact that you cited Seneff's "study" just seals the deal. The incredible hostility from you and your attempt at taking over the article is even more interesting. Firemylasers (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the entire point of this discussion. The March Against Monsanto cites Samsel and Seneff's study to support their POV on their website, and the risks of glyphosate are well established. Your response was to point me to bloggers who are critical of the authors of the study. Your entire line of reasoning is debunked by our article on glyphosate, where the risks are discussed. I'm getting the distinct impression that you are not here to improve this article but to wage wars against its editors and to keep attacking anyone that criticizes Monsanto, a company who has a history of making products with known risks and dangers. If you were scientific in your approach, you would acknowledge these risks, except, as it turns out, Monsanto & Co. have attacked every study and every author that has ever published a paper showing these risks. That's very interesting, and we even have reliable sources about these attacks, detailing how Monsanto goes after anyone who criticizes their products. In today's news out of Germany, it turns out that attacking these people is not enough. Monsanto is now, according to German news outlets, spying on them. Until you are ready to learn how Wikipedia works and what we are actually doing here, you probably should find another place to troll. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hah. No wonder this article is in such bad shape. I won't even bother responding to such an irrational post. You can figure out the issues with this one on your own, I won't spoon feed it to you. Firemylasers (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I bet you can't point to anything in "bad shape" (unless you are speaking of the recent edits by Thargor & Co. which destroyed the article, in which case I agree). In fact, I double dare you to point me to content that is in "bad shape" and needs fixing (aside from the recent changes by Thargor's poison pen). Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but to keep this talk page from being derailed, the first step would be to ignore obvious socks/disrupters. Until he comes clean about his true identity, ignore him entirely. Not that those involved in protecting Monsanto care, but this activity is very disrespectful to independent editors.. petrarchan47tc 17:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Please be aware of WP:ANI#Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward

This is getting mired down. Let's put up some specific proposals, decide on them and move forward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. In fact, I agree with it so much that I already wrote an answer to it just the other day in a discussion thread above. I'll copy it to here, with a small amount of updating:

• For me, the biggest thing is to simplify the Media coverage section, per the discussion above, at #Media Coverage.

• There are also some unresolved questions in this talk, that really ought to be worked out before even more revert wars break out:

1. #Issues about the science sourcing
2. #TL;DR version for other editors
3. #The HR 933 signing timeline
4. #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section
5. #Unsourced changes to the lead section
6. #Removal of Facebook message

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops....I forgot that we sort of have a section like this open....it was so any hundred lines ago. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 19:21, July 29, 2013‎

I'm going to be bold here and siphon these out. If you can detail these in the places where I haven't, that would be great Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep each discussion in one place, so I'm moving what's here, without changing any of it. (Just follow the links in my list here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't revert you on it, but the point of putting them into individual slots was to start fresh and to get the lay of the land on each issue individually as opposed to through the bickering above. I won't argue it further, but I think that's a better way to push it through. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate what you are saying. My thinking, however, is that the existing talk threads are still quite current and not stale, and, because they remain unresolved to varying degrees, it really is better to try and resolve each of them in one place. Otherwise, we are just about certain to have editors replying to one another in more than one place at the same time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about some past edits

This is exactly the kind of disruption I am talking about. Thargor's been trying to "start fresh" in each and every discussion that's ever occured, because all he has to do to force his edits into the article is to ignore the discussion as if it never occurred, pretend it never occured, and then claim he wants to reboot it by "starting fresh" each time. No, I'm sorry, this can't be allowed. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It might have been disruptive if Thargor had reverted me, but that didn't happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring this back around to some semblance of a civilized discussion based on the science and the sources. Please don't derail this one as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Science? You're at the wrong article. You want GMO articles, Thangor, if you have sources about this protest movement, great. The one derailing this talk page is certainly not Viritidas. petrarchan47tc 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The protest is about science, so it's relevant. Also, why are you giving Thom Hartmann undue weight? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you call it undue to quote Thom Hartmann commenting about this very protest? Do you know who he is? Also, "this protest is about science" is profoundly untrue. It is about the beliefs of the people behind it. As has been stated countless times, this article shouldn't be covering GMO science, unless quoting the protesters themselves. This misunderstanding needs to be cleared up ASAP. You are obviously well versed in GMO science, and I do think you've stumbled upon the wrong article for your expertise. It is not needed here, petrarchan47tc 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

