Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Policies and guidelines; What they mean.

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

---

Reading thru the discussions again, especially the recent ones, show as clearly as one can show that those rules mean shit as they're treated as such. Going by the rules, this article would be a piece of cake but it is clear by now that it is hijacked by editors who might or might not work as shims of the GMO PR campaign but sure have issues putting their strong personal feelings aside for the good of the article. It's becoming more and more a clear and visible choke to any even just slightly informed reader. Haha....! If this should become a reasonable and trustable good article, this silliness has to stop! We don't want readers to vomit all over their keyboard, won't we...?!TMCk (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of editing according to policies and guidelines. But I rather suspect that all editors, no matter what their perspectives about this page, will say the same. And some will swear that anyone who disagrees with them either doesn't understand policy and guidelines, or is willfully ignoring them. And I'm strongly in favor of vomiting (just checking if anyone is reading this). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

But, I think that putting aside one's personal feelings about the subject matter is an excellent suggestion! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion? I sure think so. Will it happen? Wishful thinking...!TMCk (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More: There is a clear agenda about even "censor"/remove opinions of the article's subject. Should that be seen as a precedence to remove faulty opinions of politicians or else if they're not backed up by science??? I'm sure you get my point.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifically on that last point, about editors wanting to remove or tone down the opinions of the protesters, I feel that I have to point out that there are also editors who have wanted to include comments of people not associated with the March in order to buck up the protesters' views. If you are in favor of everyone on both "sides" setting aside their personal feelings, I'm with you, but if you are implying that it's just people on one "side", then I have a problem with what you are saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "shims", but part of trying to have a civil discourse (which is what I assume this section is about) is not to poison the well by repeating insinuations which lack evidence. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that you nominated the article for deletion a second time a few days ago, IRWolfie, do you think it might be understandable for others to question your neutrality when it comes to this article? Jusdafax 00:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No I do not think it would be understandable and do not see what connection you are trying to make to any issue I have raised. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagreed with the AfD and commented "keep" there. I think it was a bad idea. But if we attributed bad faith to everyone who started an AfD that didn't get consensus, we'd have to drive away much of our editor base. I remember the first AfD that I started. The page was kept, and I got an earful about it. Deletion discussions are polarizing by their very nature. This is as good a place as any to point out the value of setting aside one's personal feelings on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The first nomination had merits; The second had "point" written all over it and was not in the best interest of WP. That of course is "just" my personal opinion. Unlike some unnamed editors on this page I disclose what is my personal opinion (...vs. facts and policies...). The problem on this page is clear w/o speaking it out again even more clear than some others have already done in the past. And it's not "science vs. fringe".TMCk (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the deletion nominations, I agree. I nominated it the first time when it was poorly formatted and the work of people with no experience in Wikipedia, and there was no evidence of collaboration. I then requested a speedy closure four days later when it looked like a Wikipedia article. The second nomination was a threat to throw some other child's toys out of the pram. What I still don't see enough of is willingness to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm going to log out for the night, and vomit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that because you've eaten too much GM food? ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what is the purpose of this thread? If you wish to make vague insinuations can you please do that elsewhere, preferably off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to get the page back on track even if it is not very likely to happen.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Apologies

Earlier today I was not watching my computer and a guest in the house edited this article. I have since explained how wrong this was. It will definitely not happen again. I will go through and correct now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is first one. The others seem to have been either corrected or have consensus. This is the diff between the others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, I think everything is fixed. Stuff happens! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the few times that the Someone Else Did It defense, also known as little brother defense, actually is plausible, because Canoe1967 actually reverted the edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for believing me. I wish it was me as I thought they were good edits. I would have done similar myself but now I can't.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

VE

All that I (thought) that I did was change two words. Apparently VE decided that I removed a photo, changed a heading, and I don't know what else. So damn irritating when I hardly have time to keep up with the talk page here. grrr. Now I guess I have to waste even more time and report the damn thing. grrr, grrr... Gandydancer (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it's OK now. Please check if what I wrote is OK with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible resolution to contentions: Removal for being non-encyclopedic

Greetings! I was randomly selected for the RFC to discuss and decide whether Fringe Science or Undue Weight tags should be retained or eliminated, however I'm overwhelmingly biased against the Monsanto corporation so I will refrain from volunteering an opinion on the tagging, yet after reading through the Talk: page here what is emerging is what appears to be an inescapable awareness that the issue of Monsanto and its behavior globally negates unbiased, dispassionate reporting in an encyclopedia format. So does the reporting of protests and efforts to stop or hinder Monsanto's behavior, there is no possibility of unbiased, dispassionate, WP:NPOV reporting.

Wikipedia policy suggests that article entries should be encyclopedic, that they attempt neutrality or give equal weight, that it reports salient facts and does not attempt to right wrongs, save the world, become battle grounds for contentious issues... You know the drill, we all are well aware of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As much as I hate Monsanto, looking at the article here I don't see it being very encyclopedic, it's using Wikipedia as a battle ground.

It may be somewhat extreme however how about deleting the article entirely? The march itself is well known, but it's not an historic event, anybody who wants to research the march against Monsanto can easily find better information about it using Google search engine queries, nothing monumental took place during the global protest, and people who want to learn about Monsanto's activities and products as well as opposition to the multinational globally don't need Wikipedia to fulfill their searches. Nothing about the march, its organization, or anything about it is even remotely encyclopedic in nature, after all. Damotclese (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion yesterday (by me). It was closed keep per SNOW. Thus this is not likely to be a fruitful discussion, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict w Wolfie...)Strongly oppose discussion on the deletion. An AfD was placed on this article not 24 hours ago, for the second time, and there was a snowball consensus to keep on all sides. Here's the record: [1]. Please, please, please, let's not have that discussion again within 24 hours in yet another venue.

As regards your general thesis, I'm not sure I agree that this is an insurmountable problem. I would contend that a good fraction of editors in this dispute are perfectly able to set aside their personal feelings and edit dispassionately, counting myself amongst them. In fact, this is why I'm here, after the first RfC on this (as I know are several others). If there is a minority here who can't be dispassionate about this (on whichever "side"), then that is their problem to address - by which I mean, step aside personally, and let clearer heads prevail. It's surely totally against the ethos of this site to not cover material because it's hard to do, or because people have strong views. Should we not cover climate change? Holocaust denial? The US government? Political parties? DanHobley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Damotclese, I missed the deletion discussion, but had I been involved I would have voted to keep. I can see why some users would like the article to be deleted because it has become a soapbox for anti-Monsanto and anti-GM views and a general topic battleground. I agree with DanHobley above though, this is not an insurmountable problem. The article should simple be about the march, written in encyclopedic language. This is not the place for pro/anti gm food or pro/anti Monsanto debate or discussion of scientific topics of any kind. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's true that we're seeing a religious battlefield develop here, yet my primary suggestion for deletion still remains, the article is not very encyclopedic. If we were to crack open a printed encyclopedia prior to the advent of the Internet, we might find footnotes about protests such as this one, but historically encyclopedias would not bother to include anything like this march. As you note, the non-encyclopedic nature of the article is not insurmountable, true. Damotclese (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Immerse yourselves: "March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history". petrarchan47tc

But Petrarchan47, that's one of the problems. :) AlterNet is not a legitimate reference for determining any scientific issue any more than Fox "News" is. AlterNet is highly biased, catering to a progressive political position which, I would agree, cleaves strongly to scientific principles yet is biased nonetheless. That article you reference fails on any number of fatal logic fallacies, not the least of which is the begging the question claim that there were "millions" in the protest, nor the begging the question supposition that the movement is "gaining steam."

Immersion in to the scientific literature is what the other Editors suggested is the most reasonable avenue of contention resolution on this article, not diving in to highly biased blogish web sites that cater to particular political and social world views. No offense intended, please understand. :) I appeal to science and the Scientific Method which AlterNet just aint no part of.

