Talk:Séralini affair/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

ENSSER study and Seralini support

Besides removal of recent edits by me and David Tornheim Jytdog also removed the following:

• In this edit editor Jytdog removes a study which has been part of the article for a long time.
• In this edit he removes recent editor edits, and an article by testbiotech, which has been part of the article for a long time. It appears that Jytdog removes anything which doesn't comes from corporate related sources, and all mentions of science in those regards. Hence, why his edits likely show none neutral editing. prokaryotes (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes I am having trouble following. For your first point, it seems like the user removed information about some study unrelated to the Seralini affair. What objection do you have to that? Are you able to explain the connection between that study and the subject of this article?

For the second point the phrase "The paper also received support from the scientific community." was removed, but that statement did not have a citation. Do you object to that removal? Do you have a citation for the statement?

Say something more about what you want to see. Jytdog - could I ask you to make fewer changes per edit (if you edit more, while this is discussed) because if someone questions your actions then I would like to make it easy for them to point out what the problem is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, point 1 is a direct response to Séralini's feeding study - by scientists from the scientific community. The second point in the header area is to summarize the content. There have been various responses from the scientific community in support of Séralini (See for instance Point 1). What Jytdog is doing here is censoring information, when he removes withotu mention, without discussion content. Ironically above section tries to bring NPOV to the attention of editors, entirely ignored by Jytdog. prokaryotes (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Jytdog, how do you feel about that source being used to back the statement "A study funded by and conducted in consultation with ENSSER also concluded that EFSA applied double standards." Does the paper say that? Is it a reliable source for saying this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record Bluerasberry (talk · contribs), Jytdog's single edit was a return to the article as it was before Prryokate edited. Phyr took 4 edits, Jytdog one. Same thing, so no need for Jytdog to worry about his editing in this case, a simple glance at the edit history would have told you this. Phyr now holds the WP:BURDEN for that content I believe? I see Phyrokates appears to be following and hounding Jytdog nowadays. Is this just more DramaH -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I was confused because Jytdog's edit did not say "undone". Thanks.

I think it is best to keep tension low without calling anything drama. Everyone can give comment. Prokaryotes - any response? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor removed long standing content from the page, ignoring above discussion about NPOV as well. Roxy the dog's comment is wrong. Jytdog's edits removed content from the page, without notice in the edit summary, without any discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes I am confused. Here is the before and after, with your edits inbetween. It looks like Jytdog only reverted what you did. Am I looking in the wrong place? Can you show more specifically what is removed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As i linked above, Jytdog removes the study from enveurope.com, which has been added 30 January 2014.prokaryotes (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

... The enveurope citation was removed, quite rightly, by Jytdog with the edit summary "remove another popup claire robinson website as source - not reliable" - at 11:32 on the 30th Jan 2014, eight minutes later. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No it was not removed 11:32 30th Jan 2014 ... Roxy dog, i am not sure what your want but if you comment you should take care that the information is accurate, especially when you comment during an edit dispute. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, the link you linked to shows that it was removed on 30 January 2014 at 6:32. Other than the time (which may vary depending on time zone), Roxy's comment above appears to be correct. Everymorning (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that it was removed in a different edit then given above by Roxy, however a few edits later it was readd by Jytdog (Summary: added content as per Talk) - The point is this study was part of the article from Jan 2014 until 2 days ago.prokaryotes (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C3%A9ralini_affair/Archive_2#New_content_objecting_to_retraction prokaryotes (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• about this dif; What we are not doing in this article, is re-litigating the Seralini affair. Whatever ENSSER publishes later, changes nothing about the quality of Seralini's 2012 paper or its conclusions. Adding a much later publication by someone else, about something else, is not relevant to the Seralini affair. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Jytdog added the study himself (dif), per talk page 2) Yes the study is about the Seralini paper. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping Vindheim prokaryotes (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

offtopic Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You just broke 4RR Prokaryotes. I will give you a chance to selfrevert. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC) I think you are very disruptive and aggressive. Why do you ignore your obvious error that the study is on topic, you yourself added it. And no explanation whatsoever why you removed it without discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC) As you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

why are you pinging this "Vindheim", P? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

He will possibly not respond, after interacting with you he stopped using Wikipedia and left.prokaryotes (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody talking here understands the issue you are raising, Prokaryotes. Not me, not Bluerasperry, not Roxy. I suggest you respond to Blueraspberry's question above, and we can take it from there. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What part did you not understand? I suggest you stay away from playing dumb. prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I can't follow what you are writing above. Yes other people have to tried to add that source. It is the same journal that republished Seralini's study and the authors are from an advocacy group that supported Seralini from day 1; this is not independent of the controversy. We reach for independent sources as much as we can. Also the content you added calls this a study, and it is not a study as they did not do any actual experiments. All this source does is try to amplify the argument that Seralini has been making all along that the studies required by regulators are not long enough. It is also FRINGE in comparing the experiments that Seralini did to the studies that Monsanto did. The experimental design is completely different. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Prokaryotes wants to add a poor source, although the reason appears to have nothing to do with the Seralini affair. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy are you sure that the ENSSER rat feeding study has nothing to do with the Seralini affair? Because the ENSSER study mentions the Seralini study 53 times. Jytdog added the study himself in 2014, until he suddenly removed the study 3 days ago. prokaryotes (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what do you mean with a poor source? This is a peer reviewed journal and the study is in support of the Seralini study, hence why it belongs in the support section. prokaryotes (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you carry the WP:BURDEN for this poor source, could you explain why you feel that analysis of the Seralini data by advocates for Seralini, as has been explained multiple times here, and directly to you in this section, is reliable? thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could we start over with a rewording? The text in dispute is needlessly accusative and ambiguous anyway. We have some organization, ENSSER, saying something about the Seralini study. The proposed text says "the study found double standards", but does not clarify what that means. Can someone who wants the text say something like "ENSSER did a study to examine the Seralini study, and found that..." Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that editors who support the inclusion of this study are pretty busy on other things right now. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Recent edits seem to me to involve a fair bit of polemic. For example, the commentary of the Science Media Centre is qualified by an accusation of "substantial funding" by the biotech industry and is not sourced to SMC's statement but to an article in, unless I am misreading things, the same journal that republished Séralini, which makes the claim of substantial finding and cites a source (Nature) which is (a) an opinion piece and (b) does not actually say that SMC receives substantial funding from the industry (it lists a number of sponsors, some of whom are biotech companies). So a source with a dog in the fight is quoted despite its claims not matching its own primary source, and this is done in order to poison the well in respect of SMC. There are plenty of valid criticisms of SMC - it is a science apologist organisation more than a neutral science communications source - but the funding issue is one thing on which they are actually pretty clean, they have a lot of sources of income, no sponsor is allowed to contribute more than 5% of the budget, and the separation between income and activities is pretty sound. It is reminiscent of the homeopaths trying to discount Sense About Science because of nebulous claims of "pharma funding" which actually track back to a couple of small donations which are insignificant overall. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Award

