Talk:March Against Monsanto

IIVeaa aka 1Veertje removed a whole table of data

Objection!!! Dear IIVeaa, aka 1Veertje, Why removed the whole table of data in March Against Monsanto without giving people time to more complete it?

I spent 7 hours till 04:00 to do it and I　had to sleep. And other poeople sure have also spend many good hours on top.

Do you really want wikipedia work for the best of all people?

Or are you just doing it for your own rules?

Do you have stock or funds or interested or know anyone related to Monsanto & alike??

218.102.187.145 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If 1Veertje really want Wikipedia to work for good clause,

and if you see a table messed up by someone,

why not correct the table format as you are experienced?

Deleting hours of works by several other people is very inconsiderate, if not rude.

218.102.187.145 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue why you would mention my old username, but as Jytdog already pointed out: there are valid reasons for removing it. Oh, and stop accusing all and everyone of being a Monsanto pr person without having any foundation for such claims. Hint: PR people usually work during office hours, not on weekends. I came by this article after I transferred pictures of the Amsterdam event from Flickr to commons, so you really have no basis for saying that-Vera (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

i started this page. i work for an organic seed company which is in a law suit against Monsanto. i want GMOs banned and i want to put Monsanto out of business. And i try hard to work inside the wikipedia format. The data you were working on i am fairly confident is the table from the MAM website of all the cities which were organizing marches. This is completely inappropriate for wikipedia. First off, there is absolutely no way to verify that this was not just made up by the event organizers (i am confident it was not, but it does not matter). Secondly, if you wanted to insert the table, you should complete it in your user space or in a sandbox and then when it is ready post it up, rather than working on the live version, especially of a contentious article like this one was likely to be. Third, the time you spend doing work to put it up is irrelevant if you are formatting work is being done on data which is not verifiable enough for this community. It is not rude to take your stuff down, it is exactly how wikipedia does and should operate. i agree with you politically completely, but there is no conspiracy here, you are not using this tool correctly. Paxus Calta (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow thanks for posting, Paxuscalta. First please let me thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with respect to this article. Hopefully you are aware of WP:COI. And thank you as well for helping 218.102.187.145 understand what happened. That was very kind of you! Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are most welcome. i am aware of the WP:COI and i strive to stay within the best practices to mitigate my COI effect. In this case, with dozens of editors now involved in the entry, i take some pride in much of my original text still being included in the article. And while my formating was a bit weak, as is often the case, other editors have come in and cleaned up after me and what started as a weak and messy article is now a somewhat robust post, with many external references. It seems like we will soon resolve the call for deletion probably in favor of keeping the post. Paxus Calta (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto march

hello,

i just noticed that this page was scheduled to be deleted. I don't see a valid reason for a complete wipeout of someone's hard work to share information. If anything maybe a revising or something else. Deleting an entire entry which took place in many areas of the world is not only ignorant but bordering on malefaisance(sp).

this person may have sections which are incomplete, but i am certain people will be visiting this site. i have a large account on twitter and i posted a note on this because i perceive this to infringe on freedom of expression. i know that there are many countries which ban the freedom of expression, but as a military vet, i believe i have the right to learn about the multinational presence of monsanto.

all i know is that a march did indeed take place yesterday and i reiterate,i would expect a revision not so much as a deletion as i saw nothing majorly wrong with the article. i do not know the person who submitted this article at all by the ways.

show some integrity please. thank you! samantha a.k.a. Miibiiiiii (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Table of data are removed way too fast too fishy

The event took places in hundreds of cities.

It need time to let users around the world to help complete the data.

I seriously suspected that some people who did that are biased.

WHY　someone removed data so fast? Monsanto-hired PR people?

I know people have invested heavily in stocks or funds of bio-techs +/ food manufacturing conglomerates.

Personally I have not participated or organized or know anyone in person related to the marches.

Just a sense of justice.