The whole article here is badly un-encyclopedic. The article is strewn with unsupported suppositions. It totally fails to meet even rudimentary High School level reporting of the event leave alone reach what I would consider to be good encyclopedia work. Damotclese (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working to make this article more encyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious nonsense

"In post-march coverage, Alternet printed, "While March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history with 400 simultaneous events in 60 countries around the globe, no major corporate media outlets in the US covered the live event. CNN ran a followup short on the event on May 28, and mainstream coverage has trickled in here and there, but has been sparse."Worldwide Movement Against Monsanto Gaining Steam

To call this nonsense, to literally argue that Alternet didn't have an idea what they were doing, but some Wikipedia editor knows the score, is rather odd. And disturbing. I am wondering if there is one person here who has studied the available material about the March Against Monsanto. They wouldn't argue with this Alternet quotation, if they had, I assure you. It was a giant march, and it was not covered well by mainstream media. The idea of corporate controlled media has been called a "meme" on this talk page. Which is ridiculous*. I need to ask why folks are so interested in spending time editing this page when they have not studied the topic. The result is vandalism, folks. petrarchan47tc 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me draw your attention to #7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint. No it isn't vandalism. It's a disagreement about POV, but not vandalism. I assure you that I am reading the material, including the first paragraph of the Media coverage section of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're calling a "false viewpoint", but where are the refs proving these claims? And when I say material, I am not speaking of the Wikipedia article based on the material, i'm speaking of source material. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The words "false viewpoint" come from the header of that discussion section; they are not my words. You should follow the link and read what is there. Yes, I do understand that you were talking about the source material. So let me draw your attention to the source material in the first paragraph of the Media coverage section of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I do hope you aren't insinuating that this minuscule list of media outlets - sans context such as, what percentage of media this represents, the amount and type of coverage, etc - this list that essentially constitutes OR (if indeed it is trying to 'say something' that is not found already said in RS, ie "lotsa coverage fer that MAM thing") - refutes Alternet and Thomm fricking Hartmann. And yes, that first para that you now point me to was indeed created as OR refutation of the Thom Hartmann claim, which for whatever reason has been under heavy attack since the very begining of the article. A thorough review of the edit history will show that the first paragraph, which is just weird, was created in a struggle to remove uncomfortable claims, to prove them wrong blatantly using OR whilst claiming to be the ones who are really here to follow guidelines and build a proper article. A review of the history will show that no one ever tried to remove Monsanto's rebuttle. I put it in there. There is only one "side" being attacked here, no matter how convoluted and spun the retelling of this story gets. At some pont, an intelligent truly NPOV lover of the wiki will do a review of this whole situation, and all will be seen. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating anything. Please feel free to raise any issues you want at the appropriate notice board, but please stop casting aspersions on other editors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am AGF, so I do wonder why you would point me to an example of OR/SYNTH. How am I to respond? Now I go to a noticeboard? Why isn't this upsetting to anyone but me? This is obviously against the guidelines, yet we are editing on account of it. I cannot imagine another article where this is acceptable. And every editor here is responsible for letting this slide, which is confusing to me. I know that the editors here understand basic wiki guidelines, and this paragraph has no business being on wikipedia. I am wondering why am I the only person who sees this. petrarchan47tc 01:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is there something I'm missing here? Why would we presume an activist news service is reliable exactly? Particularly about something so demonstrably false? (i.e this statement stands in contrast to the fact that the event is notable purely based on the media coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Is this first paragraph of the media section the best example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH ever, or second best? We have already been over this, the event wasn't much covered by mainstream media and Alternet is considered RS, in a case where we have little to go on, it is fine. We quote directly from Monsanto press releases and industry as well, where appropriate. petrarchan47tc 01:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources are never declared de-facto reliable. Reliability is case by case. I'm still not sure what you are basing calling it reliable on. It is a news service with a set agenda, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"GMOs are safe"

This article is about a protest against Monsanto, their influence, and for the labeling of GMOs, among other things. When this was up for deletion the first time, the seeming consensus at the AfD was that it needed expansion to be a proper article. It was challenging, because media coverage was on the light side in my country, but it was a fun challenge. I immersed myself in all the articles I could find about MAM and went from there. I'm telling you this, because if this article is to be built based on wiki guidelines, it will be built on the literature ABOUT the protest. The articles showed the complaints/concerns were many and varied, though a few easily rose to the surface and those were what I highlighted by adding them to the article. Any seriously helpful editing is probably not going to come from the same group who've been edit warring here for two months - and it's easy to demonize Viriditas, in his absence, as the culprit, but the true problem is that editors here are NOT immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article. Not in the least. Again, the main topic on this talk page is "GMOs are safe" "In fact, we better add this fact to the Lede!".

GMOs being safe is way off topic and is OR done in wiki's voice when added to this page, unless it comes from one of the pieces written about his topic, and in a balanced way resembling media coverage, which is to say, the GMO coverage here would look much more like my early version, since it came directly from RS about this article's topic. I think it's very apparent folks have some adgenda here regarding GMOs and the message surrounding them, and that very obviously the purpose here is not to improve the article based on what RS says about it. That is what's causing all the ridiculous problems here. This should have been a very simple article to build and should not have needed much tendIng to afterward. Yet, three months later people are still insisting on the same off-topic OR being aded to or remaining in the article.

In my opinion, doing the exact same thing but expecting different results is crazy - someone disinterested in GMOs but really in love with wiki and using its guidelines purely should rewrite this article based on RS about the March. This very early version of the article includes a reference list that should be very helpful in this pursuit, should anyone take it on. It is a very good list - and an exhaustive one at that. In one of the main articles about the protest, it mentioned that science had not proven GMOs to be dangerous (or something along those lines) and went on to illustrate protesters take on the GMO issue. That is what I used for the article - the balance struck on the GMO mention was taken from RS and presented based on how it was presented there. That is in keeping with guidelines.

A false balance on the GMO issue has been added and insisted upon exhaustively, daily, at this article that doesn't represent any RS about the topic. In fact it seems to be getting worse instead of better. There are a slew of links to completely unrelated science declaring the safety of GMOs. Adding to this. The balance is further thrown off by what is removed from the article - little unnoticeable things to the average eye, but glaring to one who has researched the RS in the topic of the March. Some of these differences can be seen by comparing the last re-do of mine and the subsequent reversion. I would ask that this be reviewed. For instance, two illuminating images were removed with no reason, some information about the organizer, Tami Camel, was removed, the GMO controversy was swapped as top position in first section instead of the intro paragraph, which is at the bottom of the first section again. I had ordered the first section to reflect the flow of events and the topics as they arose in RS - but the present ordering (a revert of my work) does not represent the balance or flow found in RS. It likely represents an outside view on how this should be presented - and I note that this means the "GMOs are safe!" is declared nearest the top. petrarchan47tc 17:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, again, look at our policy on neutral points of view and on fringe theories, in which claims about GM foods not being safe or causing cancer and such fall under. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick solution for your complaint: ask Alexbrn not to add "claims about cancer and such". Problem solved! petrarchan47tc 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To save some time for future readers, the appropriate section of the fringe guidance for this particular case is Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Quotations. What this means for our situation in the Concerns/Positions section isn't totally clear cut, as it comes down to whether this section is clear enough that this quote is an opinion. As noted above, no quote may prove easier to justify. DanHobley (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The back and forth here reminds me so much of this exchange between a MAM activist and the confrontational tv host. He tries to push her into sounding wacky, so the movement is more easily discredited (his obvious goal) while she makes claims no more wild than "But let us choose - label GMO food; please do more long-term studies", etc. This is a good reflection of what I learned by studying the topic-related RS, the views were not far out, and frankly I saw no wild claims about health effects, rather a unanimous request for labels, and a great concern for the yet unknown outcome of using GMOs. petrarchan47tc 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You may not consider the views "far out," but when talking about the safety of GM food, they are fringe, and we must, per policy, include information that expresses the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that some of the protesters' claims fall under "3. Questionable science" at WP:FRINGE/PS - a substantial following, but some critics allege as pseudoscience. The text advises us to take "a bit more care". Helpful. Also, not to describe as "unambiguously pseudoscience", but this clearly does fall under the broad advice for WP:FRINGE. Some information on the mainstream scientific position is clearly appropriate, but as a community here we need to decide how much. Given other of the protesters' complaints do not fall under fringe, perhaps adding balancing views only to the ones that are would be a good way to go. Only the human health claims seem unambiguously fringe to me. DanHobley (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll note that we're not seeking a point/counterpoint on every claim made by the protesters, only the ones that are significantly outside of mainstream scientific consensus. Balancing viewpoints are all we need, and we have it in the early section but not yet under concerns. My personal issues with fringe claims are satisfied once we address the concerns section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Since US opinion is not the only opinion in the world, something that US residents sometimes forget, what do you think of the fact that the EU countries limit or ban GMOs? I would hope that you are not suggesting that they believe in what you call fringe science? Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The bans certainly aren't based on the scientific consensus, no, but this isn't the place to discuss geopolitics. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the science is done only by industry and are no longer than 90 days, your excitement about the results seems strange.

The statements claiming we need science to counteract protesters' claims are not in keeping with what the administrator I first consulted had to say. DDG said it was not needed (see early talk records) and no one disagreed with him. Now the drum is continuously beaten that we must - and that the scientific consensus is a sure thing, based on a past RfC by jtydog. I am seeing RfCs being abused a lot. Large groups show up and subtly or blatantly support a certain pov. For instance, at BP, where in the talk one will see many of the same editors as here, we had a new person show up when deep discussions about the coverage of the gulf spill where taking place, and start an RfC - it may have been his very first contrib to the page (he never touched the article) which asked if the BP page should mention the gulf spill at all. A ridiculous starting point resulting, after tons of newcomers showed up to vote, in a ridiculous result, which the latest RfC shows no support for. People can call their friends and tip an RfC so fast and easily, I've lost faith in them.