This addition mentioned an award from a German group that I removed due to weight concerns largely because we don't include awards glorifying a fringe subject and also because the underlying source paints a substantially different picture than the current mainstream description of the controversy. We already have quite a few notes under the support section with WP:FRINGE and WP:BALANCE in mind. That would have been the time to come to this page if anyone felt strongly about including it as there wasn't consensus for it, but it looks like Minor4th has readded the content. [1][2] We do need to be wary about including more information like this with weight in mind. Is there any reasoning for including this piece of content and the source? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The award appears to be given by a small German pressure group of anti newklear scientists (less than 400 members) and anti newkular lawyers who I've never heard of. I think this is way WP:UNDUE and intend to revert. Neither organisation are prominent enough. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Minor4th 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

JzG (also known as Guy) removes study links from Seralini

• Ironically admin JzG (Guy) removes peer reviewed study papers from Seralini, on the article about Seralini. DIF
• Additional he removes the mention that Seralini's paper are peer reviewed. DIF
• Removes key information, long part of the article that the study has been peer-reviewed. DIF
• JzG removes the republication as well. DIF prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No irony involved.

• Study by Séralni was cited directly to the study. That violates WP:PRIMARY. The article only exists because the original paper by Séralini is highly problematic, so it is very important to ensure that any other work by the same author is covered only with reference to reliable independent sources that establish its significance and validity. This is an absolutely standard application of policy and guidelines.
• I removed the redundant term "peer-reviewed" (any scientific paper that is not peer-reviewed is unlikely to make much impact), I also asked for clarification re the weasel words "some members of the scientific community and food safety authorities", which is hardly controversial.
• I changed "Reviewers instead checked that the content of the paper matched the previously peer-reviewed version" to "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" because the former plainly sought to imply that the original peer-review was valid despite subsequent retraction, which is a problematic claim with any scientific publication. As it turns out, the correct statement of affairs was different again, as I later clarified here, and that in turn was later edited by I am One of Many her, an edit I reverted as implying the opposite POV, i.e. that the second journal was guilty of some malfeasance (rather than, say, simple incompetence) in republishing.
• I removed the citation to the republished paper as a source for the statement "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" - because it doesn't support that statement in any of its forms, yours, mine, my revised version, or IaOoM's version, because the paper does not address the question of the journal's review process at all, nor should it, so it can't possibly be a source for a statement about that process.

Feel free to ask for clarification of any other edits, I am always happy to explain any edit I make. This unsigned comment was made by JzG (also known as Guy) at 22:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hired referees

Hi Guy, I do think that the sourced fact that the three reviewers were hired is extraordinary in science. When I review proposals for NIH I get paid, but never for reviewing scientific articles nor do I know of anyone who has. I think because the hiring is sourced and unusual, it should be included. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Related source "ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds." http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463 Ofc, the fact that it had been conducted earlier is missing from this article, causing now confusion. prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Either it's perfectly normal (and thus not worth mentioning) or it's unusual, in which case we'd need some kind of context telling us how unusual. I have no opinion either way, other than that saying they were hired for the job gives the appearance, to me, of accusing the journal of something. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It is unusual to hire reviewers for a journal article, so I think it would be misleading to leave it out. On the other hand, it is not good to have implied wrong-doing by including it. Perhaps the best way to go is to simply quote in context. Such as:

According to Nature, the editor-in-chief of ESEU, Henner Hollert, stated that "The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper."

--I am One of Many (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with that. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, republished under peer-review

To say the article 'was not peer-reviewed' when republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, is an absurdity, and shows the writer does not understand science. Those scientists at the Environmental Sciences Europe, are independent peer-reviewers of the peer-reviewed research. They checked it, it was properly conducted. That's peer-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated the Séralini paper as republished in June 2014 and concluded, that the study “was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.”IARC monograph on glyphosate, p. 35, right column The study is only suitable to present an example of "junk science".--Shisha-Tom (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is Shisha Tom not pointing out who sponsored the study? Also notice that his link does not work. Re Monsanto sponsoring fantasy http://www.techtimes.com/articles/114226/20151208/scientists-hired-by-monsanto-say-weed-killer-glyphosate-does-not-cause-cancer.htm and here http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0T61QL20151117 prokaryotes (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The headline from Reuters says more about this than all the bluster in the entire history of this talk page: "Mixed message on weed-killer reflects reality of scientific uncertainty". Science can't prove a negative. The evidence is not definitive either way, and it is unlikely it will be in the near term. The only thing we do know with absolute certainty is that the Séralini paper is worthless. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Next time before you make bold statements about the scientific process i suggest you google for "science absolute certainty" and such. GL. prokaryotes (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto did not sponsor the IARC monograph; see pg 35. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Did this paper, the republished one, magically get peer reviewed since publication, somehow. That would be clever. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Science cannot prove a negative, in cases like this. It can prove beyond any rational doubt that there is no credible evidence of something, but as the cranks are forever reminding us, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regardless, the Séralini study is worthless, and that is the only relevance here. Even if a link is one day proved between glyphosate and cancer in humans, which it absolutely has not been at this stage, it would not validate Séralini, because his work is, as we describe in the article, well below acceptable scientific standards. If you want to argue the toss about the evils of glyphosate (what am I saying? if? of course you do!) then this is not the correct venue. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources, here as linked above. Hence your comment resemble poor opinion, because it is in stark contrast to what the science actually states. If you want to preach that the study of S is worthless you should find a forum for that. prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@prokaryotes:Actually, why should I discuss with a person, who is not able to distinguish between an scientific organisation of the World Health Organization such as IARC, which classified glyphosate as probably carcinogen, and the company Monsanto, who opossed the IARC classification since spring 2015. Interestingly, IARC was able to classify glyphosate as possible carcinogen without the scientific rubbish of Seralini.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And the devil is, as always, in the detail. Extensive evaluation of people working with the product contradicts earlier findings suggesting a modest increase in risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but there is evidence from animal studies (other than those by Séralini) to suggest a plausible link. What that almost certainly means is that it is carcinogenic only at levels unlikely to be experienced by anybody. It also indicates that monitoring and further epidemiological studies are prudent. I will continue to use RoundUp in my garden, because it works, but I will be sure to follow the PPE and other safety instructions. Anybody who panics about RoundUp but still drinks alcohol or uses TCM products, is not behaving rationally. All agriculture uses herbicides and pesticides. All pesticides and I think most if not all herbicides are toxic at some level. Caffeine is a neurotoxin. It's a big, bad, scary world out there and we're evolved to survive it so for all the alarmism and the "Daily Mail oncological ontology project", the soundest advice is probably: don't be an idiot and you'll be fine :-) Guy (Help!) 20:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes' request at AE

