Talk:March Against Monsanto

Marchers--200,000 or 2 million?

Other than the one source listed, do we have a lot of RS that reports the smaller number? The way it is written, On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000[5] to 2 million (according to the organizers)[6] makes it sound like the organizers are either telling porkies or are off somewhere in dreamland. I am aware of the blog post that said that 2 million was not possible and I am aware that several editors here believe the same, but as often happens here, we do need to go with sources. I believe that unless we have good RS that says otherwise, it would be best to just say "2 million according to the organizers".Gandydancer (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources give that range, so it seems logical to do the same. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree if the sources actually do say that, however our article says only " CTV News reported the total number of participants to be 200,000;[5] while the New York Times reported "hundreds of thousands" of protesters.[28", but I can no longer pull up anything from the NYTs. Do you have anything else? Gandydancer (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why you cannot pull up the NYT article, the link is still active and I just clicked on it and the article came up. You also mentioned that you are aware of the blog post, which if it is the one from the Washington Wire is a reliable source. It also explains the AP changing its claim throughout the different revisions. If we are just quoting the Marchers even if we say that is what the marchers are claiming we are not being accurate to what the true numbers probably are, which is much lower than 2 million. We could also create a "not a list" of the of locations which have Reliably Sourced information on the number of marchers. I have a list of 50 such locations, with an addition 25 or so that are self reported from the marches at the specific locations. VViking_TalkEdits 00:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that there are a range of estimates, as that always seems to happens with demonstrations and crowds. We should report the entire range of numbers. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no range of estimates, all large sources say "2 million". There are literally TWO sources who mention a smaller number: the CVT report which came out WHILE THE PROTESTS WERE ONGOING, so could NOT have counted the final numbers, and happened to use the estimate of 200,000 that was being given out by media prior to the event. The second mention was in the NYT recently, at the end of an article about oranges - we CANNOT use such a source to determine that major outlets declaring "2 million" were wrong. I have been saying this for months, yet people continue to support this abuse of RS, OR and SYNTH at this and every page where the protest is mentioned to minimize the March size. We as editors do not have the right to change was is reported by RS. petrarchan47tc 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, it really comes down to what's out there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How about reporting it as a range, but including all reliable sources as inline cites? That way, if there are only two for the lower number, and a lot more for the higher number, our readers can see that and judge the sources for themselves. Given how difficult it always is to determine the size of large crowds, I really see no compelling reason for Wikipedia editors to decide that there was only one possible correct number. Also, a question: do we have any sources for the higher number that attribute that number to someone independent of the organizers? I ask that, because it has a bearing on the significance of the numbers of sources. In other words, if there are numerous sources that repeat what the organizers told them, then that's something of an indication that numerous sources trusted what the organizers said, but it also means that there was no independent verification. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Because RS does not report the range, and there is no RS that can be used to support the 200,000 number. This isn't rocket science. We say what RS says, and it says unequivocally, "according to protesters, 2 million". So that is what Wiki says. If you want to give the reader this source mentioning "200,000", you must also show that the CVS source was published a couple of hours before the March had ended, allowing the reader to determine if this is a source they want to trust, or not. As for the NYT piece, we cannot use this as RS for anything other than GM oranges (the topic of the article), per the most basic read of WP:RS. The number was mentioned in passing at the end of the article, it was not an article about the march or its size and cannot be used to counter claims by ALL the large RS about the protest. petrarchan47tc 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I asked whether there were any sources for the higher number that did not attribute that number to the protesters, and I surmise from the lack of an answer that the answer is "no". Yes, I understand that there isn't an RS that describes a range. We have some RSs that provide one number, and some RSs that provide a different number, and disagreements between editors about the relative reliability of those sources. Actually, I like the idea of describing the high number as "according to the protesters" and the low number as "estimated before the march was over", although I understand it to have been very much while the march was in progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no RS that can be used to support the 200,000 number. If you want to give the reader this source mentioning "200,000", you must also show that the CVS source was published a couple of hours before the March had ended, allowing the reader to determine if this is a source they want to trust, or not. As for the NYT piece, we cannot use this as RS for anything other than GM oranges (the topic of the article), per the most basic read of WP:RS. YES there is RS that gives the two million claim without crediting the protesters, but I will allow you to look through the rs yourself. Note please that the claim i am arguing for is: "according to protesters, 2 million", so I'm unsure why you are asking this question. And please don't ever again assume if an independent editor doesn't answer you right away, that you can surmise anything except that they have a life outside of Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 05:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is another argument that has dragged on and on with groundless blocks being put up to frustrate editors that are trying to write the article per what the sources say. As Petrarchan has been saying, it's hardly possible to estimate the number of protestors while the protest is still going on, so it should be obvious that the 200,000 figure is not useful. As for the NYT article, it was not the intent of that article to make an estimate but to point out that hundreds of thousands recently publicly expressed that they don't want GMOs. I think that this argument is done and I'm going to change the article to what RS states. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with your language in the section. Not sure why CTV isn't reliable, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Both the 200,000 and 2,000,000 numbers should be included with their contexts/attributions. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000 +1. DanHobley (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that Gandydancer has rewritten it, largely in terms of "hundreds of thousands". I think that's an excellent solution. I like the way that the new language doesn't try to make more of the various numbers than the inherent precision allows. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, we can't change it to "hundreds of thousands" and literally ignore RS. Now we aren't even quoting the majority or sources which say 2 million. How did this happen? Oy vey. Changing it to what RS says. And will add the "according to organizers". petrarchan47tc 07:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, if we are going to print a 'range', it must be one found in reliable sources, and in ones written with enough time between the march and publication to allow for some research to influence content. The CVS story was published while the march was underway, and in some places had only begun. I realize jytdog found this source and added it, changing all the information Wiki had on the march in 3 separate articles to reflect this number and to create a 'range' which, as editors have noted, is not actually found in RS. The NYT article is about GM oranges, and merely mentions the march at the end. According to RS guildelines, this article cannot be used as a source for march numbers, especially given there is no supporting RS and that the number goes against all other RS which state "2 million". I know that we are all here to give the reader our best information according to what is in RS, apparently some just need to refresh their understanding? petrarchan47tc 07:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