Groupscule made a list of references which bring the 'scientific consensus' into question. But that is another issue - for this article, we do not need to discuss the science of GMOs. It is enough to link to the related articles. This has been agreed to by other admins and editors as well, though we need this to be more clearly stated - we need someone to take the reigns on this. I hope those found abusing this project are topic banned or banned altogether. And soon petrarchan47tc 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the comment below before having had a chance to read what you said here. I like DGG, but he was speaking as an editor, not as an administrator. (WP:No big deal and all that.) The most applicable survey of consensus is the RfC I just linked to, below. As for warning about bans, etc., the place to raise that is WP:AN. Just because editors disagree with you does not mean that they are abusing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I added this question to the numbered list above. Please see: Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus", where the exact same statement and sourcing are being discussed by a large cross-section of the community. The RfC will close in a few more days, and it looks to me like the overwhelming consensus there is that the statement and the sources are valid. The only question that then remains for us here is whether it is somehow WP:OR to take the sentence from Genetically modified food controversies and apply it here at March Against Monsanto. That happens to be the same question behind the now-closed thread at ANI that Viriditas started, and I don't have to remind anyone how that ended. It would be WP:SYNTH if we used those sources to say something about the March itself. But we don't. It's a sentence about the scientific consensus. It isn't synthesis. Should we delete that sentence? No, for the reasons already being discussed in the numbered list above. If we do delete it, then WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:POVFORK will all require us to have a sentence refuting the protesters' views every time we state the protesters' views, a never-ending point-counterpoint. Better, and more efficient, to state the facts in the background section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should revert to my early version and go from there, with new editors who haven't been warring here. This was the extent of the coverage of the GMO issue at the time:

Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling. Source

Any editing done after this point to extend the claims and therefore make the article worthy of fringe warning labels, science, drama, etc., I will not defend. The same group arguing against wild claims seems to be the same the ones adding them. petrarchan47tc 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As this line doesn't reflect the scientific consensus, I cannot agree to it. If it said "Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment, although the scientific consensus is that genetically modified food is safe" or something similar, I could be okay with it. I'm just one person, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I don't think you have consensus for that. It would seem to have the effect of putting the page in your preferred version, and it would undo the effects of a lot of discussion since then. Although it's true that there are multiple disagreements, you still have to work with the other editors here. You might want to consider joining in the discussions above about the specific content points. In fact, you might even want to engage with the reply that I gave to you yesterday, where I listed point-by-point some of the concerns that I had about your group of edits. As for your accusations about other editors, you are getting dangerously close to where Viriditas was. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is that editors are arguing their views supersede RS, like the AP that I quoted above. And when I say RS, I'm talking about RS for this article specifically - refs that cover MAM, which is much more nuanced that the portrayal here, if you read the actual source material. I disagree that folks found to be highly POV and who display an overly emotional dedication to arguing in circles here (and to any GMO mention on wiki) should have any input whatsoever to this article. petrarchan47tc 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And I, in turn, find it concerning that I have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over again, just because a few editors disagree with it. Please see: #8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section?, and my summary here: [2], in the part where I start by saying "Let's get specific about this claim of WP:OR." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

...the true problem is that editors here are NOT immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article...

Oh I expect that some of the Editors do examine the extant literature, but that they pick-and-choose which sources they're willing to accept as factual. As was noted, fixing the article so that it is encyclopedic is not an insurmountable task, but it may take decades. :) Damotclese (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan please do not claim my last edit was original research, it came from a reliable source. You claimed it was cherry picking, however you removed the information from the New York Times because it wasn't about an article specifically created about the march. So I picked a source that was specifically about the march and how ludicrous it is to say 2 million people marched. The source I stated also mentioned how the 2 million number came into being and the AP backed off the number later. After all the other articles had copied the AP article. I also don't like the assumption you make that people are not immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article. I have search for hours and hours. 90% of the search results are from RS are just the AP article as originally created. I do have a list of sources with numbers of each of the marches that had numbers attached to them. I think it would be good to attach those to the article as well so readers can get a sense of how many location were included along with the number at each location, which is not WP:OR becuase they are all cited. VViking_TalkEdits 22:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

California Proposition 37 and the Farmer Assurance Provision section

At the moment this reads like a promotional campaign by the marchers. We do need to say why the marchers were marching and what they were marching for but not in language that gives their fringe views credibility and authority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you would make specific suggestions about what to change in the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let us start at the beginning then:

The combined total spent by food industry advocacy groups on the campaign to defeat Proposition 37 was $45 million.

This should be removed. There was a fair and legal vote. How much each side spent on their cause in not relevant to the march. The statement is intended to make a vague accusation against one side of the debate.

Canal credits Proposition 37 with "opening her eyes" to GMOs for the first time.

Another unnecessary quote in a badly worded and biased sentence. We should have something along the lines, 'Canal had said that Proposition 37 led to her interest in GM foods'. Simple facts without emotive words phrases like "opening her eyes" and "credits". Either that or remove the sentence completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either of those. The first is a statement of fact, and it was very widely reported in connection with these protests. It's clearly part of the background to the protests. The second reports what motivated Canal, and it's properly attributed. We cannot purge this page of the reasons for the March. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording about Ms. Canal and Proposition 37, as proposed by Martin, but, upon consideration, am reverting it back, because it is an accurate quote as to what she said. (Does anyone question that she said that?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not in any way question that fact that she said that but I do question WP giving her a soapbox to promote her views. We need to state her motives in neutral and encyclopedic language. The use of the word 'credits' is not even a quotation it is in the voice of WP. Words like 'credits' suggest support for the stated view, why not just 'stated' or 'said'. The use of "opening her eyes" suggests that the revealed facts were true and that they had been kept secret. Please, have a read of a printed encyclopedia like Chambers or Britannica. You well not see the kind of language used in the article there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 17:16, August 10, 2013‎

@Martin Hogbin

I agreed with User:Martin Hogbin about the removal of unencyclopedic anti-BP content from the BP article. There were and are anti-BP POV-pushers who insisted that any removal of anti-BP was a "whitewash", but I thought that they were trying to "black-wash" the company, in particular by the addition of negative material that was already in its own articles. I disagree about the removal of some of these quotes from this article. This article is not Monsanto but is about the protests, and should explain the protests with a neutral POV so that the reader can form an opinion. This article can present the views and motivations of the protesters as long as it does not promote fringe science. Undue weight differs when writing about a company than when writing about opposition to a company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I second this. DanHobley (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not just the content but the language used. We should not be staging a quote war, as in X says "GM foods are bad" Y says "GM foods are good" we should be neutrally stating the views and motivations of both parties once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I'm going to third what Robert said. He's right. I'm all in favor of WP:BLPGROUP, but not to the point of, in effect, watering down the subject of the page. I think I can see how you might see some of the language as being aggressive and confrontational, and it's not entirely unreasonable to wish that we could make our language here more, well, civil. And I'm in favor of doing that when we write in Wikipedia's voice. But this is an article about a controversy that was very confrontational at times, and, however good your intentions are (and I am convinced that they are good), it's a mistake to try to make the reliably sourced quotes "nicer". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that edit wars over quotes are bad, because they are edit wars. I am not sure what is meant by the staging of quote wars. I agree that there should be no more quotes than are needed to present the point of view of the protesters. However, we should focus more on the views of the protesters than of opponents of the protest, because this article is about the protests, not about genetically modified food or Monsanto. I agree with User:Tryptofish, because this article is about the protests, and the protests are controversial, and we need to be careful to present their views and motives neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "quote wars" refers to having one quote from one "side" followed by a quote from the other "side", over and over again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. If so, I agree that we should not stage quote wars, and should not try to provide an equal number of quotes to both sides. This article is about the protests, not about people who disagree with the protest, or a company or products that the protesters disagree with. The protesters are entitled to reasonable but not excessive explanation, including in their own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see below. There is absolutely no entitlement for any group to have their own words in WP see WP:soap unsigned

Encyclopedic Style

I am not demanding the removal of all quotations, just that we try to write in an encyclopedic style. This is not the same as that of a news source or an essay. We are here to give the plain facts. Where there is a dispute amongst reliable sources as to what the fact are we must adopt a WP:NPOV but that does not apply to scientific topics, were we should present information in the light of the mainstream scientific opinion where there is one. I am no expert on GE but I can see from the articles in WP that, although there are issues and concerns, currently licensed and available GM foods are not considered to present unacceptable risks to humans or the environment. Anyone who wants to challenge this view should go the the main GM articles rather than trying to sneak their opinions through a back-door soapbox here.

The marchers have absolutely no right to have their words repeated here. We do have the duty to state the views of the marchers clearly and accurately but in the language and context of our choice, as writers of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Canoe1967

• This article doesn't need to be balanced with every point made by the protest. We have pro-life and pro-choice articles that each have their own POVs stressed without countering. If Monsanto has a POV then create Monsanto March Against Protesters.