218.102.187.145 (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the table several times, and have explained the rationale: the content was unsourced and promotional in effect. To be accused of affiliation with Monsanto--I voted 'keep' in the AfD discussion--is the wrong path to take here. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that your hard work was lost User 218.102.187.14 - I know what that is like! However user 99.149.85.229 is correct. Content in Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources. Please, please read WP:RS. The table from the organizers' website is not a RS - secondary sources are necessary to support the data that goes in the table. Users around the world cannot complete the data based on their own observations - that would violate one of the polices of Wikipedia, namely the one against original research.Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of attendees

I've removed estimates of how many people supposedly attended the march as I don't consider them reliable. CTV said 200k attended, but don't explain how they reached this. The organisers claimed that 2 million people attended 436 marches, but based on the numbers who attended individual marches this doesn't stack up. 2 million / 436 = ~ 5000 but I can't find any other than the Portland march which was anywhere near this. Unless we can find something that is realistic, I think it is better to leave it out of the article. SmartSE (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've used the RT article as a source for 2 million. Check the reliable sources noticeboard for questions regarding their standing, if you have further questions. petrarchan47tc 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also adding the Washington Post statement that organizers claimed the same number. The organizers' number was important enough to merit inclusion in the first paragraph of a WaPo story - to question it's inclusion here only raises red flags that there is some weird attempt at censorship, imo. petrarchan47tc 19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's better, although I think it is clear that RT are only using the organisers' claims rather than reaching it themselves. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Think so? CNN just said unequivocally that "millions" took part in the march see?. petrarchan47tc 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. It a reliable source, so go ahead and put it in. It is slop journalism (the 3 numbers old Jake cites are directly from the organizers, but unattributed to them and stated in CNN's voice) but is clearly allowable under the rules as far as I can tell - so if that is what you want your Wikipedia to be made of, knock yourself out and I don't think anybody can stop you. Salon and others have handled this much more responsibly, as did you earlier today. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/26/up_to_2_million_march_against_monsanto/ Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you're arguing the event was attended by millions, but you'd rather Salon were quoted rather than CNN? Just trying to get clarity on your stance. No one is going to stop you from adding the Salon article, if it meets RS. (I'd like to see proof that it does.) Jytdog, strange comments about no one being able to stop me are untrue and unnecessary, please stick to content and leave personal comments out, yes? Remember your stance on bullshit? What I want for "my Wikipedia" is that editors follow guidelines, whether they agree with them or not, that includes WP:RS, and refrain from trying to minimize or delete verifiable encyclopedic content. petrarchan47tc 23:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I still don't know how many people attended -- no secondary source has reported a global estimate that appears to be based on their own work. As I have found 2ndary found sources for local rallies I have added them along with attendance reported by those 2ndary sources. (I have added them! I am trying to be helpful.) That is all I know. CNN took the 3 numbers (total attendance, cities, and countries) that the organizers have been repeating and reported them in its own voice, without attributing them to the organizers. So, you now have a secondary source that has reported the 2M number in its own voice. Under policy you can use it, and under policy nobody can revert you, as far as I know. That is what I am saying. I am also saying that CNN did bad journalism, since they didn't attribute the numbers but reported them as fact. But they did it. I think it is reasonable for the article to state, "According to organizers, 2M attended" as the article said at some point earlier today. I think it is bad for Wikipedia to state the 2M attendees as a fact until we have a secondary source that is actually reporting and not just repeating unattributed statements from the organizers. But now you can do it, under the "letter of the law", thanks to Jake at CNN. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Well, the AP is using their own voice too to claim 2 million. I left the link after the first claim in the intro. petrarchan47tc 08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

CNN must have changed their article: it now states that the "2 million" estimate comes from organisers. Maybe they're watching this page. (Hi!)

I agree with Jytdog that the 2m figure seems to originate an organiser estimate, and we should probably describe it as such. IMO our current system for establishing facts gives too much credence to sources in the corporate news. IMO we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. At the same time, I understand Petrarchan47's frustration, since editors elsewhere "get away with" reproducing claims that may be even shakier. An obvious example would be that "government estimates" are accepted as fact where "organiser estimates" are not, though governments also have incentives to misrepresent facts.