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Request concerning JzG, a request by Prokaryotes for sanctions against me based on the edits under discussion above. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A tweak

The opening para, The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy about a particular experiment conducted by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. Séralini fed Monsanto's RoundUp-tolerant NK603 genetically modified maize (called corn in North America), as well as glyphosate, to rats and published results which claimed that the corn and the herbicide were toxic to the animals in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was sourced to the original FCT article. I think that's incorrect as the article doesn't actually support the para, which frames the controversy. The original study was also used to support the subsequent statement of its abstract, so I have moved the citation details there and replaced it as a source for the first para with a 2014 Forbes article that includes a quote that explicitly describes this as the Séralini affair. I'm not religious about this source but I do think the original paper is not really a proper reference for the opening para as it is currently written. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As is stated in the opening sentence, this article is about Séralini's published paper. So, why then make an edit to make it more difficult for readers to find the paper? I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to *inform* readers. The edit makes no sense at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought the natural place for his paper was as an EL at the end of the article? Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, I am afraid your comment makes non sense. Did you read my reason for not using the paper as a source for the specific text it was purportedly supporting? I don't have any problem with including the paper (though note that the average reader will be quite incapable of fully understanding it, and I am included in that category). Why is including it as a source for text it does not actually contain somehow more "informative"? Guy (Help!) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I assume you are okay if I add a link to the paper itself in the first sentence so that readers can view it? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea about Guy, but I would be unhappy, per WP:ELCITE it should go into External Links. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, to support what text? Remember the purpose of <ref> tags is to cite sources. I don't think it counts as a reliable independent secondary source for anything in the opening para, but I could easily be wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You all do not want it to be easy for readers to find the published paper in question? Consider how this article (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) handled a controversial publication. The material of the controversy is easy to look at. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's on point, had to URL link the original 2012 study today. prokaryotes (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, you didn't answer the question. What text is is a reference source for? It's remarkably easy to find the study if we call it out at the foot of the article, the idea that it's only "easy" to find it if it's cited as a reference for some text within the first paragraph of the lede seems to me rather odd. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep asking that. I have made it quite clear in what I wrote above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's less clear than you think. The study is cite 6 as republished and cited elsewhere, and I am happy for it to be called out and highlighted at the foot or as a footnote per Roxy above. The issue is that the retracted study does not support the text for which it was presented as a reference. Is this a bizarre thing to be bothered by? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Consider also these articles:

1. Biscuit Fire publication controversy -- reference to article is easy to spot as footnote #2.
2. Sternberg peer review controversy -- article in question is footnote #2.

Is there a problem with all these articles for making it TOO EASY for readers to look at the controversial material that was published? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't comment for JzG but I'd say it's too hard in those artcles and the relevant papers should be in external links. What you seem to be missing here is that however we link the article and wherever it goes, it shouldn't be used as a reference for things for which it's not an adequate source. SPACKlick (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a problem with "The paper had been published in the online edition of Science before the letter was written.<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5759/352 D.C. Donato ''et al.'', "Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk," ''Science'', January 20, 2006 (subscription required)]</ref>" - the source does not support the text. It might be that you can check the date and check the date of the letter and work it out, but that's not the same as the source actually supporting the statement. And then we have "Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.<ref name="disco paper date">[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent design: The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories]; [[Center for Science and Culture]]</ref>". So yes, I do have a problem with it. Actually I don't think this is "easy" for people to find because it is represented as a source about something else entirely. Much better to have in the references section a specific link to the originals, above the rest of the references, or include it in external links or further reading. Then it's easy to find, rather than linked in a place where the text indicates you'd expect to find something else entirely.

I doubt this is deliberate, by the way - articles tend to be edited back and forth, especially contentious ones like this, and references can easily be separated from the text they are supposed to support. That's why i think it's best to fix such weirdness when you find it. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you suddenly add the paper to EL, but i approve of it, it is actually even better than what i attempted earlier. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick gets the credit for spotting that's where it should be. I just made the edit. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

More background

This article From Watchdogs to Lapdogs: How Corporate Media Mislead Us on GMOs, highlights some of the issues discussed in the article. Maybe a good source to improve content. prokaryotes (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe a good source" ! Really? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. Please say this was not seriously being proposed as a source? Guy (Help!) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this trolling ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like Truth Out take this recent article (Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Pro-GMO Propaganda Using Taxpayer Dollars) which links to other major media NYT Bloomberg etc., considered reliable - which you can lookup, though not mentioning Seralini Affair directly. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a specific edit based on specific reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Another Truth Out article ... Did you link the wrong thing or is it really true (!) you're proposing that Truth Out can be a reliable source for us? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think [3] and [4] may be relevant, since the article is an uncritical report of USRTK's attempts to "do a climategate". USRTK is, of course, a spectacularly unreliable source with a vested interest in anti-GMO activism so any uncritical reporting of their position needs very careful handling. Oh, [5] is also interesting in context. On the other hand we have [6], which has truthiness - I would not trust Monsanto further than I could throw Séralini. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also [7], [8] (not RS but interesting context), and Keith Kloor's commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was so much similarity between climate denial and extreme ant-GMO groups. These articles about academics bolstering propaganda favoring GMOs are extremely misleading.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the really weird things: the two groups are diametrically opposed, philosophically (gaia versus libertarian capitalism, basically) and yet they both use exactly the same tactics and recognise them for what they are when the other side uses them. It's fascinating. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's fascinating, yes. On both sides of the atlantic (bigecobusiness being backed by the European model) science plays only the role of a football. 13:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous Séralini papers