All the "reliable sources" in the lede now are newspaper reports which state "according to organizers." How reliable are organisers of this sort of thing? This cannot be allowed to stand. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

From the [International Business Times] "The furor over the “Monsanto Protection Act” and GMOs reached fever pitch in May, when hundreds of thousands of people participated in a global protest known as the March Against Monsanto." From the [Daily News] "In May, shortly after Congress passed the original Farmer Assurance Provision, thousands of protesters participated in demonstrations dubbed the "March Against Monsanto." House Republicans passed an extension of the provision on Friday." I personally thought we had a concensus and a compromise that worked. VViking_TalkEdits 08:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We did, but consensus can change. For now, I've added both, but I still think hundreds of thousands is a better representation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Count me as agreeing with Roxy, VViking, and Thargor that the wording we had as of yesterday was the best option (although I can live with a range, properly formatted and cited). That wording was written by an editor who has hardly been anti-March or pro-GMO in the discussions at this page, and I continue to think that it was an elegant way to report what we have to deal with from the available sources. Saying "hundreds of thousands" is not adopting the low-end number from the sources, but rather reflects the range of estimates, giving due weight to what the organizers themselves claimed. And we need to drop this ongoing error of equating "reliable sources attributing the higher number to the organizers" with "reliable sources reporting the higher number through their own independent reporting". What happened was the former, not the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Something that is a problem with the current wording is that the placement of the phrase "according to the organizers" makes it unclear which numbers come from the organizers, and which do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

How about, for para3, the following? On May 25, 2013, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the march. Organizers estimated that two million protesters in 436 cities and 52 countries took part. Canal said that the movement would continue its "anti-GMO cause" beyond the initial event. with cites as in that sentence of course? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll look carefully after MOTD ;) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Been drinking beer and shouting at the TV, and hence cannot get the citations correct in my sandbox. I'll try again tomorrow. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have tried, and failed, four times to get those citations correct in my proposed version above, I'm not a very good editor! I'll keep trying though. It might be done by Xmas. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether to offer a sympathetic link to WP:There is no deadline, or just to say LOL! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Job done. Not sure why I had problems, and lots still to learn. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 11:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for thinking of this approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Source for attendees at March Against Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The number claimed by the organizers is fine to include as long as it is clearly said that way. Then this is clearly coverage of a claim, not of attendance. It would be automatically known that such will be a wildly inflated number. But other sourced information about attendance estimates should CERTAINLY be included. Otherwise there is no coverage in the article of actual estimated attendance, which is an important thing to cover. And the sourced data on individual marches certainly helps. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