I imagine that better estimates will emerge as folks pick through the primary source reports from the different locations. groupuscule (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Very good points indeed, you've pointed out a major bias on Wikipedia - government stats are considered RS, and "activists" are just the opposite, regardless of track records. petrarchan47tc 23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

i agree with SmartSE, the math does not add up. If we assume that the number of cities have some protest is approximately correct at 436, then the protests would have had to be larger than have been reported, especially in larger metro areas like NYC, LA and Chicago. i attended the DC march, there were perhaps 1,000 people there. The 2 million number, despite being advanced by some media, is likely fanciful. And as i have said before, i support the campaign against Monsanto.Paxus Calta (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Luckily WP:RS makes it simple for us, since we aren't investigators per WP:OR, we go with what sources say. I think using "estimated" covers our bases. petrarchan47tc 08:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Paxuscalta, I very much doubt that the 436 number is correct. Looking at my state (Maine) they have three cities listed and the Maine capitol, Augusta, is not one of them--which would seem odd even if one did not know as a matter of fact that a very large crowd turned out in Augusta. I also know that Bangor and Rockland had good turnouts. I'd guess that almost every sizable village in Maine had some turnout. A friend tells me that Minnesota had a big turnout as well. Facebook is a very powerful tool for organizers to use. Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Gandydancer - Thank you for your insight. What i should have said was that the 436 number is a reasonable floor for the event and that there are quite possibly protests which did not organize using Facebook, which were thus not counted as these 436 were. Paxus Calta (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• sources dispute the figures as bollocks: [1] and other sources give more realistic numbers. This figure should not be included, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

lead/intro needs clarification

In the fourth sentence this phrasing " focuses on protesting genetically modified products made by the Monsanto corporation" is problematic because Monsanto does not make the products, as far I know, just the seeds used to grow the food in others' products. I would have changed it myself if I had a better version in mind. It may need to be split out as a separate sentence. El duderino ^(abides) 01:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Are the seeds not themselves products? AIRcorn (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but as the protests are consumer-level and based upon prop-37 (labeling), the phrase is misleading. Why not actually say 'seeds' in the intro, along the lines of something like "focuses on protesting food grown from seeds which have been genetically-engineered by the Monsanto corporation" -- I know is somewhat grammatically awkward, which is why i brought it here for discussion first, especially since its in the lead. El duderino ^(abides) 03:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, the protest wasn't solely about Monsanto - it was against Monsanto and GMOs. petrarchan47tc 04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

List

Moving this from the article. If editors are able to list most of the locations, we would have a very long list, and it would not be suitable for this article. If people want to work on this, it should be moved to a new list-style article. For our purposes, it would be best to mention the major events or cities prose-style, and elaborate perhaps on the participants' messages. We've already got the numbers, a detailed list doesn't add encyclopedic understanding of the event, imo, and looks to be some WP:OR. petrarchan47tc 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Attendance to local marches

This is not an exlusive list.

Country	City name	Estimated attendance - lower	Estimated attendance - higher	Reference
Canada	Montreal	500	600
France	Strasbourg	350	450
France	Trèbes	80

Dave Murphy source

If you look closely it says in large letters at the top of the page "The BLOG" and as a subtitle "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors". This is an opinion column, and should not be used as an RS for controversial statements of fact, even if the source is identified. a13ean (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The source is Dave Murphey. HuffPost is considered RS when the author is, and in this case for this article, considering the call for expansion of the subject, his quotation fits the bill. In a recent discussion I was schooled on this very thing, and anti-GMO science was kept out of the Monsanto article based on two bloggers, one of them at HuffPo. This article is about the concerns of the protesters, in their voices. This is a not place to have a back and forth about whether they are right, it is about what they say, and the reaction to it. Don't spam the article with pro-GMO research, there are proper articles for that. I am going to replace the Facebook images link, since this is about a Facebook-inspired event, and quotations from a Facebook page are included in the article already, for this reason. This was a visual event, so a link to a giant page of images from around the world, especially when so many have questioned its true scale, help expand the article in a way text cannot. petrarchan47tc 20:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the discussion linked to by petrarchan above, the reason that the Entropy article was excluded was not because of what any blogger said. The article made health claims. When it was rejected under MEDRS petrarchan posted it on the MEDRS talk page and the source and article were rejected on their own demerits - in fact the bloggers' reactions to it were explicitly ruled out as being relevant. That discussion is here. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's not pro- or anti-anything science. There's only what science says. In some cases it's clear. There is broad scientific consensus that human activity has contributed to climate change. The article reflects this. In some cases it's unclear. There's lots of different theories about what dark matter is. The article reflects this. In this case it is clear; there's broad scientific consensus, reflected in the quotes below.