I dont think that section fits in the affair - it is better to be moved to the article about the person. Polentarion Talk 23:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent. This should focus mainly on the 2012 paper and the aftermath. However, some background is necessary and that will include summarising his previous work. We don't need a blow-by-blow account of his previous papers under its own heading though and I would support pruning and melding this section into the background. The rest may fir in his own article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a brief section describing previous papers by reference to independent coverage of them would make sense as context, but listing them or citing them all seems like resume padding and I agree any more comprehensaive list belongs at the article on Séralini himself, not here. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already moved the content to the Seralini article, the reduction of the section here has been deemed too bold and was reverted. But I asssume we dont loose the content, we increase readability if we boil it down to the essentials here. Polentarion Talk 13:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD seems to have been fulfilled. People would like a summary para, for context, I'm sure we can rely on you and Prokaryotes to propose something but for now the removal of the resume seems to me to be adequately explained and I have no problem with it. I can't speak for anyone else of course. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was being deemed an industry shill and serial vandal recently, see Peak Oil, so I am more cautious about bold edits now. But it seems that different industries want to have their say. Why not ask @Prokaryotes: to provide it? Polentarion Talk 14:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved a part to the lawsuits section, maybe the section can be trimmed but basically it all seems to be related. prokaryotes (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And added a section [9]. Which is OK, but it might have been better to discuss it first given the history. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Still need to reduce content. Polentarion Talk 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Narrative flow, the timeline

with this edit the description of the timline of the affair was disrupted, and is now incomplete, with the para moved out of the mainsection. I believe it should have been discussed first. As that series of edits broke ArbCom restrictions in the same way that Guy broke them yesterday, perhaps we could work it out here, rather than there! -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A study to settle the debate. With love from Russia and a pseudoacademy. Its a nice example of Scientism, but not any value added. I ask to revert the edit and destill the current text to a chronological list or even shorter. Polentarion Talk 19:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and the sections on PLOS One study and lawsuits should probably both be folded into the main timeline of events, since both are very short and amount to little more than resting places for factoids. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Petition

I removed this text:

In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.

References

I think the reasons for removal should be obvious: the existence of the petition is cited to the petition itself (which invites suspicion of solicitation, and is the reason why petition sites are blacklisted); the petition is on a website "set up by concerned citizens and scientists in response to the retraction from the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology of the study by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues", with no other petitions at all. This is an abject failure of WP:RS. Obviously if anyone wants to restore mention of the petition by reference to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishing significance and context. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference for title

David Tornheim removed a reference to Forbes supporting the name "Séralini affair" [10]. I think that reference should go back in. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The removing edit had an edit summary that referred to possible POV in the source. I looked at the source, and I'm not seeing such a problem, which might suggest that the source should be restored. I'd like to hear what the objections to the source are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the reference in the lede to Jon Entine's article here, which was recently added here without first obtaining consensus for the change. This was a significant change to material that had been stable for months if not longer. Entine is a Pro-GMO advocate. Even Jytdog acknowledged this here, saying, "nor would I cite other sources by advocates with clear financial ties like Jon Entine". A more WP:NPOV article such as this one in Nature might be more appropriate. Additionally, the lede does not reflect what is in the article. In fact, the first sentence has errors, which I have previously identified and will identify again. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you consider replacing the source with one you prefer? I'm fine with that, but the source you propose does not include the term Séralini affair, which was what this source supported. WP:BRD applies: it's not necessary to discuss every nuance of every edit in advance, but note that I already raised the substitution of the reference above and you'rte the first to object. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ledes don't need sources, but I'm not seeing anything wrong with the source either. It seems fine under NPOV in the context of dealing with a WP:FRINGE subject. WP:PARITY especially applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the fringe subject here? And Entine is a pro industry advocate and should not be the source of negative BLP info. Minor4th 02:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that there are similar issues now at Gilles-Éric Séralini, lots of content changes in last 48 hrs. References to blogs, opinion pieces, references not working at all, claims like he is an activist, or his lab is a think tank, but the regulars seem to be just fine with that. prokaryotes (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th Seriously? Séralini's anti-GMO views are fringe. They have only a tiny minority of support among the relevant professional community, and are themselves supported primarily by non-specialists with an ideological bias against biotechnology. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG, if you have reliable source in regards to what you write above then this should go into the article, the problem is that currently references which make these claims come from non experts, or from individuals hired by Monsanto. For instance ref 3 from the lede at Gilles-Éric Séralini is based on a German interview, which starts with explaining that the person interviewed is not an expert, but he done some statistical stuff. That GMOs are controversial is echoed in the mainstream media and many authorities indirectly support Seralini when they start labeling Glyphosate as a carcinogenic. Hence, his views are not that fringe as you try to make it sound like.prokaryotes (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO there's no need to add further sources to strengthen our presentation of these facts, but I appreciate your invitation to do so. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, could you actually articulate which of Seralini's views are fringe? Be specific if you can. Minor4th 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientifically, anti-GMO is fringe. Séralini is anti-GMO. End of. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, "anti-GMO" is not a scientific description and it tells me nothing about which of his specific views are fringe. I don't think he can be called "fringe", especially not in a blanket statement used like that. Decide which of his views you take issue with - or maybe KOA could since he's trying to base editorial decisions on FRINGE and PARITY. Once again, Entine is not a reliable source for negative BLP info in this article. Minor4th 15:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, Séralini's committed support for the reliability of his own research conclusions here is very seriously at odds with mainstream science, and so is covered by WP:PSCI (and so WP:FRINGE). Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That may have been true a year ago, but it's no longer true. There is plenty of recent research that is in line with Seralini's studies. Have you looked outside the US lately? IARC and ESNA both found that glyphosate is not safe and at a minimum needs to be regulated to a maximum exposure dose. That's fairly mainstream these days. Minor4th 16:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a different matter. No respectable source thinks Séralini's conclusions (his ones drawn from his data) are reliable. His maintenance to the contrary is, in WP terms, fringe. (And BTW, I spend my life looking outside the US because I don't live there). Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, exactly which conclusions are you talking about? That glyphosate formulations have long term toxicity and should be regulated? Or what? Minor4th 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of the journal article which is (meant to be) the principal subject of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate stays to be the most used herbicde world wide, in the range of a 800.000 tons annually. Its not without dangers, but sorry, thats the case as well for benzene and water. Mainstream? Polentarion Talk 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Seralini is an important political and media figure, his views are far from being fringe, they are backing the European leadership political mainstream. Science is - as Brian Wynne and others have stated - completely unimportant and has just the role of a football. Does anybody care about his actutal results? Raising doubt is much more important. Polentarion Talk 15:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Important? Only in as much as the amount of heat he has managed to generate for a remarkably small and tightly focused scientific output - a large proportion of the not-so-many hits on PubMed are letters by him defending the retracted paper and most of the rest, at least in recent years, seem to be attempts to argue exactly the same case. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing - involving billions of Euros - is his contribution to the factual ban of GMO imports to the EU. As said, "science" is completely irrelevant. This is about real business. Polentarion Talk 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an alternate reference for the title Smelling a rat published in the Economist. This is better than the source that was removed. Sorry I got off topic in this thread. Minor4th 01:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the author of the Economist article may not have the same reputation as Jon Entine. However, the Nature article I proposed is better in that it more correctly reports Seralini's study's findings. Neither the Forbes nor Economist articles report the findings correctly, probably because they are mainstream magazines and do not specialize in scientific matters like Nature does. (See: Talk:Séralini_affair#Article_incorrectly_states_conclusions_of_the_Study._Correction_is_needed.) --02:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Reminder - DS and 1RR