His column was already linked in the second half of the statement. It's undue weight because it's demonstrably false. As for the GMO science, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV demand that we cover the consensus viewpoint on fringe theories. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if he said that the moon is made of green cheese. If you want your opinion inserted into this article either become a noted journalist or scientist. He is a journalist of note and what he said belongs in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, about 99.99% of what journalists said that is somehow related to this is not in this article. So merely having said it is not a sufficient reason to put it in And comments alleging that Tea Party movement rallies are small is really going too far afield to be in the .01% on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Granted, I have not been able to follow the talk word for word, but I certainly am not at all aware of the 99.99% you speak of. It has been my impression that the march generated very little journalistic response. Could you please point me to at least a few responses of other notable journalists? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You missed my point. Basically it was that "a source said it" is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is room for more than a full screen of Monsanto response there is room for one full sentence of three lines for a response from Hartmann. You and some readers may feel that it's BS, but keep in mind that some readers feel that Monsanto's response is BS as well. Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What is it about Hartmann's response that makes it worth commenting out basically into its own paragraph? Having a paragraph from Monsanto makes sense: after all, the March is directly about them. Why on earth would with give Hartmann's incorrect assertion significant article space? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's ironic that a complaint about starting new discussions about topics that were already being discussed has resulted in a new discussion about topics that were already being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

None of us really have control over the (organic) talk page flow, nor should we. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But we each have control over what we do and do not say, ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it would be helpful to resolve the discussions that are linked to from this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments about user conduct

The continued exchanges of disagreement, primarily between User:Thargor Orlando and User:Viriditas, are becoming tiresome, and accomplish nothing. Does either of them actually think that he or she will wear the other down? All that I see it doing is to waste pixels. Can the rest of us ignore the battleground editors and try to compromise to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this talk page has been mentioned at both WP:ANI and WP:AN. There are probably multiple administrators watching this page. So be civil. There is no rule against contradicting an editor four times a day on talk pages, but it doesn't help.

As was mentioned at the noticeboard, if anyone has reason, other than idle suspicion, to suspect sockpuppetry or paid editing, report it. If you have idle suspicion, say nothing until you have evidence.

Idle accusations of conflict of interest have been a long-standing ugly pattern with regard to this article. Can we stop making idle accusations?

Tryptofish has made some constructive suggestions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is it at WP:AN? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When editors complain about no response within 24 hours or refer to archived discussions that are less than a month old as evidence for "consensus," (translated, "I argued against five people two weeks ago and reverted their edits until they gave up"), there's something very wrong with an article and its talk page, and it's inadvisable for reasonable individuals to remain involved. The problem isn't POV pushers like Viriditas, who accuse people like me of being Monsanto employees with no evidence just because they think we disagree with their POV on GMOs. No, it's editors and various admins who have weighed in here or at other places because they either have such a stake in seeming impartial and fair (pointing fingers at the POV pusher AND a random one of the ten editors who disagree) or else so admire the perceived Robin Hood character of a person who will edit war to make a point that the project finally takes second place. SpectraValor (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When does anyone other than Viriditas actually build the article, you know, expand on the subject matter? And no, the subject matter is not GMO science. I see a heck of a lot of policing, but little to no content creation related to the March Against Monsanto. What I have seen is a lot of trying to keep the article from being written, or stories spun about how all problems lie with two editors and their bickering. I do hope Admins come around, and thoroughly look through the archives. They will see exactly what type of content has been aggressively added and what has been removed, all with a very specific pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO POV, and wildly outside the bounds of this article's subject matter. It began for me here, and more pro-biotech was added here. I had to continually remove the Monsanto propaganda ( and again), but I was told over and over, by a variety of editors in numerous ways, "You can't put in the protest claims without pointing out that they are not supported scientifically" and we cannot allow fringe POVs to go unchecked in this article, and it was re-added again and again because "We cannot allow fringe viewpoints to go unchecked". One time, IRWolfie swept through and erased most of my work. We weren't allowed to say "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" because, according to A13ean, the source material from Truthout mentioned Séralini, who found that GM corn created large tumors in rats, and who according to this group of editors, was discredited. And here's when another SPI rolled through to "eliminate soapboxing". Then there was the time IRWolfie declared the entire article Fringe Theory. And of course, the various efforts to change the number of protesters from 2 million to "between 200,000 to 2 million" based on one local NY newspaper article written while the protest was still ongoing, which Jtydog started here... and which ended up ensconced in Wikipedia at the Monsanto article and the Genetically modified food article, as well as this one... meaning these editors support the use of this one reference to change the truth that was reported by literally every other media, and to this day, which is that the protest was attended by 2 million protesters (no "range" is ever mentioned, only on Wiki). "2 million" is the uncontested turnout number as for as RS is concerned, but we are not allowed to state that on Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 05:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty difficult to meaningfully expand it when, at the same time, you have to remove all the anti-scientific cruft and overweighting of fringe viewpoints. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not the aim of WP just to expand articles. We should produce a balanced and encyclopedic article. At present the article is more of a soapbox for anti-GM views. Regarding the 2,000,000 figure, all reliable sources give that as an organisers' claim only. There are no independent estimates giving this figure, see below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Elitism" comments from Monsanto