The problem with the Murphy source is that it contains statements of fact. He's not saying "I'm concerned about ... because I think that ...". He's saying "the fact that the products they produce, genetically engineered foods and chemical weed killers, are in more than 70% of the processed foods that we eat and feed our families everyday" and "Monsanto is responsible for some of the most lethal chemicals known to history, including Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT." The first statement is inaccurate; it's based on an estimate by the Grocery Manufacturing Organization that 70% of products in grocery stores include genetically modified material. It says nothing about pesticides or Monsanto in particular. The second one is just as bad; Monsanto may have manufactured all of these, but saying they're responsible for them is a stretch. They sure didn't get the Noble Prize that was awarded for the invention of DDT. No public health expert would list any of these as the "most lethal" by a stretch (not to say that they're not bad).

This is why we don't use blogs as RS for anything but opinion. There's no editorial oversight, so we don't know how to trust them, although in this case it's easy to show that the gentleman who wrote this was imprecise with his words.

If you have issues with some other topic or discussion take it elsewhere; here we need to abide by the standards of wikipedia no matter how we feel about the issues at hand. a13ean (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comments below, please. petrarchan47tc 23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@A13ean: First, I appreciate that you started this thread. I realize I should have been more specific in my edit summary [2] -- as you must know there are different degrees of 'blog' and many news outlets now call some of their articles 'blogs' (ie, wp:newsblog) for their own marketing reasons. Murphy's piece is not a 'vanity blog' and thus shouldn't be dismissed so easily. I think it is appropriate for this article to include such a quote, especially since its source and author are attributed. I also disagree with your interpretation of 'scientific consensus' as much of the scientific sources in related GMO articles are from Genetics and thus inherently biased, but I don't think this is the place to get into that. As Petrarchan says, this is an article about the protest and reasons for the protest. El duderino ^(abides) 08:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate to just repeat the same thing, but I think the message is not getting across. This quote includes two statements of fact which are demonstrably wrong. By uncritically including it, we are providing a WP:SOAPBOX for his views. There's no reason to rule out a quote that says something like "I think we shouldn't genetically modify crops because...". In Paul Ryan we don't quote him as saying he ran "a sub-three hour marathon" just because he said it. It's a statement of fact, and requires a reliable source (and it turns out he misspoke). a13ean (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The facts are not wrong, and repeating your assertions doesn't make you right. The "over 70%" figure is substantianted by an ealier statement in the same section (which you must be familar with, since it previously followed the HuffPo entry), and Monsanto is surely responsible for its manufactured chemicals, your spin notwithstanding. Furthermore, you should not remove it while under discussion. I am reverting. El duderino ^(abides) 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand WP:BRD. Adding new material such as this is the Bold part; several editors have objected to it and Reverted it. The contentious material should be discussed rather than being restored until consensus is reached. a13ean (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand. BRD is a guideline. I disagree with your argument. Shall we wait for others to weigh in? Or do you and IRWolfie have to keep trying to control the discussion? El duderino ^(abides) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You reject a journal dedicated to the study of genetics (and presumably all the other many scientific sources which have been presented about the consensus) and instead favour a blog in a newspaper known for pseudoscience. Seriously? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

HuffPost has been upheld at RSN and what Murphy says has been supported by other sources. And yes I challenged the genetics journal, which you have failed to defend persuasively. Why should geneticists be trusted to be concerned with public safety? What training to do they have? Why should we assume they are experts in food safety? El duderino ^(abides) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is always dependent on what you use it for. The Huffington post is reliable for some things, unreliable for science, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to make a better argument than the link given earlier (pseudoscience a.k.a 'allegations...') which has already been tagged for being one-sided. Yes indeed we judge each source on its own merit for RS. Murphy's claims are supported by other sources already in the article. You continue to deride the source as a blog despite the repeated distinction of wp:newsblog. I think it's fair to question your objectivity, as you have done with mine. El duderino ^(abides) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Broad scientific consensus" and WP:POVFORK

A user removed changed

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.

to the weaselly phrasing

There is science showing that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.

and removed seven sources in the process. I assert that the original phrasing more closely represents the sources; to quote a few of them:

• "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded." The American Association for the Advancement of Science"
• "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." World Health Organization
• "The overwhelming majority of publications report that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in 1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published. Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative impact of feeding GM feed to the test species." Meta-review of 42 PubMed articles
• There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." Review article in Genetics

