Pablo Calfucura

Welcome!

Hello, Pablo Calfucura, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GMO & pesticide topics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As the above mentions, this is just informational for you since the subject has additional restrictions (such as engaging in multiple reverts) compared to the rest of the encyclopedia. While I won't discourage anyone from editing the topic, it isn't any easy area for new editors either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Monsanto. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Also, WP:WAR warning. Zefr (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To try to clarify, you cannot put sentences together which imply conclusions for which there is no source. Please read WP:SYNTH. You wrote: (1) Fabian Tomasi (fumigator) for years worked with Monsanto's product, "RoundUp". (2) He contracted polyneuropathy which led him to his early death in 2018. Any reader is entitled to read this as meaning that (1) caused (2). There's no reason to put the two sentences next to one another unless you are inviting the reader to draw this conclusion. This is absolutely classic synthesis.

You could write something like Fabian Tomasi worked for years with Monsanto's product, "RoundUp". He believed that this caused him to contract polyneuropathy which led to his early death. if, and only if, there is a source that says exactly this. Then to maintain WP:NPOV, this would need to be followed by a sourced statement about the evidence connecting Roundup with polyneuropathy. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Everything was properly quoted, I copy pasted the text you mentioned and I've added a direct reference to the statement (something I already had), and a scientific study linking neurophaty and glyphosate (something that I didn't claim, the person in the picture did). The ammendements matching all your suggestions have been published, and again they were reverted with almost no explanation, withithin less than 10 seconds of being published--Pablo Calfucura (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC).

Monsanto

On my talk page, you said: "In the article about Monsanto, where did I express my own opinion or comments? Please quote the part were I did so, so that I can correct it. I can put quotes to any part of it. I'm really the one that's claiming that the article is not neutral, as it doesn't show one side of the argument. I added links to several articles, both from Argentina and the US were you can see all of that information expressed. Tell me how to modify the text but leaving the picture and let's try to reach a middle ground. But if you guys keep reverting the changes with no real explanation, just to erase one side of the argument, I will have to call for arbitration."

First, be sure to sign and timestamp your talk page comments by using the script icon in the upper left of the edit box. You have good advice for writing the 2 sentences recommended by Peter above, if you could provide a WP:RS source. One example of poisoning - if it were possible to scientifically prove it (doubtful) - is cherry-picking information, WP:CHERRYPICK. An encyclopedia needs much more evidence and medical sourcing specifically for polyneuropathy. --Zefr (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added studies and notes, you can see this paper detailing the findings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5498212/ Still, my intention was not to claim that glyphosate generated neurophaty (I'm not making any claims), but rather informing of a key figure that's on one side of the discussion. I hope you'll understand that an article has to show both sides of an argument, either you agree with them or not.--Pablo Calfucura (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

PMID 28566611 is a clinical case report on one person. Wikipedia is not a journal or term paper where background, low-quality studies are evaluated as examples to debate a medical topic. See the left pyramid at WP:MEDASSESS where a case report is a low level of primary evidence. There is no good example of where a case report represents encyclopedic medical content. It is not "balance" when a low-quality case report is used to counter the preponderance of evidence in a WP:MEDREV review, a review of substantial scientific consensus, or government regulatory decision. --Zefr (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)