False. True that we must attribute the number to organizers, false that we have proper sourcing for a lower estimate. Please take any sources you know of to refute my statement to the ongoing discussion at RS noticeboard. Pending such sourcing, we cannot make the claim online - this is a most basic rule of wiki. petrarchan47tc 18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The promoted double standard doesn't fly. Setting a very low standard for putting in a high (certainly wildly exaggerated) number, and promoting a high sourcing standard to exclude lower estimates.North8000 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My friend, thank you for sharing your opinion but as you know we build articles based on RS. It would be best for you to join the ongoing RS discussion linked to above. The CVS source has been consensed as bogus for this claim, even by jytdog who found and originally entered it. petrarchan47tc 18:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"[5] or "two million"[6] were variously cited." This is currently the lead, but should not be, for it gives equal weight to the obviously false claim of 2 million by the organizers to the reports made by non-partisan reporters. I suggest we revert the lead back to before all of Petrarchan's edits of October 11th and not edit it until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Sepsis II (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Obviously false" is not the position of a reliable source—although I have seen some opinions/blogs expressing it, they are not sufficiently reliable for us to regard the figure as officially debunked. Because there is at least one reliable source that supports each figure, both should be cited and given equal weight without treating either as authoritative. alanyst 19:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A relibale source repeating the organizers claim does not give that number any authorization. It is quite biased to give that equal weight. I have attributed the 2 million to the organizers as it should be. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just left the following note on the RS Board. the effort to temporarily settle this failed, as User:Petrarchan47 broke WP:3RR and reverted reference to the NY Times article in this dif with edit note "Removed false claim that "hundreds of thousands)" followed by a slight edit with edit note "Oops, didn't mean to press enter)" and a comment, out of place, (below) on Talk here continued arguing against citing the lower number at all, and asking "I have a special request, that no one take me to the 3RR noticeboard. I did make a correction, but didn't actually mean to press "enter" as I remembered I may have a few hours left before I'm allowed to change this bit again. Oops." If Petrarchan had used the 2nd edit to revert herself I would be inclined not to bring 3RR but that a) she did not and b) continued the arguments driving her edit warring and made no acknowledgement of discussion here about the numbers in general, I don't see why that special request should be honored. Looking for input from 3rd parties." P has broken 3RR in letter and most importantly, in spirit. If P wants to move her comment below, up here to this section that would be great but we should keep responses to it here, and the continuing discussion, to maintain some order. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting now I'm going to be off the grid for 9 days. I have been just trying to keep this to a reasonable "center". Petrarchan has been badly out of line on this, and trying to take this to an implausible extreme, and this needs to be stopped. Tryptofish has been a dispassionaate moderator and if they get involved, while I'm gone I support whatever they say. Looks like Jytdog is also very moderate and I support their efforts. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

North, since it's never a vote and since there isn't a cabal, that really isn't necessary. I've been watching this mess from a distance and will continue to watch it, but frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Media section (again)

I just wanted to re-start the discussion above about the media section. I think that the Alternet and Thom Hartmann stuff is OK. They are notable commentators, and the articles about them make it quite clear where they stand politically. Lack of media attention seems to be a major beef of the protesters, so having these notable advocates for their cause saying that is helpful. Again, as previously discussed, all this does is state how people of a particular political frame of mind view the marches and the reaction thereto. The reporting thereof is not Wikipedia endorsement. It would help a lot in restoring balance to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with including that material in that form, and I think that we have consensus for it. And I hope that we won't have to re-open that debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think Alternet is a good enough source to include here. I still think a single sentence is appropriate per WP:UNDUE, but I recognize that I'm not going to win that battle, but I feel very strongly about removing Alternet. They're not acceptable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, that's what happens when you re-start a discussion. Thargor, I hear you, but I think it's best to accept the current version, which is truly a compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with compromising on the weight. We, however, should not accept using unreliable sources simply because we like what they have to say. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Alternet is not a suitable RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternet is a suitable source for this topic, where corporate media failed to adequately cover the information. Search the RS noticeboard for "Alternet" to see where I got this information. The only caveat is to make sure and not use Wiki's voice, but to specify "According to Alternet". It seems that only alternative media has covered this protest with any depth. If indeed there is an interest on Wikipedia in keeping depth out of this article, I can see arguing for months and months against these alternative sources - but I cannot see any guideline-based reason we have been arguing about Alternet for literally months on an article that receives no more than 200 hits a day.</rant> petrarchan47tc 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternet is fine because it is not being used as a source about anyone but Alternet: its editorial stance on the media coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember that the purpose is to demonstrate a particular sentiment among people, essentially on the left I believe. Alternet seems to be a left-leaning operation, and since it is notable it deserves inclusion. We're treating it here as we would any notable source of opinion, any person or organization. We are not using Alternet as a source for, say, an assertion on the safety of GMOs. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is a noteworthy sentiment, it would exist in reliable sources, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, in Alternet. That is a reliable source for its own views, and Alternet is a notable organization. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't about whether they're a notable organization, but whether they're a reliable source for viewpoints. They're making a very specific claim, and I do not agree that simply attributing that claim to them absolves us of using them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