And so on. I'm concerned that the tone of the article as it currently stands makes it sounds like a WP:POVFORK -- the character and the sourcing in this article needs to be held to the same standards as any other article on wikipedia, especially where it comes to statements of fact like this. Similarly, I would like to remind everyone to avoid WP:Close paraphrasing or identical language to sources outside of quotes. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about science, it's about protesters. Every source I've used in the article is directly about (or at least referencing) the March. This is why I choose to leave the article about dangers of GMOs in the external links section, it didn't reference the March. Although you have decided the anti-GMO article is no good, and apparently decided references to GMO safety belong in the body of the article. If you wish to improve the article by adding information related to the protest itself, great. But this is not a place to try and disprove the protesters' contentions. We have links to those articles already. The 'claims' aren't made in Wiki's voice, but rather it is clearly stated that these words come from an anti-GMO advocate. Your comments about close paraphrasing are good, I'll keep them in mind. petrarchan47tc 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because there are dozens of articles that vigorously toe the GM industry's PR line, including even Genetically modified food controversies, where industry talking points have been frontloaded at the top of the first two sections. But Jimbo Forbid that a page about critics of the GM industry... should coherently articulate the arguments made by critics of the GM industry!
• Now, I also disagree with the actual claim of "broad scientific consensus" of GM safety; especially on the question of whether Roundup will poison you and your dog just as it will wipe out nearly any species of plant. Maybe in the future we can centralize evidence on this topic. For now: what do you think about this letter, signed by 130 scientists, which challenging the illusion of "broad" pro-GM "consensus" and providing a detailed claims about how the GM industry has aggressively distorted the practice and dissemination of scientific research? Are these 130 somehow a drop in the ocean of 1000s more who think Roundup is totally safe? I don't see evidence of that. The grandiose reports from institutions with impressive sounding names are wearing thin. groupuscule (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree that this is not the appropriate article to discuss the science of GMO safety, one way or the other? I wanted to leave this link for the editor who continues to post about "broad scientific consensus" at this page using sources that have nothing to do with MAM. GMO safety is being discussed here. This article is just about the protest. Think of it as a controversy article. That's pretty much what what will be discussed. petrarchan47tc 08:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not being discussed, only mentioned. :-) Without such a statement, the sentence "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" is misleading by omission, because we fail to state that these concerns are misplaced. Other parts of the article, such as the labeling discussion, make the same implication indirectly. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As Petrarchan has said, this article is not about the science, it is about the protest. In the same way, for instance, the Occupy Wall Street protest article did not need a section to prove that the protestors were not correct in their facts and thus misleading the reader. The Occupy articles presented the views of the protestors, not the "opposition". Gandydancer (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If Goldman Sachs had Monsanto's PR team, the Occupy Wall Street article would surely inform readers that the protesters' concerns run counter to a "broad consensus of economists". groupuscule (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That would require ignoring reliable expert sources that support their concerns as valid. Economics is a social science, and as such it is much harder to draw firm conclusions. If I were editing on that article and someone tried to refer to a broad consensus (especially one that rejects all the protesters' concerns) then I would have argued against it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Either we leave out the organisers claims or we present them against the current scientific opinion. We can't say that they point to studies without putting it into context that these are very much in the minority. Actually I don't think it goes far enough. We have a sentence saying "citing connections between GM seeds and colony collapse disorder", when it has been shown tthat they have no effect. We can't use this article to push undue claims. AIRcorn (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get that "we" are pushing their claims? I don't believe that GMOs cause CCD and I don't believe the health risk claims either. You do not seem to understand the principal of NPOV policy. Stating their position on issues is not pushing a POV. Gandydancer (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Belief isn't important; facts are important. For example, you could see how the Discovery Institute article is treated. Which part of NPOV are you referring to? Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know MOM has no plans to use public money to force their views on children. If that day should happen we will have an article such as the one that you think this one should be. Gandydancer (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not the analogy. Please answer the question. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Any number of scientists signing a letter does not indicate consensus. I'm sure you can find at least that many who agree with the scientific consensus and are named Steve. The consensus that the Seralini study is flawed is even stronger, as has been discussed ad nauseam on genetically modified food controversies before. That being said, our personal views don't matter here. Remember, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." (WP:RS) This includes not ignoring the mainstream view only to play up a minority one in any given article. a13ean (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be good to get clarity in this issue. I would recommend an RfC for whether protesters' claims require a scientific debate. petrarchan47tc 23:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit in question isn't about a scientific debate (there isn't one), but rather a statement of fact. This is an important distinction. I wouldn't object to an RfC, as long as it is clear in the question that the statement in question is factual. For example, we might ask "In connection with protesters' statements that GM foods are health risks, should the article mention the scientific consensus that GM foods currently on the market pose no greater risk than conventional foods?" If you want to dispute the existence of that consensus then we can discuss that separately. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A13ean's concerns will be met when a RS features the thoughts of a person or spokesperson saying that the protestors are "wrong". Then it can go in the response section. Gandydancer (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, it's not a response but a factual statement on which the protesters are incorrect. If you want to dispute this, bring it to one of the GM food pages. You're arguing that we cannot say the Earth is not flat. The statements "Y is false" and "If X says Y, X is mistaken" are logically equivalent. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• We violate NPOV if we don't provide the mainstream scientific point of view on these topics. Pseudoscientific and new age claims can not be added to the article without the scientific rebuttal. That violates NPOV and WP:FRINGE, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." It is not synthesis to state the mainstream point of view on a topic, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So then, if the protest would instead be a protest against abortion, the article that we present here must include a scientific rebuttal? Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If it includes scientific claims empathetically yes. I think you make the unfortunate assumption that I am an American conservative or motivated by politics in some way. To be blunt, I could not give two shits about US politics, I only care about the science. Many US Republicans misrepresent evolution and climate change, and many US Democrats misrepresent Nuclear science and genetics. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