Their POV can be stressed there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(And that's all I have to say!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. The failure to understand WP:NPOV is so basic that beyond this statement, I am left speechless. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that a rant or is it something helpful to the article? If not then expect it removed as a rant.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that IRWolfie, an editor with whom I've probably never agreed, is entitled to have his say and that the comment should not be removed. I followed this conversation a while back and have totally lost the thread of things. Can someone sum up the issues outstanding? They would be helpful not just for me but for anyone else passing by. Coretheapple (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Canoe1967 - stop deleting other people's comments, no matter how strongly you feel about them. [3] This is a flagrant violation of the guidelines (per WP:TPO) - and this is the second time you've done it in the past week. The guideline reads: "Never (bold in source) edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Please restore the comment. DanHobley (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically this article and talk page are both full of personal opinions about the subject. It is a content and source war about inclusion/exclusion of those opinions. Few seem to care about our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple: The most recent précis of what's outstanding in terms of specific points can be found above at Talk:March Against Monsanto#Dan's attempted list of outstanding issues. A slightly broader interpretation can be read under Talk:March Against Monsanto#This may not be as hard as people think. However, in one sentence, the crux of it is that 1. there are major misgivings over the extent to which including the arguably (see above, repeatedly) dubious opinions of the protesters is inherently in need of framing statements to eliminate concerns of POV/FRINGE, how much of this there might need to be, and 2. there is a fairly entrenched battleground mentality, shading repeatedly into some pretty disrespectful statements and actions, from a number of editors. I hope those are fair statements. DanHobley (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is an article about a protest. POV/FRINGE should be expected from the protesters. We don't go to Christian articles and balance them with the views of atheists, history, and science.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes we do AIRcorn (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of Evangelicalism or Catholic Church. I don't think either article has POV that tries to debunk their beliefs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

These are articles which are not related to science, so this does not make sense. Aircorn's examples are where religions make statements about science, and the mainstream scientific position is given clearly there. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, strangely I agree with most if what you say. Of course we should expect fringe views from the protesters and we should state them in the article, but in an encyclopedic manner and in a way in which WP does not appear to be promoting or supporting those views and indeed in a way in which those views are taken to be plainly contrary to mainstream science. If that is done correctly there is no need for a detailed scientific refutation of the the marchers' views in the article.

There are valid concerns about GM food and crops and these are discussed properly at Genetically modified food controversies. Anyone who disagrees with the arguments put at that page should argue their case there. The point is that the marchers did not go around with banners saying "We must be wary of horizontal gene transfer" they wend round spreading overblown opinions like "GM foods are poisoning our children" and accusing Monsanto of organising a worldwide media blackout. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify while this is a fundamental failure to understand WP:NPOV. Every article is expected to be written from the neutral point of view. No wikipedia page is expected to give a POV. The pro/anti abortion articles are expected to conform to NPOV. What you have described is a POV fork (WP:POVFORK): "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Seriously, sit down and read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Evangelicalism or Catholic Church. I don't think either article has POV that tries to debunk their beliefs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is essentially irrelevant here because it only applies when different viewpoints are expressed in reliable sources. The marchers stated views (GM foods are poison etc) are not supported by any reliable sources and are therefore WP:FRINGE and thus we have no requirement to represent them here. We have a duty to tell our readers what the motivation of the marchers was but from a mainstream science viewpoint. We have absolutely no obligation to give fringe views a fair hearing or to show the marchers own words, indeed we must not do that in any way that would give them the authority of WP.

I might add that neither is this the right place to debunk their views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the controversy of their views though. This article is about the march. If a group of Christians march against the government we don't include NPOV about their religion. We include the religious reasons for the march. The religion de-bunking should go in articles about the religion. The de-bunking of this march's views are de-bunked in other articles. To de-bunk them again here is simply a WP:COATRACK but inverted. Instead of this article covering the POV of the subject it is being forced to NPOV of other articles. This article is not about the debate. It is about the march and the debate is hanging coats all over it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that Canoe1967 has a valid point. Even assuming that the marchers against Monsanto are totally espousing a fringe viewpoint, I don't think it is necessary to provide balance to their views every step of the way, as long as the article does state the scientific consensus in a prominent way. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I also broadly agree, although following CtA I also feel some framing comments on the science are necessary (though probably not throughout the text). I strongly disagree with Martin (above) that we have no requirement to represent the fringe viewpoints at all in the article, on the basis that they are fringe. Especially given that these kinds of fringe views are widely held, and thus notable in their own right. DanHobley (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London found one. In this article we don't go into the NPOV between freedom of speech and religious insults. We just have an article about the views and the protesters.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good analogy. Even articles that are about fringe movements, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, don't go into extravagant rebuttals. There is a criticism section, and a reference to them in the lead section. But there is no effort to make the entire article NPOV, in the sense of making it even-Steven between the accepted view of 9/11 and the conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have said before, we should include the marchers' reasons and motives for for the march; that is not what I meant by 'no requirement to represent the fringe viewpoints'. However we must not promote those fringe viewpoints here, either directly by saying things like, 'GM foods may be extremely harmful to health', or indirectly by giving excessive prominence to the marchers emotive wording of their fringe views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't want to state anyone's opinions as fact. However, I do think that we have to state their opinions, and be careful not to censor the article out of a view that we are promoting their positions. If there is any particular, specific wording that you find objectionable, please do specify. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we can be promoting their views simply by inclusion. We include material. We don't voice an opinion on whether we promote it. Some don't like IE9 but we have an article about it that lists all its features in detail. We aren't listing all of the claims that Firefox may be a better browser. Those issues go in controversy or comparison articles. If one article on a browser is 10x the size of the other then expand the smaller one. Article size and content are not promotional of either browser.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, quoting the marchers' emotive words in the article does promote their views unduly. For example, just having, ' X said, "GM foods are poisoning our children"' in the article is unencyclopedic and gives undue weight to a fringe view. The use of "double quotation marks" in particular draws the eye to the words and the use of 'children' is purely emotive; we presume the marchers believe that GM food will harm adults too. I think we should word this more along the lines of 'X believed that GM foods were seriously harmful to health'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Comments?

Am I to understand that one of the editors of this talk page has been known to remove comments? Even if they are rants, removal of rants makes it hard to deal with the user conduct issue of ranting. Going through an article history to find removed comments is tedious. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the only talk page comments that were supposed to be removed were those that had to be actually backed out by oversight or revision deletion because they were grossly offensive, libelous, or otherwise blatantly improper (as opposed to merely improper). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take a look at the history of this page toot sweet. I was shocked. Roxy the dog (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one comment was removed and was promptly reinstated. I think it would be better to deal with the ramifications thereof with the user directly. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:TPO. I considered the comment off-topic as well as a little trollish, bite, POV, NPA, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And you were rebuked because you utterly misjudged the comment which you removed here: [4]. When I say you fundamentally misunderstand NPOV, that is not a rant, it is pointing something out; you have not read WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE and appear disinclined to do so. Yet, here you are continuing to refer to my comment it as "a little trollish, bite, POV, NPA". It was on topic because it was directly related to what you had just posted. It was not "bite" which refers to newcomers, you are not a newcomer. It is not POV, because it does not espouse a POV, it is a comment about your understanding of NPOV. It is not an NPA, because saying someone doesn't understand NPOV isn't a personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, take it to this user's talk page, or someplace else, or better still, let it rest. This is for discussion of the March Against Monsanto article, not your disputes with other editors. Just to be clear, your comment was a rant, and it was uncalled-for. However, I reinstated it because talk page guidelines are broad, not because your comment was proper. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Positions

Just wanted to point out that "positions" of the protesters has less content than Monsanto/industry response, which is imbalanced it seems. The positions sections could really use expansion, as could the intro to the "background" section. petrarchan47tc 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely more from Monsanto than is necessary. This is an article about a movement and why so many hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in this activity. There is no need to be even-Steven and tit for tat, or to create an "equal time" situation like they used to do on TV. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The media response section should also go before the Monsanto section. Chrono order is march, live coverage, reaction to coverage. And where did that extreme POV Hawaii statement come from? "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming." My bold. How did we get from broad consensus to overwhelming? This is just her opinion and I don't know if she can cite sources or not. We need to cite sources, so should she. She sounds like a PR person. Are we including their hyped up spin phrases now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a trip, isn't it? What has happened to this article is all in the records. But i bet it isn't too hard to guess where that POV stuff came from...21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Case in point - check out this recent edit to the page:

The Washington State Wire criticized the 2 million number that was oft quoted in news articles. They didn't say they did an exhaustive search and maybe 1.9 million people marched in Timbuktu. Since there would have been an average of 4587 people per location if there were actually 436 locations. The largest list of locations the State Wire could find was a list of 250 locations meaning the number of people per location jumps to 8000. Portland seems to be the high mark of the number of participants with organizers claiming 10,000 and the Oregonian citing 2000-3000 people. The Associated Press started with reporting the 2 million number, in a second iteration the AP went with Organizers say two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto…”. Finally in a third version they played it safe and didn't even mention a number. source