They're making a general comment, and not one that's particularly bizarre, nor is it directed at any one person or organization. That's why it doesn't bother me too much to use it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It may not be bizarre, but when they're making a statement as such, they've not shown the reliability to be looked upon for such a claim. I'd prefer us to lose it if we cannot source it reliably. We have far too much reliance on unreliable sources on Wikipedia as is, and this article is shaping up to be better in part because we're demanding good sourcing. Let's not abandon that for the sake of cognitive biases. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I think your conflating their reliability as sources with, I guess, a kind o general unreliability such that you don't think they're worth quoting. I don't look at it quite that way. Their political tilt is well known, and I really don't see the harm of their being relied upon for the purpose of stating their opinion. I assume they are reliable enough to reflect their own opinion! That's all we need, that and their notability, which seems indisputable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't being used as a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact: Alternet is reporting that no one carried the protest live, using ideological language to do so. I don't see any evidence that they are reliable enough for that statement of fact, and if we can verify their claim, we should use a better source to do so. This should not be a negotiable situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the statement of opinion, which I think should resolve this, making it plainer that this is a statement of opinion. I think we need this for balance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I see the change as worse. We're attributing more to a bad source, while dampening the point that you believe it to be an opinion even though they're reporting it as fact. I again request that we not use this at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I thought that your point had some validity. We were utilizing Alternet as a source on a factual statement. Now it's framed entirely as opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording ("asserted" instead of "said") to make that even clearer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is twofold: 1) Alternet is reporting it as fact, not opinion (a key problem with advocacy journalism) and Alternet simply isn't reliable enough to be used in that manner, and 2) Alternet isn't reliable enough to be used that way. By trying to attribute it as an opinion, we're now misusing the source on top of the inherent problems. I again ask why we need it at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Coretheapple here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, if this was a BLP I'd go along with you. But I think that for a general commentary on media coverage it is fine. Remember too that all editorials state their opinions as "fact," but are viewed overall as opinions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. On the negative side, it gives more weight, on the boundary between due and WP:UNDUE, to the fringe conspiracy theory that the media actually ignored something that they should not have. On the positive side, it presents a view associated with the March, and it does a better job than earlier versions of this page at attributing the opinion, rather than implying that Wikipedia accepts the opinion. I agree in part with Core, in that it is not misrepresenting the source as an "opinion", in that the description as "sparse" is clearly intended by the source as editorializing, in contrast to reporting a statement of fact, such as the follow-up at CNN. Because this page is about fringe views, and because we provide the kind of balance that the fringe guideline requires by including the first paragraph of the section, I'm leaning towards accepting that it's OK. I can still be persuaded to shorten it a bit, but I would oppose moving it away from a direct quote, in quotation marks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe now it would be WP:DUE to delete the Bachman/Wisconsin reference. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I now think we should delete the part about Bachman. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, good sourcing is not limited only to BLPs. There is nothing to indicate in the source that it's an editorial, unless you're saying all Alternet pieces are editorials, which, in that case, I question the need for this on yet another level. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As I just said, I think that we can reasonably read the source itself, as written, as presenting some of what it contains, including the choice of the descriptor "sparse", as opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Tryptofish's edits resolve any remaining issues. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think there is now an issue that we should delete Bachman, as I also just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the objection to Bachman? I'm not getting that link to work. We may want to hear arguments from whomever added it. That Wisconsin paper appears to be a reliable source. I don't know who this Mr. Bachman is, however, and hesitate doing so without hearing who he is and reading what he has to say. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Google cache articles, I'm not finding that particular article, though my sense is that Bachman may not exactly be oozing with notability out of every pore. But I am reluctant to remove the pro-marcher viewpoint as I feel that it is not adequately expressed in this article, and it adds balance. Again, let's hear further discussion please. Coretheapple (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, V added two sources, this one and another from a weekly news. Unlike Hartmann's opinion, I never felt that either of them were significant enough to cite for an opinion and I stated that at the time. On the other hand, Hartmann was robustly argued about, with quite a few editors holding the belief that his opinions should be deleted because they were "not correct". Mention of him was reduced to the one line that the article now has. Gandydancer (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should take it out, then? This Wisconsin person seems to be a small-town newspaper columnist. I hesitate to include him, as it does seem odd to include such a minor person in this article. Sort of diminishes the article a little. Hartman, OTOH, is notable and well known. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, the issue with Bachman has been that it's really a small-town kind of thing, and comes across as just tacking on every source that one can find for commentators who expressed the view that there was too little coverage. I think that it's clear that Hartmann, in contrast, should be kept on the page. For the most recent past discussions, please see #7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint, where most of the discussion was about the Alternet material, but there's a cross-section of recent opinion, and #Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, where Bachman specifically was discussed. At the time, I felt that we need not remove Bachman, but I now have changed my mind, because we now have a more extensive treatment of the Alternet material, and consequently, Bachman doesn't add anything new, and seems a bit trivial in context. Because of all the past discussion, I didn't want to make the edit without new discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The issue with the link is that it requires a paid subscription. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just getting a broken link at that location. I hesitate to include, but I hesitate to exclude for reasons of balance. I don't like the idea of a small town paper columnist, but I don't like the idea of shifting the POV of the article. to be or not to be....Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to take you to task for that! Don't you know that this talk page is only for the use of paid editors who are working for one POV or another? :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a trial edit of giving Hartmann another line and deleting the Bachman entry. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more okay with the Hartmann section if we focused on his "corporate media" claim as opposed to the still-false claim that the coverage was scant. I think we're giving a lot of airtime to these views and we're falling out of balance again. As this section is about the media coverage of the March, we need to give care about the types of claims being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously from what I already said, I agree with you about Bachman, thanks. I'm not wild about the further content from Hartmann, however, because all it really does is expand on his opinions about something unrelated to the March. If there is evidence that Monsanto, specifically, does what Hartmann surmises, then let's present it with reliable sourcing. Otherwise, it just puts Wikipedia in the position of repeating something that implies that Monsanto did something nefarious, based only on a rather fringe opinion piece. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I just made some further edits, with the intention of making the additional content from Hartmann more concise, without removing it entirely. Basically, I tried to make it into more of his explanation of his view of the coverage of the March, without going into all his views about the media in general. As those edits stand, we have swapped out Bachman for a clarification of Hartmann, and I think that's a net positive. If that works for other editors, then it's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I had expected that my opposing POV "trial edit" would last long enough to discuss it, but that does not seem to be the case. You have instantly changed it to a "trial edit" to suit your own POV and now expect discussion. I will not attempt any further edits for a few days. Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a POV. Go ahead and discuss anything you want. Go ahead and make any edits you want. There's no such thing as a "trial edit" that is required to be kept intact without further modifications until the trial editor gives permission. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said to you before, and am repeating now, having taken a look at the article edit history, you appear to have an issue with WP:OWN. In my opinion, the changes you made to the edits of Core and Gandy did not make the content more clear, but far less so. petrarchan47tc 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sure you'll say it again. As for Core's edits: [1]. As for Gandy's, they were described in the edit summary as a "trial edit". Most editors understand that as something similar to a "bold edit" in WP:BRD. And nobody reverted. And there was discussion here. Insisting that no one else make edits until given permission, that actually could be considered OWN.