Definition of "In Depth" - extensive, thorough, or profound: an in-depth analysis of the problem/well-balanced or fully developed.

This is the extent of our coverage in the article: Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences meets no sensible person's definition of "in depth". To argue otherwise looks like sheer desperation to me. petrarchan47tc 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are providing fringe claims, but not mainstream context. It is a rather simple NPOV requirement. Go ask at an appropriate board. Try the fringe theories noticeboard, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Re User:Gandydancer -- this is a fairly good example actually, see the lede of Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis where it clearly states that scientific consensus has showed that there is no link. a13ean (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's right, and well it should say exactly that because it is an article on the Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. Note that it is not about a protest against abortion where (mis-informed) participants would be carrying signs saying ABORTIONS CAUSE BREAST CANCER!!! and such. That article would not need to include information to show that the marchers were misinformed. Really, some people here are really over-reacting to all of this... Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would make essentially the same comment as IRWolfie- above, as I think would many of the other editors here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to clarify something - can we agree that the protesters here are misinformed as well (about safety)? If we know we have some common ground, then any policy arguments become easier to deal with. I don't think anyone has attacked this point much, but there hasn't been much agreement either. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

'mainstream science'

I'm seeing alot of hazy argumentation about the 'mainstream scientific POV' -- but what is this exactly? Should we not define it as a matter of heath science and not genetics or bio-tech? Why should this article be subject to the inherent scientific bias in those latter, secondary fields when we're discussing the health effects of GMO foods? I may have to post this on all relevant article talkpages too, seems like it's time to shift the debate away from those who wish to control it. El duderino ^(abides) 04:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Any material about health-related claims has to be backed up with solid sources per WP:MEDRS. Any fringe claims have to be clearly and unambiguously portrayed in the context of the mainstream view per WP:FRINGE.

There are legitimate concerns about GMO products. For example, monopolies, monoculture, corporate welfare and increased use of herbicides are major problems, and are discussed widely in the scholarly literature. There are also scads of illegitimate concerns, such as most of those related to health and the environment, that boil down to simple scaremongering based on appeals to emotion and false authority. The article should not serve as a soapbox for anti-GMO activists to promote fringe views without putting them in the mainstream context. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right about WP:MEDRS, at least. But the unique problem in these GMO discussions is that many of the sources used to establish the so-called mainstream context are not actually medical or health-related experts. Geneticists and biologists are not necessarily qualified to pass judgment on human health matters. El duderino ^(abides) 11:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're claiming that what is clearly a reliable source is inadmissible just because it was published in Genetics rather than in Public Health? I guess it's good that the paper references a report by the National Academy of Sciences, and was worked on by experts in a broad range of fields. There's numerous citations here from the WHO, AMA and others that say pretty much the same thing. a13ean (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that the journal source is at least suspect. If you guys aren't going to at least try to understand what I'm saying about the mainstream/minority/fringe distinctions, then we're at an impasse. Also, you're wrong about the AMA and WHO positions, which both seem to be more and more on the fence. I believe it's being discussed over at the GMO controversies talkpage. El duderino ^(abides) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Follow-up: please see my comment in the later thread about 'fringe' claims which bears on this discussion as well. Schubert [3] [4] may be in the minority, so far, but he is certainly not fringe. El duderino ^(abides) 07:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue is addressed here: Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Not_fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links

To quote the 10th point of "Links normally to be avoided" at WP:ELNO

Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.