Reminder to those who are engaging in a revert tug-of-war the last day or so -- this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and has a strict 1RR per editor per page per 24 hour period, pursuant to the temporary injunction at the Arb case. Please keep in mind the spirit as well as the letter of the injunction. Minor4th 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Which you yourself M4 have broken today !!! -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of Blog as RS

I reverted this edit. A science blog is being used for WP:RS. I do not believe it is WP:RS.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all things related to sourcing here, it depends on how the source is used. ScienceBlogs is generally considered a RS here because they are a chosen group of subject experts, and such experts don't normally need editorial oversight or control because they speak from their own authority. Granted it wasn't being used for a science matter (Myers is a biology expert), but its use as a source for the term "science by press conference" (Seralini is used as an example in that article) seems innocent enough, and that is exactly what Seralini did, but in a much more elaborate and calculated way than did Andrew Wakefield. Now if we can find a better source, I would have no problem with substituting it, but I don't think there is any question that the term is apt here, and I think the source is good enough for that use. Therefore I suggest restoring it, and we could even attribute it as the opinion of PZ Myers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of blogs, our suspicion of blogs originated in a time when blogs were nothing but everymans (and womans) public personal diary, which would obviously not be a RS. Then the blog format and platform became more popular and we saw businesses and politicians use it for their official websites. We also saw journalists and subject experts use it for their websites.

Therefore our attitude towards use of blogs has become more nuanced, although a certain unjustified reticence still lingers as a form of "allergic reaction" towards the word. So, just because the word "blog" is used, don't reject it on that basis alone. Examine how it's used. It just might happen to be an excellent source that is fully as reliable as The New York Times (which isn't hard to beat sometimes). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That blog and the content are not reliable sources for any content of substance and shouldn't be used to source negative BLP info or science related content. Minor4th 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The problem with self-published blogs compared to even articles published in the mainstream media is the lack of fact checking, the lack of any need for balance and, of course, with regard to science, the lack of peer review found in scientific journals--even if the self-published work is from an "expert". Wikipedia frowns heavily on self-published sources for WP:RS for good reason (See: WP:USERGENERATED). I am not sure why you feel you need a source for the use of the term "science press conference". I do not think anyone would challenge that description: It almost seems like a common sense interpretation of what I have seen described in the other articles, so I see no need for a source. Why do you feel it needs a reference? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blogs are a reliable source for the opinion of the person who writes the blog. They can be used in articles if attributed to that person. The question is rather should we include that persons opinion in the article. PZ Myers is a well known biological scientist so seems qualified enough. He is following the mainstream view so I don't see any WP:Undue issues. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow up studies

Prokaryotes added the following section:

In 2014 institutions from Russia, the United States and Europe announced a two to three years study with a budget of $25 million, with the aim to settle the debate surrounding GM Corn and applied herbicides. The study will include 6,000 rats and a GMO corn diet, to evaluate independently possible health impacts.

References

So I checked the source. There are a couple of issues.

1. The source appears to be primarily based on a material from a press release, so not independent.
2. The author, Carey Gillam, has a long-standing anti-GMO agenda ([11])
3. The "institutions" conducting the studies are portrayed as an international science organisations, but actually the only body identified on the website is the so-called "National Association for Genetic Safety", an anti-GMO organisation in Russia.
4. The anti-GMO provenance is not mentioned in the Reuters piece, which is uses various common rhetorical devices straight out of the tobacco industry playbook to exaggerate doubt and cast aspersions on the mainstream findings, or in the edit.
5. This page makes it pretty clear that the study is predicated on the idea that GMOs are toxic.

I do not think this is an honest piece of independent scientific inquiry, and portraying it as such is dangerous and wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if this study was a done through a truely independent organisation (extremely unlikely given the initiator particularly where it says "NAGS supports the idea of the priority development of organic agriculture in Russia") it is still in the early stages of development. They are still asking for public funding on their home page and there is no mention of protocols or much of anything of substance except that they want to do the study. We should wait until there is something more solid before announcing future studies. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

News embargo

I disagree with this edit: [12]. Given that this particular news embargo was very atypical in nature, I don't see the value in pointing out that typical news embargoes are common. It seems to downplay the reality of what was unusual here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in the source article by Butler ("Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, "), so for NPOV, it should be included. Critics of Seralini wish to emphasize what is *unusual* by making what is usual seem unusual too, so for NPOV this claim needs to be in the article. --20:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That said, I did not mean to over-emphasize that new embargoes are common. The need for mention about news embargoes is that the negative coverage of Seralini makes it seems completely abnormal to have any restrictions on reporters receiving information. I was not aware that some restrictions are indeed common practice until I saw it mentioned in the Butler article, and I think the ordinary reader would not be aware of this either, so it needs to be made clear in the article, which is why Butler did so. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I worry that putting it that way in the lead section ends up being overkill. After all, we would not say that he used a microphone at the press conference, only to point out that it is common to use a microphone. More importantly, although it is indeed common to have embargoes about journal articles, those embargoes are normally imposed by the publishers of the journals, in order to protect their copyrights. In contrast, it is extremely unusual to have the authors of a journal article request an embargo, because they normally have every interest in getting the news out about their work. So this was not even typical of an embargo, outside of the unusual confidentiality pledge. It might be a POV problem if the page were to say that the embargo was unusual, but the page only said that the confidentiality clause was unusual. And the whole reason why this page passes WP:Notability is because of the things that were unusual, so there is nothing wrong with emphasizing the unusual things, so long as the information is not misleading.