But let's actually look at the content. The sentence I altered read: "In Hartmann's opinion, because the media is beholden to corporate advertisers they avoid topics that may make their sponsors appear in a negative light, and instead tend to focus on what he calls 'the new system of infotainment.'" I shortened it to the phrase, "which he attributed to the media avoiding topics that might make their advertisers appear in a negative light,". So what, exactly, did I make "less clear"? That the media is beholden, and that there is now what he calls "the new system of infotainment". Is Hartmann's theory of infotainment a part of anti-GMO protests? Is the word "beholden" important to an NPOV presentation of this section of the page? Or is this complaint just more assumption of bad faith? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your change looks clearer to me, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

checking in

I've been away from this article for a long time, and just read the article as it stands this morning. I was pleasantly surprised with the big picture- the article seems to be pretty NPOV, complete and well sourced, with appropriate sections of appropriate length. Overall the background is presented well, and the protestors concerns are very clearly stated, without rebuttal, in the Positions section. Clearly there are lots of emotions running high here but I just wanted to say that it seems to me that the process has worked - you all have done a great job providing an encyclopedic article on the March. Congrats on that.

It is unclear to me what major structural issues are left to resolve - seems to me mostly arguments about details now (by details I mean things like what to say about the number of protestors). So I am curious - does anybody think major revisions are still needed to the structure, or to the length of any sections (in other words, the amount of detail to go into), or is it really now about details/tweaks? Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're definitely right. At this point, I think we're in agreement as to expanding some of the March sections with care as to how to do so. Looking good, thankfully. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Se "POV concerns" section and the ones following it for the remaining concerns regarding this article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me restate that I am not in agreement with repeating the same claims in different words. I have no problem with stating the marchers beliefs, and claims fully but we must do this only once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, the article is certainly much better than it was but the language could still be made more encyclopedic, as I did, without complaint, to the 'Positions' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism???