I moved mention of these comments from the "Response ..." section to the "Concerns" section because they pre-date the march. However, as Petrarchan47 has pointed-out to me, this still isn't quite right, as thse comments weren't - strictly speaking - concerns which prompted the march. One way to maybe address this is to rename the "Concerns" section "Built-up to the march" (or similar), so that this content can be accommodated. That also might encourage a more neutral gathering of material here, rather than a shopping list of concerns ... Thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with a list of protesters concerns, in an article about the protest? "Response" should include a more well-rounded gathering, not only the response of Monsanto and biotech industry reps. But I see no reason to remove the response section. However, both sides should have their say. petrarchan47tc 06:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're being über-neutral (as we should), perhaps a "Concerns" section can even include Monstanto's concerns, such as we know them. So maybe the "elitism" stuff does belong here?

I fail to see how it would be logical to include in the section listing the concerns of the protest movement with whatever it is you are referring to as the "concerns" of Monsanto. What would be "neutral" about that? It would inverse the order of events in historical reality.

Any "concerns" voiced by Monsanto in response to the protest would, as a matter of course, appear to belong in the section, "Response".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear you: but the elitism concerns were expressed in the build-up to the march. So maybe a problem is we don't know whether the "Response" is to the march itself, or to the whole thing (including social media campaigning, etc). Maybe just re-title the section either "Response to the march" or "Response to the movement" and then it becomes clearer where the elitism comments belong ... Then (also) the media coverage section could become a subsection here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the requested/required source for that contention. This march was planned far in advance, so it seems to not make sense, but I look forward to proof that protesters showed up because they were outraged by the company's recent comments. petrarchan47tc 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

By "in the build-up" I simply mean "before". The article (now) does not state that the "elitism" thing was a concern of the protestors, it's in a separate paragraph. The point is that things Monsanto said before the march can't be a response to the march, which is why I'm asking if we should clarify the titling. What do you think? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that the tag I placed earlier on the response section, given it had and still has no response from anyone not pro- Monsanto, has been removed without any discussion... yet the same tag placed earlier by another editor on the media section (the one where Thom Hartmann's criticism is continually removed) remains. The POV surrounding this article is so obvious it's laughable. Very entertaining indeed. (General POV statements - not directed at anyone in particular). petrarchan47tc 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, since I removed the tag (and a lot of content in addition) in an attempt to address this issue; so are you calling me someone who is "pro-Monsanto" (whatever that means)? By removing all that Hawaii stuff, isn't the undue-ness resolved? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclear wording. I meant that the response section had no input from anyone not pro-Monsanto, meaning responses from Monsanto itself and a biotech org is the only content included. petrarchan47tc 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate you adding the tags back until the situations are resolved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I don't think it makes sense to have Monsanto's criticism of the protesters in a section about what the protesters think, simply because it took place before the March, and therefore was not a "response" in the sense of responding after the March. I believe that as long as we continue to say that it happened before the March, we won't mislead anyone if we present it as part of the Monsanto response, since Monsanto was aware of the March and its issues before the March began. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough: now it's worded in a less convoluted way it now seems fine there ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)