I'd like to suggest that we have this material about embargoes normally being common practice in the "Publication strategy" section of the page, where more detail is appropriate. If we can agree to cover these points there, I would be happy to support that. However, I think it works much better there, than in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's first comment but not the proposal to include it elswhere. The relevance of Séralini's press launch is not in any way related to run-of-the-mill press embargoes. We don't include embargo details in discussions of research unless there is something highly usual, as there was here. Including the wider context of press embargoes, which is normally entirely unremarkable and not mentioned at all in discussions of research on Wikipedia, appears to serve merely to water down the well-established criticisms of the way Séralini spoon-fed the story only to selected favourable journalists, and including the comment about normal press embargoes is WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree generally with Tryptofish's suggestions - further explanation about news embargo in the body, and I don't think it's necessary to qualify it as "common" in the lede. As a compromise, maybe in the lede have wording like "not unusual" or "not uncommon" - the qualifier "common" though sounds like we're somehow hedging or couching our language. It's not SYN because it's exactly how the source describes it. Minor4th 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

For me, the most important consideration is that the lead should only discuss the confidentiality pledge, and leave out the broader issues about embargoes. I'm neutral about discussing embargoes lower down on the page, but would be willing to do so if that helps us get to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to the earlier question about peer review. Press embargoes are normal, but PR launches to hand-picked journalists are not. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we at least have a consensus to take it out of the lead? It really sticks out like a sore thumb there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine. Perhaps we should wait for David to comment? Minor4th 23:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I intended. I'm in no hurry with this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If I don't hear any objections by tomorrow, I will go ahead and remove it from the lead, with no prejudice against some coverage lower on the page. I will also note that in #Break 2, below, editors are agreeing that a source from the Vlaams group is a good source, and it describes multiple ways in which the embargo was not typical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

See also: #Oxford source, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 added a source for Seralini having featured the rat photographs at the press conference, rather than simply having distributed the paper in which the images appeared. Kingofaces added the source without the author's name, as The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 606. [13] He later added the author as Ronald J. Herring, when in fact Herring is the editor. [14] Tryptofish corrected the author's name, but instead of the article title ("Food Safety") used a sub-section title ("Media and Manipulation: An Illustrative Case Analysis"). [15]

The citation is Bruce M. Chassy, "Food Safety," in Ronald J. Herring (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society, Oxford University Press, 2015 (pp. 587–614), p. 606. Chassy worked for Monsanto as a lobbyist. [16] And his article says only that Seralini "presented color pictures of rats," which doesn't tell us whether the press conference (if it was a physical one) featured the images separately from the paper.

A reporter who attended the press conference would be the best source for this kind of thing, but in general would it not be better to avoid sources with such an obvious COI, on either side? If COI sources are used, it should be because they're the most appropriate source for the point being made, and there should be in-text attribution so that COI source material isn't presented in Wikipedia's voice. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I'd agree that Chassy's lobbyist position attenuates the usefulness of that source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

SV: Thanks for the catch. I deleted this addition of the category "media manipulation", which was added coincident with use of this source. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That was unnecessary as we have multiple reliable sources that discuss the media manipulation around *both* publications (if you absolutely insist on a statement explicitly saying this was media manipulation then [17] will do nicely). I restored it. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the category is appropriate for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Sarah's comment, I have been looking for a good source about what actually happened at the press conference, and I have as yet been unable to find anything from a reporter who was at the press conference and reported about pictures of rats. Here is a source that reports about the press conference and actually has a picture of Seralini from the press conferenced and a picture of the rats with an explanation that the pictures were made available by CRIIGEN: [18]. I think it's safe to say the Seralini group made the photos available (they were also published as part of the study) but there's no verifiable indication that he displayed the photos at the press conference. Minor4th 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed the fact that Chassy has been a lobbyist. I just assumed, mistakenly, that Oxford University Press would have reliable authors, and was influenced by what other editors were saying in #Oxford source, above. Given his affiliation, however, I completely retract my earlier endorsement of the source, and I think that we should go back to saying only that the photos were made available to the press, rather than that Seralini displayed them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made that edit. Minor4th 18:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that your edit restored the language about "potential implications". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I did restore that language, as it is better language and we are no longer afoul of 1RR on that issue. Minor4th 18:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll not argue that further, it was just an attempt on my part to tighten-up and isn't worth spilling more pixels over. Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: - on your most recent edit, can you self revert the word "treated" back in? It's an important point that Seralini only showed pictures of treated rats and did not show pictures of control rats that might also have developed tumors. Minor4th 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. I missed that (although there really was no difference between treated and untreated; nonetheless, I get it that that's what the photographs were). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

Reading the above, there don't appear to be any legitimate issues with regards to the source. Herring is the editor of the book, so in this case, content is approved by Herring at the least and potentially by peer-reviewers (looking into whether the latter occurred, though it tends to be the case with these books). Books are a little different than journals as the editor is in essence an author of the whole collection as they are standing by the content behind it. That would remove issues with individual authors for content like this as the editors do engage in basic fact checking from a WP:RS perspective.

Even ignoring the fact that Herring was the editor, Chassy is not a lobbyist and there is no COI demonstrated. There is a huge difference between being a paid lobbyist and lobbying alongside another group such as a company. Academics will sometimes work with companies to work out things like pesticide regulations. That's part of their job, just as it is to work against the companies when they are doing something out of line. Contributing to GMO Answers wouldn't be a COI either, so I'm not seeing where the COI or lobbyist claims come in when you really dig into the background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right. And I'm changing my mind yet again (and I should stop assuming that other editors got it right). I just went back to the source, and looked at the List of Contributors on page ix. It says that "Bruce M. Chassy is Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Illinois." (And Oxford University Press is a publisher who uses high quality authors, as I suspected.) That's a world away from being a professional lobbyist. He is thus an expert academic who may also have provided expert opinion to Congress. He is a reliable source for our purposes, and we should use the source as I previously said near the bottom of #Oxford source. And that includes going back to saying that Seralini displayed the photos. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC) It was the EPA, not Congress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Chassy acted as a lobbyist for Monsanto, and was or had been in receipt of a Monsanto grant, so it would be inappropriate to place contentious material from him in Wikipedia's voice. More to the point, though, he wasn't at the press conference, so he doesn't know whether Seralini displayed photographs of the rats.

The article still says, in the lead, that he "made photographs of treated rats with large tumors available to the press," and elsewhere: "Séralini held a press conference on the day the study was released in which he ... featured large images of rats with tumors."