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that to report what someone said in indirect speech, as in 'Organizer Canal points to Michael Taylor, a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA, saying that she believes that US food regulatory agencies are so deeply embedded with Monsanto that it's useless to attempt to affect change through governmental channels', is plagiarism and that every word spoken must be in quotes.

Plagiarism is attempting to pass someone else's work off as your own. The words, 'are so deeply embedded with Monsanto that it's useless to attempt to affect change through governmental channels' are clearly attributed to their author, Canal, so I can see no argument for plagiarism. If any editor really believes that these 17 words are being plagiarised than we can surely rewrite the section in our own words but I really do not think this is necessary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am getting so tired of all the insinuations of bad faith at this page. Martin, I agree with you that it is nothing more than a personal attack to accuse you of plagiarism. You knew that there were quotation marks, and you made a choice to delete them, so there is no way that you could have intended to mislead other users into thinking that you were passing off someone else's words as your own.

But, Martin, I disagree with you too, on a matter of content, as I have said, over and over again, before. As I have previously said on this talk page, there is no reason to run screaming "eek, eeek, it's a quote, help, save me!!!" every time we see quotation marks. Quotation marks are not evil, and they don't need to be expunged from the page. They don't, in and of themselves, make the page less encyclopedic, nor do they, in and of themselves, increase the argumentativeness of the page. There has come to be a consensus here that the protesters ought to be quoted directly, and that their views should be featured prominently on this page, so long as they are clearly attributed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really have no idea what either of you is talking about. "blurry line between..." were not my words and needed to be quoted in the way that WP guidelines suggests for Right: The New York Times reviewer found the film "pretentious and boring".[2]. How the fact that I pointed that out can be an attack of Martin is beyond me. How can that possibly be twisted to mean that I was accusing Martin of attempting to "mislead other users into thinking that [he was] passing off someone else's words..." Oh really, this is all just too nutty for words. I am just sick to death of all this drama. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thanks for your understanding but I do have to disagree with you on quotation marks. I think they are unencyclopedic; you very rarely see them in printed encyclopedias. Of course, they do have their place for cases where the words spoken were famous or possess some special literary merit but that is not the case here. In this particular case they draw the eye to the words and thus give undue prominence to the views of the speaker. The only case I think they are justified here is in showing the words written on the marchers' banners.

Normally encyclopedia articles are written in prose and in the words of the writers. What reason is there for wanting to have so many quotations in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I think the way it is on the page at the time of my timestamp is just fine. So I guess I'm the only one in this talk thread who is happy. I'll leave it to you two to work things out with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I am not taking this too personally but you sometimes seem to revert what I thought were uncontentious edits of mine very quickly.

The WP:plagiarism article starts, 'The University of Cambridge defines plagiarism as: "submitting as one's own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement."

It goes on to say that it is correct to use 'Indirect speech—copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation' and it gives the example 'John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was the most boring book he had ever read'. That is pretty much what I did.

My objection to excessive quotations in this article is that it presents a confrontational style, more like that of a newspaper. Too much 'Canal said GM foods were poison', Monsanto said, 'No they are not they are helping to feed the world' is not how encyclopedias should be written. The "double quotes" in particular also draw the eye to the words and give then undue prominence on the page. Quotations also seem to be being used as an excuse to say what is essentially the same thing several times as in 'X said, "GM foods are poison"', 'Y said, "GM foods have serious health implications"', 'Z said, "Eating GM foods can be bad for you"'. The sentiment is clear and we need only say it once.

What are your reasons for wanting to keep quotes in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, just to be clear: although I indicated that I was stepping back from this discussion for now, I meant what I said about what is on the page right now, so please be aware that I will probably revert you if you remove the quote marks again. And I've already given my reasons, multiple times. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think your opinion overrules the WP policy that I have quoted above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Because my opinion has nothing to do with plagiarism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict--I have not read the above post)I don't have anything to work out with Martin--the phrase "a blurry line between industry and government" is difficult to paraphrase and to avoid plagiarism should have quotation marks. If Martin thinks otherwise and calls them "scare quotes" he is wrong. Period. You are the one that jumped in to stir the pot by suggesting that I was making a personal attack and accusing Martin of plagiarism. On one hand some editors are suggesting that we add more on the MAM position to the article, so I did, but once again the arguments and accusations begin. I'm going to leave this article again and come back if and when editing is not such an endless nightmare. I have better ways to spend my time. Gandydancer (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I have made very few deletions of anybody's work in this article. However you removed the quotes from copy that I added which would leave my copy as plagiarised, since it was not my own/Wikipedia's own words, and I believe that I was correct in doing so. Gandydancer (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general observation, I find in controversial articles it's quite good to use direct quotations (attributed) as then there can be no argument over how the source is represented, and no scope for "tweak wars" as the content is bent back and forth to suit the POV of rival factions. When the content and atmosphere has settled down it may then be time to smooth things over into indirect flowing prose. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess that makes life easier but, in my opinion, it creates a worse encyclopedia. Why not just print excerpts for all the sources and leave our readers to work everything out for themselves. But as it looks like the consensus is to keep this article a a repository of quotes I will leave it now. Good luck people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RT?