In my reading this includes links to pictures on Facebook or a Washington Times social networking site. a13ean (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, this isn't normal, this event - the subject of the article - began on and happened because of Facebook. We've quoted from Facebook in the article, which is also not normal but is the nature of this article. petrarchan47tc 23:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of images in the body of the article now; there's no reason to ignore external link policy. a13ean (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the spirit of the policy concerns unstructured discussions by the laity, not photographs hosted on Facebook. I don't understand why anyone would want to diminish readers' access to these photos, except to downplay the significance of the march. groupuscule (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of 52 cities, we have images from 3. The external links show images from around the world, showing the true nature of the event in a way the article does not (at this point). Should we have an RfC about the external links section? petrarchan47tc 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could save everyone some time by simply abiding by the fairly clear criteria in WP:ELNO. This is further supported by the first point in ELNO -- the article has several fair use images, and there's no reason we would include a giant wall of them. If you want to try to gain consensus to set aside the existing guidelines feel free to start a RfC. a13ean (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a moot point -- there's an excellent set of images from the Washington Post in the external links now. I have removed the Facebook one. a13ean (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors are trying to insert fringe claims into this article

Editors appear to be trying to edit war fringe claims into this article without providing mainstream context, this violates WP:FRINGE. Per WP:BRD they should be seeking consensus for their changes, not the other way around, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the views of people who are questioning things related to GMOs and Monsanto. What is the problem with elucidating on their views using sources that directly reference the MAM, which is what I have been doing? One of us isn't understanding the purpose of this article and related guidelines. petrarchan47tc 02:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I dispute IRWolfie's characterization of mainstream context, and thus fringe here, since he and others seem to be referring to genetics, bio-tech et al, rather than science which deals with human health. I am removing the tag, this is not to be used as a 'badge of shame' in apparent reprisal for the AfD. El duderino ^(abides) 05:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The World Health Organization has a pretty clear statement above, perhaps if you think other public health groups have reached different conclusions you could provide RS for them here? a13ean (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the quote you gave in a previous thread, then no that's not representative of the W.H.O. which says [5], "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." El duderino ^(abides) 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting here: [6] "in recommending premarket safety testing, which is not now required, the AMA appears to be raising serious questions about the safety of GM foods." -El duderino ^(abides) 12:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using newspapers to try and interpret position statements. They aren't particularly reliable for that, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

And again you're selective quoting from the author of an opinion column, rather than the statements of of AMA which are contained therein: "The AMA adopted policy supporting this science-based approach, recognizing that there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods.". a13ean (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:RS policy prefers third-party, more neutral sources over primary sources. And again, "no evidence" of safety concerns does not equal "safe." El duderino ^(abides) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You dispute it based on your own personal opinions. Can you please take the time to look at the scientific papers. Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources, and I know much of them are biased towards the bio-tech industry which has a stranglehold on any studies done. You keep crying 'fringe' as if this is an established framework for viewing anti-GMO protests, but it is not. And this is not about my personal opinion. I'd like to ask you (again) to stop condescending and patronizing others here, and I will continue to respond in kind. Jytdog has asked you to stop. Is that possible? Are you not able to accept disagreement and discuss these things with civility? Or do you always think it's personal? Then maybe you shouldnt be working on a collaborative project. El duderino ^(abides) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