Keep in mind, we have quoted the biggest media in the world for the number used in the article, which is in accordance with my understanding of RS. "Washington State Wire blog" deserves an entire paragraph for its questioning of the numbers? We have already stated "according to protesters", so all of this effort, which has gone on since May 28th, to question and knock down this number is against the guidelines for RS, a huge red light that a certain POV is still governing some edits here, and most importantly, continues to divert the editors here from getting this article written. We have spent 3 or 4 months arguing about how to apply the most basic Wiki guidelines to this article, but we have not been able to get past these minor issues to expand on what the protest was all about: the protesters had much to say with regard to Monsanto's pull in DC, concerns about bee population decline, and other things. I am not saying the arguing here was meant to keep other issues from being discussed/expanded, but it is certainly a result! petrarchan47tc 21:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't just parrot the biggest newspaper. We look at the ones most reliable for the claims, and that involves using common sense as well. If a number sounds completely crazy, and illogical, and some of the sources say that everyone just parroted the AP number, which was later revised anyway, then its important to note that. I think we should be mentioning some of the [5] analysis. That WSW source provides an in depth analysis of the number claims, and also what occurred at the AP. Clearly this is more appropriate to use than merely just parroting the claims of the organisers and leaving it at that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC for number of participants and proper use of RS

I've moved these comments from the "positions" section to make the new topic more clear. petrarchan47tc 22:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't an RfC, and my moved comment was made in direct response to the section that it was in. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• So it appears that this talk page is now two different talk pages. One is where editors discuss content before making changes that might not have consensus. The other is sections of the page such as this one, where editors who have POV disputes with other editors ignore discussion elsewhere on the talk page, and pat themselves on the back after making edits that clearly go against consensus. I've reverted all of it; please feel free to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, please support your recent edit using the source from CVT to counter claims from major media sources, thank you. If you are unable to cite proper grounds using the guidelines, I would suggest your self-revert. If this is not an option, an RfC is in order. I am so sick of this nonsense.22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc

Note: I hadn't noticed Trypto reverted much more than the numbers, including my careful work to include a simple introduction to the protest origins, details about its founder, etc. This is vandalism, pure and simple, and to say i need consensus for simply following the guidelines about how to build an article is disgusting. petrarchan47tc 23:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone disagreeing with you is not vandalism (WP:NOT VANDALISM) and please do not refer to it as vandalism. You made substantial edits, and they were reverted. You clearly need consensus for bold edits (per WP:BOLD). That is how collaboration works. You believe you were following the guidelines, others do not. Sometimes people disagree, but poisoning the well doesn't help. If you continue to refer to the good faith actions of other editors as vandalism or the act of needing consensus after being reverted as disgusting, I will take the issue to ANI, but I'd prefer if you just stopped doing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Observations: 1. "Vandalism" is manifestly not an appropriate description of TF's edit. Tryptofish has been a notably moderate voice here. 2. Your preferred version of the lead is not more neutral; it actively excludes lower estimates, and info that most of the protests were in the US. These problems (information removed, rather than altered) appear to extend to all of their substantive reverted changes. 3. Editors clearly have differing interpretations of the guidelines. TF is totally right when he emphasises the need to discuss here. 4. Per the numbers specifically, of all the issues in this article, this I thought we at least had some kind of consensus on! 5. I am gradually more and more of the opinion that some sort of community intervention is necessary here. This manifestly isn't working. (NB- this is not a specific criticism of you, Petrarchan. More of a general observation.) DanHobley (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I have told Petrarchan at my user talk, WP:AIV is that-a-way, and lotsa luck with that. I said at my talk that I would give a more detailed reply here, and here it is. First of all, I would welcome having more eyes on this page, and an RfC about specific questions about content is something I would be quite happy to see, assuming the editors who are complaining about me would actually pay attention to the consensus that might emerge from it. I'm very serious about what I said above: if Petrarchan is going to disregard discussion elsewhere on this talk page, and just keep opening up new talk sections as sort of mini-POV-forks within this talk page, then they have no reason to claim that they have consensus for anything. Now, let's take a look at the specifics:
  • One of the things that the edits I reverted did was to systematically take every part of the page that included information representing mainstream views, and move them lower on the page. It doesn't even make sense: why have the things Canal did with the social media come before the information about what she was reacting to, the issue of whether or not GMOs are safe? And it's pure WP:IDHT to say that I didn't explain that. Take a look at #Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?, at my comment at the end of that, just before the next section begins. I said the same thing there, explained it as best I could, and Petrarchan never replied or even acknowledged that I said it, but they went right ahead and made the same edits again.
  • Take a look at: (1) #3. How much of the marcher's concerns over human health risks should be included? Should the direct quote "cancer, infertility and birth defects" be present? Also, more detail on the other entries?, (2) #7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint, (3) #8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section?, and (4) my comments within #"GMOs are safe". The edits today ignored all of those discussions, even though Petrarchan never bothered to discuss those things in the first three of those, and appears not to be hearing what I said in the fourth.
  • I think that I have been consistently civil to Petrarchan, although that has definitely not been reciprocated. It's not my job to explain every single line of their edits here in talk. We have WP:BRD for a reason, and I'd say that my revert was the R of that – except that I had already discussed it even before the most recent edits took place! Petrarchan would do well to follow the advice that I gave, quite politely, at #Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?. Make a list of everything in your edits that you feel is justified and should not have been reverted, and present it here in talk and find out whether or not you have consensus. Making that list is not my job.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to keep up with nine different questions or long lists that I'm expected to respond to and I've never worked on an article where editors were expected to do so. You seem to think that it is OK for you to take over this talk page and run it according to your expectations, but it is not working for me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, there are some problems with what you are saying there. I am sympathetic to how difficult it can be to follow all of the discussion points on this talk page. However, the reason that there are so many things being discussed is that there are so many specific issues about the content of the page about which editors disagree. Other editors have conscientiously taken part in the numbered list of questions – started by another editor, not by me – so it is possible to do so if one so chooses. I'm not asking anyone to consider themselves required to take part in those discussions, but I think that it is entirely reasonable to say, that if someone is going to make edits to the page that are directly related to those discussion points, they would be well-advised to make themselves aware of those discussions and to demonstrate respect for what other editors are saying. If you or anyone else do not have time to follow those discussions, that's fine – but if you make an edit unaware of those discussions, you really cannot complain that you had no reason to know that someone else might object. I never said that you need to make a list in talk of your edits. I said to Petrarchan in #Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?: "Given how everything on this page has been contested, you would have done yourself a favor by making a list like this and discussing it in talk before making the edits. You don't have to, of course, but bold edits risk WP:BRD reverts. After all, look at how long I've been asking other editors' opinions about changing a header from "Concerns" to "Positions" without actually making the edit. Just saying." If you think that that is "taking over" the page, then you are incorrect. Just above, I noted that they did not follow that advice, so I repeated it, but more firmly. Again, that is not taking over this page. Therefore, your comment about what I supposedly think is OK really is inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I do not consider it appropriate for an editor to arrive at a page and list every problem that s/he sees and expect all of the editors to make yes/no etc. comments and to refer back to the list before making edits to the article. That is all I have to say here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, neither do I, and you would know that if you had taken the time to read what I said. It appears that you are making negative comments about me without knowing the facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The same group doing the exact same things isn't going to end the warring and nonsense at this article. There is nothing difficult about building an article based on related, reliable sources in context and with due weight as evidenced in RS. There is no reason so many editors need to spend so much time at this article - it is a simple story, and the guidelines for applying RS are simple too. I can't fight this group anymore, and I don't know how Viriditas lasted so long. I am now arguing that this article be turned over to ArbCom. petrarchan47tc 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually sort of agree with you that ArbCom is eventually going to have to deal with this dispute. They will examine the conduct of all parties, on all "sides". They will do so only after the community exhausts all other avenues of dispute resolution, and only if someone makes a formal request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, so a comment on this talk page that it should be turned over to them will not result in them doing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom do not resolve content disputes and I do not think that anyone has acted terribly badly here.

My main complains are 'quote wars' (meaning too many direct quotations from the marchers and Monsanto) and unencyclopedic language, which gives undue credibility to fringe views. If we removed this I do not think there would be any need to overstate the mainstream view. I have a suggestion below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

One encyclopedic section now.

The 'Positions' section now reads in a neutral encyclopedic manner, fully stating the marchers' motives. Now we need to write the rest like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree.

There is actually a good case to be made that, for the article to ultimately be in good, encyclopedic shape, we need to get that section out of a bullet-point format, and into regular paragraphs of text. After all, the Monsanto and industry response section is written in normal paragraphs, and a well-balanced page would really need to do so for the marchers' positions as well, especially since the March is the main subject of the page. Viriditas said that before his block, and at the time I agreed with him. Robert subsequently pointed out in talk that we need to have more sources to properly expand the bullet points into paragraph text, and that, too, is a valid point. That's a good reason why I disagree with you about where you reverted my adding of a sentence about what a marcher said about the bees, because we can now at least start down the path of making the Positions section better by improving some of the bullet points from one sentence each, to two. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the content rather than the presentation style. I would be quite happy to rewrite it in plain prose if no one objects.