RT has been brought up several times on the RS notice board:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_Russia_Today_a_valid_source
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article
• and here is the criticism section from its wikipedia article: Russia_Today#Objectivity.2C_bias_and_criticism

My takeaway from all that, is that is probably fine for simple facts ("there was a plane crash on Oct 3..") as it is a news org, but that it should be taken with a big grain of salt on anything controversial. This article has four separate citations to articles at RT. note 2, cited 4 times; note 24, cited once; note 38, cited once; note 43, cited once, for a total of 7 cites. That is more than any other source outside the AP. Since this topic is controversial (clearly) how do folks feel about reducing our reliance on RT to make the article stronger? (I am not suggesting taking out any content, just using stronger RS for what is there) Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be off wiki/ the grid for > a week within a few hours. IMHO the question is what are the statements that the source is being used to support, and does the source have sufficient actual expertise & objectivity to support it. (and also meet wp:rs criteria which is unrelated to actual reliability). Beyond that vaguery, your thought process sounds good, although I don't have expertise on the source nor have I analyzed its use in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of using it period, are we using it for anything we can't already get somewhere else? The press freedom issues in Russia alone should give us great pause in what we use from that area. Thargor Orlando (talk)

I have a special request, that no one take me to the 3RR noticeboard. I did make a correction, but didn't actually mean to press "enter" as I remembered I may have a few hours left before I'm allowed to change this bit again. Oops.

The problem is that while it is true the NYT mentioned MAM in a wee blurb, we aren't giving the reader this information. The wording was such that one is left thinking both a high and low number were cited with somewhat equal frequency. However, the NYT article is standing up against a goo deal of WP:RS with its mention, which as you know probably came from Wikipedia, as this number is not be found anywhere else on the web. This is worrisome to me, because my warnings about the CVS source, which took 3 months and a noticeboard to get you all to agree with, were ignored long enough that this claim, this idea based on a bogus source became fact. The NYT picked it up, one must assume (pending a reply from the author with her source for the number), and now in a very twisted turn of events, we're trying to turn around and use the NYT source to insinuate that media in general was all over the map on the numbers. They were not. They all had no problem citing the organizers, which is sufficient for Wikipedia according to the rules. I think we have proper sourcing to claim: the organizers said 2 million - and - no independent evaluation was done. If we want to mention the NYT article, well, we can't say much except that one article about oranges mentioned the March and used a number 1/20th the size of all other media. It seems a bit awkward to mention that some barely-related NYT article that was published two months after the march mentioned a different number (but did not give its source). When we are trying to make a claim that is so fringe and using it to counter all other media, this particular article does not begin to meet the requirements. But this source and claim can go to the RS noticeboard.

Regarding RT, there is no question that RT meets the requirements of RS. And in the case of MAM, the only media outlet that is so far covering tomorrow's MAM happens to be RT. The last march had coverage from only a few large US outlets, and the coverage found in them and in RT was completely in alignment. The information and tone were no different, but RT did much more extensive coverage. Anyway, another noticeboard for RT is forthcoming, apparently. petrarchan47tc 07:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Regarding RT, there is no question that RT meets the requirements of RS." There's no such thing as an "RS"; sources are only reliable in respect to certain claims. RT is a sometimes dubious publication, so needs to be used with caution, if at all. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect to RT, I brought the discussions from the reliable source notice board on RT, which you are not acknowledging either. Jytdog (talk)

User:Petrarchan47, first, you can self-revert to avoid 3RR. Second, there appears to be a lot of question regarding RT and its use as a reliable source. That the Russian government had wrecked the idea of an independent media so significantly in that area should give us pause of using any source of Russian origin in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a bit of this. Some of the RT cites were redundant (there were say 3 cites for the same bit of content) and added no independent value, so I was able to take them away. I didn't change any content. The article looks more credible and well-sourced now, at least to me. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

sync tag?