Those photographs were in the paper, and the paper was distributed, but were the photographs featured in some additional way? I believe there was a website, but I don't know how to find it or whether it was part of the press conference. American journalists were told about the paper by telephone conference, rather than during a physical press conference, so no photographs would have been featured during that.

The article should explain what happened in a way that makes it clear to people who were not at the press conference. We should make our way through POV with facts that are sourced to the most appropriate source for each point, i.e. writers not involved with either side who we can be reasonably sure know what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I felt a need to look into this some more, and I found this source, [19], from The New York Times, that describes Chassy's relationship with advocacy. It's a reliable source for the information, but I am not suggesting that we use it to source this page, just that we use it to understand who Chassy is, as the author of the Oxford Univ. Press chapter. According to the Times, he is indeed an emeritus professor. He is one of multiple academics who were criticized by anti-Monsanto activist groups (note: I am describing those groups, not editors here) after emails were released indicating Monsanto recruiting them to advocate in favor of GMOs. Chassy says that he already publicly opposed an EPA plan, as a professor and expert, before anyone in industry contacted him to provide money for him to travel, create a website, and speak to the EPA. That certainly makes him someone that the activist groups want to discredit, but it does not make him a "lobbyist", and it does not change his status as a mainstream and reliable source for our purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a link that brings up the List of Contributors (Chassy, and everyone else) in the Oxford University Press book: [20] (first click, page ix). It's not a book by lobbyists, nor even a book by people from industry. It's a book by university academics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The NYT article says:

"[Monsanto], in late 2011, gave a grant for an undisclosed amount to Bruce M. Chassy, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, to support 'biotechnology outreach and education activities,' his emails show.

"In the same email in which Dr. Chassy negotiated the release of the grant funds, he discussed with a Monsanto executive a monthslong effort to persuade the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon its proposal to tighten the regulation of pesticides used on insect-resistant seeds."

That gives Chassy a COI, so he ought to be avoided as a source for contentious material unless there's a need to use him for some reason, and so long as we attribute the material in text. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I kept getting edit conflicts in my previous comments, so now I will actually reply to what you said, sorry for not having done it sooner. I think you may be right about him not being present at the press conference, so I'm still wavering about what I think about whether we should or should not say that Seralini displayed the photos. If we stay with saying that the photos were made available, Minor4th's source does make it clear that the photos were made available. As for a COI, I read – and provided! – that same NYT link. If we are going to make judgments based on it, we should not leave out:

"In an interview, Dr. Chassy said he had initiated the fight against the E.P.A. plan before Monsanto pressed him. But he conceded that the money he had received from the company had helped to elevate his voice through travel, a website he created and other means."

It's not like the money went into his pocket, and it's not like the money changed his position about anything. In the second paragraph of my earlier comment in this talk: [21], I tried to take a balanced view of how we should use this source, and my opinion hasn't changed from that second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of when he was paid, or whether it changed his mind, accepting the money gave him a COI. Had Chassy wanted to do those things anyway, he could have done them without accepting money from Monsanto. In any event, a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a comment on someone's state of mind.

This is a history article. It's important to understand the science to be able to write it well, and it's important to understand how to use the most appropriate sources to establish that what some people claim happened really did happen. Chassy wasn't at the press conference, so he does not know what happened there, and what he has written about it is ambiguous. So for all these reasons (COI + wasn't there + has not written about it clearly), he is not the best source for this material. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I tried to get across in my previous comment, that depends upon which material we are sourcing. And I'm starting to think that we really do not need to say that Seralini actually displayed the photos at the press conference. "Had Chassy wanted to do those things anyway, he could have done them without accepting money from Monsanto." That's framing it in a very misleading way. If this were an academic who had spoken in favor of evolution over creationism, or in favor of mainstream climate science over climate change denial, it would be the same situation. I'm sure the Koch brothers would be eager to find out that a climate scientist had gotten a grant from a company that makes solar panels. Where Chassy presents his opinion, of course we should attribute it to him, rather than saying it in Wikipedia's voice. I've been saying that all along. But it is untrue to label Chassy as a lobbyist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Oxford Handbook makes no mention of Chassy's financial relationship with Monsanto (that I can see). The book was published in 2015. The New York Times published Chassy's emails to Monsanto in September 2015, so perhaps OUP didn't know about the relationship. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As if he would not have been used as a chapter author because of that. He is not a professional lobbyist. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if OUP had published that paper as they did, unflagged, had they known about the relationship. I would expect at least to see in their description of him in the contributor list that he had worked for Monsanto. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If only we could have agreed not to say that Seralini displayed the photos at the news conference, without having to go into all of this stuff. Chassy did not work for Monsanto. He was not their employee. He did not receive salary from them. He was never a paid lobbyist. It is very unlikely that he crafted anything he wrote in the book to please Monsanto, or that he changed anything he would have written as a result of what they did pay for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't say that Seralini displayed images at the press conference, because we don't have a good source (or any source) saying that he did. But it's worth having these sourcing discussions, because there may be others to whom the same applies. The key issue (whether we call it lobbying or not) is that Chassy had a financial COI with Monsanto. We don't know whether he had disclosed it before the NYT published his emails a few months ago. It's therefore worth checking that nothing else in the article in WP's voice relies on sources with a COI, whether it's in relation to Monsanto or its opponents. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I really don't want to prolong this discussion beyond its expiration date, and I feel like it's already gone on for too long, there is one more thing I feel the need to point out, in the spirit of making it a useful sourcing discussion. It isn't like OUP, as a publisher, would have decided to use Chassy as a chapter writer. It would have been a decision made primarily by the editor of the book, Ronald J. Herring, a Professor at Cornell University. Academics in a particular field tend to know one another. The editor would have known if, hypothetically, Chassy were the type of character who takes money and alters his opinion to please the donors. It would not have depended on waiting for the Times to publish the emails. And Chassy would not have been invited to write the chapter, if his writing it would have later reflected badly on the book. There would have been a collective decision about what Chassy's chapter would be about and how it would fit into the rest of the book, even though the final writing would have been Chassy's. It's just very unlikely that Chassy got himself into the book to promote a "COI" contrary to his pre-existing expert opinion, and got away with it. That's not to say that he witnessed what happened at the press conference. But we should be able to hold a nuanced understanding of the source material, as neither definitive nor worthless, but rather somewhere in between. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's worth having the discussion, beyond the point about Chassy, to discuss what constitutes a financial COI. A COI is a description of a situation, such as "X has received money from Monsanto/Seralini." It doesn't mean "X has a POV about those things" or "X has changed his POV because he was paid." It's not about actual state of mind. It's about the public's perception of state of mind, and whether payment would appear to have interfered with the source's independent judgment when it comes to the payer's interests. The word appear is crucial.