If we expand the points we are then faced with a problem though. We have to make sure that we expand in a proper way giving the correct weight to the mainstream scientific position for every point. This would bring us back to a confrontational style of writing, which many people are trying to avoid. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I rewrite the 'Positions' section in plain prose with no change to content?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 20:55, August 15, 2013‎

• If you convert it from bullet points to paragraphs, I support, but if you, in effect, remove the marchers' views, then I'll end up opposing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• What Tryptofish said. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem that is exactly what I was proposing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done it. It is pretty well just the original words with all the original refs made into sentences. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some copyedits, not particularly major. I'm pleased to see that we now have a very reasonable balance, in terms of weight on the page, between the positions of the marchers and the industry response. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

Would anyone object if I were to go through the article and tone down the language and try to make it more encyclopedic. This should also remove the need for excessive mainstream science in the article too.

I am not going to edit war anything so we could list all reversions for future discussion and, if necessary, an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to know how to answer your question, because I think it's pretty likely that someone, somewhere, is likely to object. I think you can see that although you are concerned that direct quotes from the protesters come across as unencyclopedic, other editors have disagreed with you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not just direct quotes it is language in general.

Earlier I removed some direct quotes and you reverted. If that continued to be the pattern that would give us a topic for further discussion or an RfC. Arbcom are not going to resolve this dispute for us. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree that ArbCom isn't going to resolve what language to use on the page. As long as you understand that editors, and it's not just me, have objected to too much watering down of the pro-March perspectives on the page, you don't need anyone's permission to make the edits you want (notwithstanding the claims made elsewhere in this talk that I said otherwise), but it seems to me that you started this section of the talk page in order to get feedback, and I gave you feedback. To be clear: I do not want to see a watering down of reliably sourced information about what the protesters have said that they believe (and that is also contrary to claims about me made elsewhere on this talk page). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by, 'watering down of the pro-March perspectives'. If you mean we should give them some kind of voice on this page then I disagree and, if it were the consensus to give the marchers a voice here, I would support clearly stating mainstream view more positively and frequently within the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the crux of the problem here, which is the attempt to be even-Steven and quote the anti-protester point of view "frequently" in the article. I don't believe that NPOV requires that, as long as the Monsanto point of view is prominently mentioned. Otherwise, articles on non-standard interpretations of events, ranging from 9/11 conspiracy theories to even more fringey subjects, would be twice the length than they are now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, I said that I would want be even-Steven, as you call it, only if editors insisted in giving the marchers' a voice in WP. By giving them a voice I mean promoting their views or stating them in a favourable way. We should tell our readers what the marchers' motives were; we should not try to sell them to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that, in principle. That is more or less the approach I've been trying to take on this page. I just don't agree that presenting their views or motives, properly attributed, constitutes selling those views to our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

People are given a voice in Wikipedia all the time. Sometimes lengthy quotations are used. I don't see anything remotely similar to that in this article, and if there were such things, so what? It doesn't change the general principle that we should not be even-Steven in articles like this. It isn't necessary, and it doesn't violate NPOV as best as I can ascertain. Clearly, this being about a bunch of activists marching, we want to learn why they are marching. It isn't necessary to continually smack them upside the head and point out what utter fools they are, that they are contradicted by science. Yes, we want to say what the scientific consensus is. :We have that. Nobody (to my knowledge) wants to take it out. But if we keep saturating the article with "on the other hands," it turns this into an article about the controversy and not an article about the march. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It is good to see that we are coming to some kind of agreement.

I am making the essential distinction between 'stating views' and giving people a voice, by which I mean 'promoting views'. As an example the Socialism article starts, 'Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy'. This is a simple statement of what socialist believe. A promotional version of the same might be, 'Socialism gives everyone equal ownership of the means of production and provides co-operative management of the economy for the overall benefit of society'. Not a great change but one is strictly factual and the other is promotion, simply by the use of different language. One is encyclopedic; one is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that making language neutral is not objectionable. My concern is with tit-for-tat, "equal time" placement of views. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

When I said "watering down of the pro-March perspectives", I was thinking about things such as taking a quote from one of them, and changing it into a slightly softer paraphrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I just went through the entire page, looking for things that might be there now, where there could be concerns about encyclopedicity. I'm honestly not seeing much, but of course, other editors may disagree. The only thing that leaps out at me is the last paragraph of the Media coverage section, about the Alternet piece. I had previously deleted it, but another editor reverted me (and it's back because I put it back myself, because otherwise I would be reverting a revert of my own edit), so I'll leave it to other editors to decide what if anything to do with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not see anything wrong with:

Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced healthy food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children.? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not in the least, unless we don't have a reliable source indicating that she felt that way. I can readily see how some readers and editors might feel differently about the issues than she does, but that does not make it contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia to report that she feels that way. Indeed, once we have an article about this subject, it is the obligation of an encyclopedia to report that the principal person behind the subject feels this way. Please rest assured that if you take that out, I will revert you. (Editors who accuse me of being anti-March, please take note.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we are under any particular obligation to report that Canal was angry or frustrated, this is hardly information of encyclopedic interest, but that is not my main objection.

What do you think, 'reasonably priced healthy food' is referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader, but I would guess that she considers organic food more expensive than non-organic, as it sometimes is in the US. (That does not mean that I consider organic food to be more healthful, but we aren't writing a page about what I believe.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is quite applicable here: we don't remove verifiable content simply because we disagree with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely she means non-GM food, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense? Why would she start a march against Monsanto because should could not buy organic food? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Where I am in the US, one pretty much would have to buy organic if one wants to avoid GMOs. And I'll anticipate the objection that GMO crops can actually make food production less expensive: right now, in the US, it is very common for food sellers to charge extra for products labeled as GMO-free. That's probably got more to do with capitalism in the marketplace than with the real costs of food production, but if Canal doesn't agree with me, then my opinion about her opinions does not matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

But, having said all that, I'll also say thank you, Martin, for discussing the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the statement I am referring to is not a direct quotation. We use 'healthy food' when it is clear from the context that we mean 'non-GM' food. This equates the two in our readers minds and suggest that WP agrees. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, if you had said that earlier I would have agreed with you earlier! I just changed it from "healthy" to "non-GMO". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a start but we also have, 'she was also concerned about the health of her children'. What important and encyclopedic fact is that telling us? That a mother is concerned about the health of her children? There cannot be many mothers who are not concerned about the health of their children.

The point being made is that Canal believes that GM food are harmful to health. Her mention of concern for her children is an appeal to her audience based on the emotive value of children. This is not the way an encyclopedia should be written. We could possibly interpret her words more sympathetically to mean that she believed that there might be long-term health risks in consuming GM foods but this is moving towards OR, although I would fight that point

So I think we should say 'because she believed that there were potential (long term) health risks in consuming GM foods'. Because such risks are not generally supported by the mainstream scientific opinion, I think that we must say 'she believed that' rather then 'she was concerned about'. By using encyclopedic language like this throughout the article we reduce the need for continual repetition of the mainstream view on the subject and make the article more about the march itself and less adversarial in tone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm very open to possibilities, but I think there are problems with that exact wording. It says that she "believed" something that is actually not what she believes. Maybe there's an approach based on "she was concerned" about "what she believed to be...". I understand your point, that she is expressing concern about her children's health, in spite of the fact that mainstream science says that there are no significant health concerns about GMO foods. But, as long as we are attributing her views to her, it's OK for her views to be incorrect in the opinions of some editors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that Martin basically has a "tone" issue and frankly I don't think that's terribly unreasonable. We can tone down some of these statements. However, what I don't like about this article is far more substantive. We're making it into a coatrack for a back and forth between Monsanto and its critics, with a striving for equal time. This is about a grassroots movement, and stating what the organizers thereof say is perfectly acceptable and there is no need to provide a countervailing view from Monsanto on every major or minor point. The article is far too "even-Steven" at this point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we agree to a considerable degree. To try to make clear exactly what I am saying let me use the specific example above. If we have in the article, as it was, 'Canal said that she was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced health food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children', I think we need to balance this wording, which promotes an anti-GM view, with something promoting the mainstream view like, 'The currently accepted scientific consensus is that there are no health issues resulting from the consumption of GM food'.