User:Alexbrn would you please explain the tag? difficult to address w/out specifics... Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SYNC. In general, since this part of the section is summarizing the Genetically modified food controversies article, it should look a lot like the lede of that very article. However, it seems to take a less neutral stance: what stuck out was the sentence "Some farmers, doctors, researchers, and consumers have questioned the safety of GM foods": this is summarizing that article in a different way to how it summarizes itself in its lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks for replying. i don't know how long you have been working on this article - I was around at the beginning and left after a month of so, because things got too ugly here. I know from a 10,000 foot level that this section looks like your typical stub section, left after a split occurred, and generally I am 100% with you that the stub should pretty be identical with the lede of the split article. But that is not the situation here. It's my understanding, that the current section was the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of editors trying to reach consensus on how to deal with the background of the march; some editors wanted to make sure the scientific consensus on the food-safety piece of GM food was stated somewhere, and there were roaring battles about how to do that... this section was the result that everybody found to be good enough. I am not sure that copying the lede of the GM controversies would fly. I would support it, but I am not sure that others here would. And I want to respect their hard work at reaching consensus. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Like you, I was here at the start and have kept away for a while. I don't think we should just transclude the GMO controvery article's lede, but we should definitely be in alignment with it - otherwise this article is a fork using the march as a vehicle to reach different conclusions about the controversy as a whole than our main consensus article (as was feared would happen at the start). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Using that line of thought, would it follow that an anti-abortion march article would need to be seen as "a fork using the march as a vehicle to reach different conclusions about the controversy as a whole than our main consensus article (Abortion)? Would we need to include factual information that contradicted the so-called facts that the marchers used? Gandydancer (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about those articles. But here we're using a "main" template and referencing another article for "background". We are obligated to represent that article (in WP parlance the "detail article") accurately, and not introduce novel/differing material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually that information does not belong in this article at all--none of it. This article is about a protest movement against a corporation. It should have never gotten into the GMO debate in the first place. Note, for example, that the Anti-abortion movements does not feel the need to include information from the Abortion article or other pro-choice articles to show that actually anti-abortion movements are not based in science, in reality, or in some sort of spiritual mandate. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That was an interesting argument. I just looked at the Anti-abortion movements article and United States pro-life movement. The former had no statements that were FRINGE; the latter had one that I saw (about mental health and abortion) and the consensus view was indeed juxtaposed. So I don't think your description of FRINGE not being applied in those articles is accurate. but it may be that you have worked on them closely and I missed something? Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, my post was done in haste and poorly done... Since my argument is that this protest is about a protest, not the GMO controversy, if a world-wide anti-abortion protest were to be organized and have a WP article, would we feel the need to educate and "set our readers straight" about the "truth" about abortion by pointing to various WP articles? Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That might be an interesting topic, but it's not one for this article's talk page ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree alexbrn. Gandy is talking about this article; she is making an argument from analogy which I find a reasonable way to argue. Gandy, the answer would be yes -- if the article wanted to present a protesters' position, that abortion is bad for women because it makes them mentally ill, I would hope that the editors working on it would make clear that as a statement about reality this is a fringe viewpoint. If the article presented a protesters' viewpoint, that God hates abortion, there is no scientific-based consensus one can point to. (although some theologians might say this is a fringe position in their world) In this article, I was very curious how the content would work out, that was focused on protesters' positions and concerns about FRINGE. As it turned out, scientific consensuses about GMOs (as far as they exist) are clearly stated, and the protesters' beliefs are clearly stated, too, both in language that is pretty NPOV and uncluttered. (I imagine using the word "belief" in stating protesters' concerns was the result of some intense discussions) I respect the work you all did, a lot, especially in the toxic environment that was here. I doubt anybody finds it perfect, but it is good, and it seems to have achieved stability, which is a huge accomplishment.Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a different point. However if it is here, it must sync with the main article. (On the question of whether it should be here or not, I'd have thought it was fairly obvious WP:FRINGE applies, so the views of the protestors needs to be juxtaposed with something sensible). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not open up the debate again about leaving fringe viewpoints unchecked. There's no indication that the consensus has changed on that matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the response gandy made, is the kind of response that i feared your tag would bring, alexbrn. nobody is going to have the perfect MaM article that they want - a lot of compromises are needed by everybody and putting stakes in the ground (as in we "must" do anything) is not going to go far. now that the shoe has dropped and it is clear that the consensus that acheived this section is fragile, i think it is best left alone. I suggest the tag come off. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a biggie, so I wouldn't want to break consensus for it. However, this cuts both ways since the main article now is also a little less adamant than our summary: it no longer invokes "scientific consensus" for example. I just see it as a housekeeping task to keep summaries in sync with the things-they-summarize; this really shouldn't be something that's a subject for debate. If editors have a quarrel with how the GMO controversy is characterized on WP, the place to do that is the GMO Controversies article. If successful, we can sync to the changed text ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)