A source worth reading: Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest," in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470. See in particular p. 447:

"A person is judged to have a conflict of interest on the basis of being in a conflicted situation, whether or not that person thinks he or she is capable of resisting the temptation or corrupting influence of the interest that could interfere with her judgment."

It's easy enough to avoid sources that we know have been paid by Monsanto, Seralini or related groups, unless they're the most appropriate for the point being made, in which case use in-text attribution and flag the relationship. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion, sincerely. But I also want to explain why I have been feeling so strongly about the issue. At this point, we have clear consensus against using Chassy as a source for what happened at the news conference, and I fully agree with that consensus. And if the discussion had begun with something along the lines of: Chassy had an appearance of a conflict of interest because of the funding he got, and he was not present at the press conference, and anyway we now have a better source from the Vlaams group – then I would have enthusiastically agreed with that, and there would have been no problem.

But instead, what I first saw when I read the discussion that had begun here was "Chassy worked for Monsanto as a lobbyist." Well, no, he didn't. He was never an employee of Monsanto, and never received a salary from them. He was never a professional lobbyist. His profession was as a university professor, and an expert in the subject matter of this page. (That does not mean that he is an unimpeachable source, nor does it mean that he personally witnessed the press conference.) But if hypothetically we had a bio page about Chassy, saying that he worked for Monsanto as a lobbyist would have been a BLP violation. And it is unnecessary, to establish that he was not the best source for what Seralini did at the press conference.

If, at a page about evolutionary science, we were to have a creationist POV-pusher come around and say that we could not cite a source written by an academic expert on evolution, because that expert had given lectures and received a speaking fee, and therefore had an apparent COI, that would be an incorrect reason to discount that source.

When I read that Chassy was a "lobbyist", my immediate reaction was to feel badly that I had supported using the source, and I retracted my previous support. I wasn't looking to prove any points. But when I realized that he was much less than a "lobbyist", I felt that there was overkill in making the case against citing him. Again, all that was needed was to point out that he had an apparent COI and was not present at the press conference and we have better sources. I keep seeing editors on this talk page treating sources as though editors are partisans in a dispute. We shouldn't be. One doesn't have to "go for the kill" (metaphorically speaking) to argue against using a source. And that goes in both "directions". There is also no need, for example, to demand that we say that Seralini claimed to have proven carcinogenicity at the press conference, when in fact he clearly denies having made that claim, simply to make him look extra bad. This page is under discretionary sanctions, and we can work on finding the best sources without making it a two-sided dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends how lobbyist and worked for are defined. The latter needn't refer to a salary; for me, it refers to anyone acting for an entity for compensation or even without it. In this case, the person was compensated. As for lobbyist, if I write to my MP to highlight the importance of clean streets, I'm lobbying. If I'm compensated for my efforts by Street Cleaners, Inc., I'm lobbying on their behalf (perhaps as well as on my own behalf).

Those words apart, the only thing I wanted to highlight was that the source had a COI in relation to Monsanto, however we express it.

I very much agree about trying to stop this page from being a two-sided dispute. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Break 2

Reading the above, I don't think we should use Chassy as the source for the press conference info because of the apparent COI and because he does not seem to have been at the press conference. I don't think he's a reliable source for that information. We shouldn't use him as the source for that kind of info just like we wouldn't use Folta -- there's an apparent COI, even if the scientists views are completely independent. If Seralini was "waving around" photos of rat tumors and it was a notable event, it would have been picked up by other reliable sources so we could actually verify the information.

Since we are on the subject, once we settle this issue, I'd like to take w closer look at the Arjo article that is cited throughout the body and in the lead. I think the primary author is or was a Monsanto investor and another f the authors has a similar conflict. Especially since there are BLP implications in this article, I think we need impeccable sources. I'd like to see if we can find some sources for the content besides the Arjo article. Minor4th 21:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pretty much come to the conclusion at this point that we ought not to say that Seralini actually displayed the photos at the press conference, and I do think it is appropriate to consider that Chassy was not present in person at the press conference. But I remain uncomfortable with dismissing a book written entirely by academics and published by a university press on the basis of "an apparent COI". There is a difference between a COI and a POV. I certainly think that Chassy and other scientists have a POV, as Seralini has a POV going the other way. But that does not mean that Wikipedia should treat those as "equivalent" POVs, requiring an equal balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole book isn't being dismissed on the basis of COI, just that one paper. Yes, COI and POV are not the same thing, but in this case Chassy has a clear financial COI, and it's not an apparent COI, but an actual one. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not dismissing the book as a reliable source. I was only commenting on Chassy not being a reliable source for the content about what happened at the press conferenceMinor4th 22:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Minor's question about sourcing, I found this helpful; not currently used that I can see. It's by the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie, and it seems detailed and knowledgeable. I haven't yet looked into COI issues, but on the face of it it looks like a fair overview. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I read that source, and it looks like an excellent one to use for this page. In light of the most recent discussions, it is worth looking at the examination of the press conference on the last page of the source. And the source also provides a lot of detail about the specific flaws in the Seralini paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I had looked at that source a couple days ago but I had no idea if it was reliable or not. Minor4th 22:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. It was the first source I saw that went into detail. It might be worth contacting them to ask about other sources for that press conference. Given how central the press conference has become to people's perception of what happened, it would be good if Wikipedia could publish a definitive account of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Chassy has a dog in the fight and if that is the sole source then it should not be included. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK then, I also agree that we should not use Chassy as a source for what happened at the press conference. I also remain supportive of the Vlaams source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should characterize experts who speak out about certain things as having a dog in the fight and being unreliable (the spurious COI claims from other editors don't help either). Right now, it's looking like Chassy is giving a bit more detail on something that other sources are more general about. I don't see this as conflicting sources at least. What's your thinking behind exclusion here Guy? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, there are lots of independent sources writing about this, so there's no need to cite COI sources, unless there's a particular point where they're the best source – e.g. the only one in a position to know. But in those cases, you flag the source to the reader, rather than presenting it in WP's voice. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that problematic COI sources shouldn't be used, but seeing as this source doesn't have a COI, there's no need to be discussing it here. As already mentioned, things like an unrestricted grant or a professor doing their job is not a COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)