If on the other hand we state the same concerns of Canal in more encyclopedic language, as in, 'Canal proposed the march because she was angry with the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced non-GM food, which she believed was harmful to health', I would see no need for any counter argument. So my suggestion is to express the marchers motives fully, but in non-promotional language which also indicates we are talking about their beliefs rather than accepted facts and remove much of the counter argument, although we should briefly describe the response from Monsanto, in equally encyclopedic terms. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, I don't see fixing the tone as a problem. However, I do think that this unnecessary balance thing needs to be rectified by an editor with more background on this than I. Last time I was here I recall making some edits and immediately being reverted by Viritidas, who apparently viewed me as some kind of hostile entity. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Something about tone occurs to me, and I want to point it out. We have some direct quotes from our sources, where Canal et al. say things that have an assertive tone that contradicts mainstream science, but those quotes do reflect the positions of the subjects of this page. Sometimes, we paraphrase those quotes, instead of presenting the quotes directly. When we paraphrase, we are writing in Wikipedia's voice. When we write in Wikipedia's voice, we need to reflect mainstream sources rather than fringe (or whatever word one wants to use) views. But that can lead to a problem of WP:OR: if we change a strongly-worded direct quote to a moderately-worded paraphrase, we end up replacing what the subjects of the page have said in reliable sources, with something that is different from what they actually said. That's why, increasingly, I am becoming uncomfortable with paraphrasing what the protesters have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What to attribute to Canal

(edit conflict) I removed the disputed information because the source actually does not state that she expressed concern about finding non-GM food. And, the "children" statement is redundant because we just included her concerns re her "family" (she's a single mom). I replaced it with concerns about honey bees. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted. Please see the discussion between myself and Tryptofish above. If we are going to add Canal blaming Monsanto for killing all the bees we need to add some balancing statement, which would be very much against the current consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary says "Monsanto alone is not responsible for these insecticides." The fact that other firms are involved is immaterial. This is a march against Monsanto, and it doesn't seem to be in dispute that Monsanto is involved in the controversial bee-killing compound. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were beginning to want to avoid the adversarial wording here. If we add Canal's somewhat irrational blaming of Monsanto for the use of neonicotinoid insecticides we must balance it with statements saying that Monsanto were not the originators of the compounds, neither are they the only company supplying them (if indeed they do supply them), neither are they responsible for their licensing or use by farmers, who have a free choice in the matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in accord with you on tone, and I don't see a tone problem here. The article needs less tit-for-tat, not more. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know how you would think that I can figure out which conversation above you are talking about. Quit dramatizing this--she did not blame Monsanto for killing all the bees. She expressed concern. Hundreds of researchers have as well, and the EU and some other countries have put a 2-year ban on them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You may have noticed that this article is called the 'March against Monsanto' not the 'Random thoughts of Canal'. If you look up neonicotinoid you will see that Monsanto are not mentioned. Please remove this irrelevant edit and restore the current consensus wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• "which some studies have linked to a recent severe decline in honey bee population". That's a scientific claim, and would need a standard scientific source. Do people seriously think "cityweekly" is reliable for that sort of claim? Do people think that is neutral considering the cause is not yet known? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• If Gandydancer is concerned that my wording did not accurately reflect the source, I'd be happy to be corrected about that (because, unlike some other people, I don't insult other editors who want to discuss getting the content right). But I think it's a very bad idea to add something about honeybees, because, as other editors have just said, it leads us down the path of having a never-ending point-counterpoint. The bulk of source material about the March that I have seen reflects concerns about things other than bees (although if we find something about it being a stated concern during the March, we really ought to add it, instead, in the Positions section). So, let's get our account of what Canal said about food and family right, rather than trying to add a counterpoint in that section. But that said, I think Martin's rationale that there are other companies besides Monsanto is a badly flawed one, and deserves some push-back. That's the kind of thing that gives ammunition to the on-Wiki conspiracy theories about editors working for Monsanto. Anyway, I think we have to be precise about direct quotes, attributed, versus paraphrases, in Wikipedia's voice, and I thought that it was an accurate paraphrase. I'm confused by the concern that Canal did not say that, about "non-GMO foods". It seems to me that it's very much what she said she was concerned about: she wants to feed her family GMO-free foods, and she said she was concerned about the costs of being able to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  Well you know, there is a great deal of concern about the bee population, and that feeds into the March Against Monsanto. Just a few weeks ago I saw a major theatrical documentary on bees in which the Monsanto insecticide was mentioned. The title was "More than Honey." So it does seem to be a significant source of concern. I think that, concerning tone, there are limits to what we can do. Since this is an article about a grassroots, naturally there is or should be a large quantity of material about why the people are engaged in this activity. An analogous situation is the Tea Party. Again, we don't harp on giving the opposing point of view in that article either. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  That's helpful, thanks. Can we find sourcing that would support putting something about bees into the Positions section? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  Answering my own question, yes there is! Here: [6]. It's a news story from a TV station, covering the day of the March, and emphasizing the position that the marchers were concerned about the bees. I think we should make it a short entry in the Positions section of the page. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, and just to respond to a point that was raised earlier, we do not need a peer-reviewed source in a situation like this. We are writing about a protest, and news stories are sufficient as sourcing for any aspect of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Trytofish, unless she was looking for seed corn, sugar beets, etc. she was not going to farmer's markets looking for non-GMO food--that besides the fact that she would not know for sure if they were in a loaf of bread or jar of jam she might buy anyway, since it is not on the label. People go to farmer's markets to find fresh organic food produced by local farmers for several reasons, including the belief that buying American is better than buying from foreign producers and that transporting food for thousands of miles adds to needless increases in greenhouse gases. These issues all enter into the protester's basic problems with what some consider a takeover of our democracy by mega corporations. There used to be hundreds of small seed companies, most of them have now been bought out by Monsanto. It seems that some editors want to dwell only on the fact that science disputes the idea that GM foods are harmful (I tend to agree with the scientific stance), because we can then call them a bunch of fools, but the Monsanto problem goes far beyond that. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, thanks, I understand better now. I increasingly think it gets difficult for us to try to say what she was thinking. I went and looked again at the two sources at the end of that sentence. The first source, from the Salt Lake City News, goes into a lot of detail about Canal said were her motivations, and I think that the sentence probably paraphrases that pretty well. The second source, from the NY Daily News, does not really have anything to do with that sentence. It's mostly about celebrities criticizing Monsanto and GMOs and not really about them commenting on the March, and a brief part about Canal at the end doesn't amount to much. So – let me make a "modest proposal": let's just delete that sentence entirely. I don't want to do that without discussion, because I don't want it to be seen as removing the protesters' point of view. But it summarizes three things: the failure of Prop 37 (about which the section already has the first paragraph), the cost of buying the food she wanted (already covered in the quote directly before), and the concerns about her children (covered in the following sentence, where she is quoted about cereals) – and all three things are already discussed in the section. This one sentence is really just a summary sentence, and it's redundant with everything else in that section. Given how difficult we are finding it to paraphrase successfully, why not just delete it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any interest in deleting that sentence, or have we moved on? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Quite frankly newspapers have never been acceptable for medical or scientific claims. There is nothing new there, consult the standard wikiprojects and ask them, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm reading your indent correctly: I think you are saying "no" about that source about the bees. I agree with you with respect to saying in Wikipedia's voice that GMOs kill bees. However, please take a look at the edit I made to the positions section, where the opinion is attributed to a protester. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bees

I think we can take it that everyone here is 'pro-bee'. It is also true that Canal did make a statement about bees in connection with the march against Monsanto. The problem is how, if at all, should we include her statement in this article. In my opinion the statement is somewhat misguided, for the reasons listed below, and therefore cannot be stated here without context or comment.

• There is no clear evidence that neonicatinoids are connected to the decline in bee population although precautionary measures have been taken in the EU and likely soon will be in the US.

• These compounds generally have beneficial ecological characteristics.

• Monsanto were not the originators of the suspected compounds

• I have not seen evidence that Monsanto are one of the major manufacturers or distributors of these insecticides

• The main pressure to continue their use is coming from the farmers rather than the manufacturers.

All the above points are, to some degree, debatable but overall it is hard to see any logical rationale for linking Monsanto to the decline in bee population and thus Canal's words must be regarded as fringe and unfair. This fact must be clearly indicated in the article if we are to include her quotation. We are under no obligation to report every word that Canal said in relation to the march and, in my opinion, the simplest solution would be to omit this comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So it is now all down to GM crops killing the bees. Who cares, so long as it is Monsanto's fault. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC) You can read what Wikipedia says about the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been on airplanes all day today, so I'll come back to discuss this more tomorrow, but I figure that I'll let you know that I intend to discuss it some more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'm now ready to disagree with you. Every one of your bullet points seems to me to be scientifically and logically correct. And as I've said earlier, it doesn't add much to dwell on what Canal said about it before the March, because it really wasn't a major part of what I see her being quoted as saying. But it was a part of the marchers' positions, and I was disappointed that you reverted my addition of what marchers, not Canal herself, said during the March. All of the science that you quote is true, but it has ZERO bearing on whether or not the marchers said what they said, and there was a secondary source that placed a primary emphasis on bees in their coverage of the march that was in Utah. Looking back, what I did wrong in my edit was that I didn't provide a balancing link to where Wikipedia tells the mainstream view about GMOs and bees. But you just made it easy for me by providing the link to the colony collapse page. I'm going to make a new edit now, to try to put that, as well, in balance. But I see no good reason to try to leave out what the marchers said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Time article. I can't get a copy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of source that I feared editors would try to add to this article. Monsanto is not mentioned at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't access the Time article either, but aren't we again falling into the trap of treating this as an article about the controversy and not an an article about the march? Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, but we must present a balanced view based on mainstream science. We must not state directly or indirectly that Monsanto are in any way responsible for the decline of the bee population when there is no justification for this.

We could state that the marchers blamed Monsanto for killing the bees but, if we do, we are obliged to state the generally accepted fact that there is no justification for this claim. I would be willing to word something on that basis but the problem would then be that other editors would find crazy claims published by unreliable sources and add them to the article. We have an article on Colony_collapse_disorder and Monsanto is not mentioned. The marchers' claim is so absurd that it is easier just to ignore it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the decline of bees is that no one knows why the bee populations are declining. Some have argued that from the precautionary principle neonicotinoids should be banned (this is being done in Europe afaik for a trial period). I haven't looked at the specifics of this Times article, but these sorts of popular press articles aren't what you use for science coverage on wikipedia. This goes off the topic of the march, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But that gets us back to the central problem, which is a tendency to treat this article as about a controversy, when it is about a movement caused by that controversy. The end result has been a tendency to cut back on material that is necessary concerning the march, its motivation, out of a misguided effort to treat this as an article about the underlying controversy. (My edit summary said "movement," when I meant "controversy") Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, that has been said again and again on these talk pages, but it has been ignored. @ Canoe, the CCD article (unlike this one which about a march) is largely about science. The opinion that you are proposing re Roundup will not be acceptable for that article unless you can produce several peer reviewed studies to back it up. We can discuss it at that talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that the Time article doesn't mention the march? This bee professor seems to think Monsanto could be the cause. He may be in the Time article as well. If that is the case then we could finally include his input in the CCD article where many editors seem to be trying to keep him out. He is also notable enough for his own article, I would think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So it is not neonicotinoids or GM crops now but Roundup. This gives me the the strong impression that some people are motivated more by a dislike of Monsanto that by reality. Just think of everything that Monsanto does, or maybe even does not do, and then use it to blame Monsanto for some random bad thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole list of possible causes in the CCD article. Sources have Roundup as one of many. To not list it as a possible cause is not fair to our readers. I am not sure what you mean by 'random' bad thing. This discussion should actually be happening in the CCD talk as well as Prof. Ingram's article when someone creates it. I would except my previous article creations seem to be put in AfD within hours of creation which I find rather frustrating. I may bring it up at the bug science projects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's go with an article written about the March and use what it says about bees, refencing Harvard: from City Weekly article about Canal: "The company’s use of neonicotinoid pesticides on its crops has been challenged by numerous studies—including researchers with the Harvard School of Public Health—who argue that the pesticides imperil bee populations, which, in the long term, could jeopardize the global food supply." This could be used to flush out the minuscule mention of bees in the "issues" section. I am assuming that good deal of protesters supported this as an issue, given so many marchers are pictured in bee costumes. Right now the mention minimizes the issue by saying one protester thought we should fight for bees since he lives in the bee state, or something like that. Also, someone keeps removing the image showing protesters in bee costumes, replacing it with a very poor quality, grey, grainy image, which is against guidelines and verging on vandalism, IMO. petrarchan47tc 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Go to RSN, they will confirm that "cityweekly" isn't reliable for making scientific claims of this sort, which is what you appear to be proposing if you want to make claims about "numerous studies", IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion to everyone who went from here to comment at RSN is that you are less likely to get help from uninvolved editors if the discussion from here just gets transposed to there. Anyway, I did add back some bee material, if anyone wants to take a look at the Positions section where I added it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You additions seem fine to me. They talk of claimed problems and link to a section of an article where these claims shown not to be supported by any peer reviewed research. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly the approach that I want to aim for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• If we had an award for Facepalm of the Year, I would give it to this edit summary: [7], which I have reverted. It now appears that if there is not enough information on the page about what the protesters have said, some editors complain that we are trying to make the protesters look bad. And if someone adds what the protesters have said, directly quoted and reliably sourced, some editors complain that we are trying to make the protesters look bad. I want to make something very, very clear: the reason that sentence was added to the page was to present more content about the March itself, reflecting reliably sourced material about the March itself, in order that the page not be slanted towards criticism of the marchers or of their beliefs. The idea that it was motivated by a desire to make the marchers look "loony" is entirely a figment of the reverting editor's imagination. If anyone believes that the marcher who said that sounded wrong in any way, please take it up with that marcher, not here. Wow!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage paragraph

But I would have no objection to anyone taking a look at the last paragraph of the Media coverage section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I have deleted it. There is no reason that we should state what Alternet, a 'progressive/liberal activist news service', thinks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it is a political activist news service, I would not consider any of such generally reliable no matter the political sides they represent. IRWolfie- (talk)

Thanks for that! I agree entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You agree! But what is important are the guidelines:

Biased or opinionated sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

Let's go with guidelines not the opinions of Wiki editors. Seems like there is a lack of building the article but a focus on tearing it apart. petrarchan47tc 00:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP policy requires us to present a neutral point of view. Giving the opinion of one political activist source does not do this. The conspiracy theory suggested by the source is on a par with the moon landing conspiracy theories (I am perfectly willing to discuss and justify that comment with anyone) and therefore so must not be repeated in WP without independent authoritative reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't just stick in activist sources for no reason at all. The onus is on you to provide a justification. Just because we can use unreliable biased sources doesn't mean we should. I like how it is exaggerating the attendance figures even further by claiming over 2 million people attended. A source claiming " mainstream coverage has trickled in here and there, but has been sparse" flies in the face of the fact that this article has been kept at AfD purely because of the amount of mainstream coverage. This is what leaves me confused, the very sources you guys want to include say there wasn't significant coverage in mainstream sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of why your last AfD failed. MAM was both a large global event and barely covered by corporate media. But I get the feeling you have a certain position on this and other "anti Monsanto" issues that isn't swayed by facts. petrarchan47tc 17:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"barely covered by corporate media". Perhaps you might want to read the keep comments at the AfD. They claim "significant attention and coverage", a "well-reported international event", and they say WP:GNG has been met (i.e significant coverage in reliable sources). Yet here you are saying it has not received much attention in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The passage relates to the "live" coverage of the event by the media--or lack thereof, to be precise. That would seem to be significant as it appears to be incongruent in light of the globalized scope and other characteristics of the event.

There is nothing unduly self-promotional or the like in the passage, which is purely factual and easily checked. In light of that, it would seem to me that those labeling it an "activist source" are claiming the source is unreliable because they don't like it, and should bear the burden of seeking to have it disqualified. There appears to be nothing prima facie "unreliable" about it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, actually the coverage was pretty scanty. AP ran a story that a few outlets picked up on and a very few covered it on their own, but all in all the march rec'd little attention. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I undertand that, and was under the impression that the significance of the following passage was primarily to be found in the portion I've bolded as it relates to the portion I've italicized

In post-march coverage, Alternet printed, "While March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history with 400 simultaneous events in 60 countries around the globe, no major corporate media outlets in the US covered the live event. CNN ran a followup short on the event on May 28, and mainstream coverage has trickled in here and there, but has been sparse."

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now--I was not reading as closely as I should. Thanks for pointing it out. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that what the Alternet source does is add only the issue of live coverage. There are plenty of news events that get coverage in the mainstream news media, but that do not get live coverage. It's unclear to me that there is really a reason for Wikipedia to give weight to the opinion that coverage of the March was so important that it needed to be live while the March was ongoing. On the other hand, maybe a compromise approach would be to have a short sentence or part of a sentence, focusing only on the "live" point, without making a big issue of the claim that the non-live coverage was so unfair. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the edit Martin just made accomplishes just that. Thanks. Now the Alternet source is back in there, and the text communicates the point that there was no live coverage, but it does so without becoming a talking point for a POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a query to WP:RS/N#In March against Monsanto. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means go ahead with that but there really is no need. If all we want to do is state the degree of media coverage, we should just do so, I am sure there are plenty of sources we could used.

The problem with the disputed quote is that it appears to support the crazy conspiracy theory that Monsanto somehow censored media coverage. That is a different thing altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for doing that. I think it's very helpful to ask for additional opinions about content here, using the mechanisms that Wikipedia has in place, and we should be doing more of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune

I have removed a sentence on this local newspaper. The march was a global affair and the opinion of one local newspaper on the level of media coverage is WP:undue weight. There must be many opinions on Monsanto and GM crops expressed around the world, some for, some against. Why pick this particular one? Only because it seems to support a crazy conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary of my subsequent edit, in which I added it back in shorter form as part of another sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A sentence in the Background

A few days ago, there was a lot of disagreement in this talk about the sentence in the California Prop. 37 section that says: "Canal said that she was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced non-GMO food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children." I suggested here that we might want to simply delete that sentence, and I explained that everything in the sentence repeats content that is already covered in the same section. I also said that I wouldn't want to do the deletion without discussion, because it might be seen as deleting content about Canal's views. The issue seems to have gotten lost in subsequent discussion, so I'm re-raising it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer, I don't know whether or not you read what I said here, but thank you for making the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)