duderino, i don't agree that wolfie is insulting you personally here, but I am sorry that you feel offended. There are three conversations happening (here, on the Monsanto page (although that one may be done now), and on the GM controversies page) on your objections to the scientific consensus. You have made it clear that you often are working on your mobile, and I imagine it is hard for you to track everything that has been said on all three pages. The multi-location thing does not seem to be working for any of us. On the GM controversies page I and others have responded to your descriptions of the AMA statement and the WHO statement, and I and others have also responded to your objections about certain journals being biased somehow. On the latter point, I asked you to find a basis for your objection to using scientific peer-reviewed journals in policy or guideline; as you have not done so (yet) that indeed means that your objection (at least for now) is based on your personal opinion; wolfie was accurate in naming that. I would like to suggest that we have the conversation in one place, in an orderly fashion, so everything is clear and we do not keep circling around. I think the best place for that is the GM food controversies page. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you're not as neutral about the dispute as you claim to be. And no, I don't think I will restrict my objctions to the GMO controversies page. I'm well aware of how those POV forks suit the purposes of the pro-GMO crowd. My basis for challenging the 'fringe' assertions is not personal, no matter how much you and others repeat that claim, and my objections remain largely unanswered. El duderino ^(abides) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you confused my efforts to have a civil conversation with a notion that I do not hold to the scientific consensus. I have been quite clear on that all along. I think your confusion on that might arise from the scattered conversation. I and others have been making a good faith and careful effort to respond to each of your objections (really - each one!) , but it does not seem that you are tracking that or re-responding. Instead you bring up the same issue on another page or a different issue. I am sorry to say this but it is just not productive to engage with you if you don't respond when you are responded to. (for example just two of mine here with respect to your claims about what the AMA and WHO and others say about the scientific consensus (on that you responded to the tone but not the substance here - the substance matters and I still look forward to your response on that) and here with respect to your rejection of peer reviewed journals because you view them as biased )Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

petrarchan, what you have done is fill an article full of quotes and opinions from newspapers, and provided no actual encyclopaedic content, nor did you provide the mainstream context required by WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. This article is a mess in terms of neutrality. Just give a quick count of how many quotes you inserted. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie and other users apparently cannot tolerate an article about the March Against Monsanto that accurately reflects the positions held by participants. I haven't seen anything like this since Talk:White privilege. groupuscule (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with giving their position, I do have an issue with skewing the article towards a position contrary to the scientific consensus by not providing any mainstream perspective, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your issue is not in keeping with Wiki policy, which states that this article should deal with the subject: the protesters beliefs. Wiki policy as you have pointed out, requires "mainstream prospective" be included whenever articles "cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." I don't see anything in depth coverage of any science or fringe theory in the article. It's so new, there isn't any in depth coverage of anything. But I'm working on it. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's start from somewhere. Do you dispute the scientific consensus? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you arguing is the "mainstream context," specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thargor - the main point of scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as (no more risky than) food from conventional organisms. This is not a statement that "all GMOs are safe" (which no sane person would say since it includes all kinds of imaginable GMOs that would be dangerous for one purpose or another); however a statement that "all GMOs are dangerous" is definitely fringe because that broad statement includes GMOs that are currently used for food production. I ~think~ that a statement in the article along the lines of "Although the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is no more risky than food from conventional counterpart crops, protesters believe that the risk of harm from currently marketed food from GMOs is too high." may be acceptable under FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment with italicized words as per wolfie's statement below, which is what i meant! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

• Current GMO foods are safe, and unknown future food products are unknown for obvious reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no source says that "current GMO foods are safe." Not even your framing of the 'mainstream scientific' body has said that -- lack of evidence is not evidence itself. Stop repeating your falsehoods. El duderino ^(abides) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

duderino, that is not true. You have been directly responded to on this, with sources, on the Controversies Talk page already. I am not repeating that discussion or my efforts there, here. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So here is where your comments reveal a double standard when you say "nuance matters.". Mainstream (industry-backed) science basically says there is no evidence that GMO foods are unsafe, so you and others interpret that to mean "current GMO foods are safe" -- this is not the same thing, and you and others admitted as much at the Controversies page. El duderino ^(abides) 03:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, duderino, it would be much better if you didn't make comments that go to intent like "double standard". It is an improvement that you now are including got the "current" part now. But there are two parts -- currently available, and compared to conventional. it is always 1) "current food from GMOs" that are 2) "as safe as food from conventional counterparts" or "as risky as food from conventional counterparts" which do mean the same thing. Glass is half full, half empty -- the comparative statement is essential. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not about intent, but rather editorial bias which is fair to bring up here when you apply different standards to articles on subjects you like, apparently, versus others you don't. Your parsing of the scientific consensus is not accurate. Yes, the comparative is important -- yet it wasn't included in IRWolfie's assertion above that "current GMO foods are safe." (I've put a bullet there to draw your attention to it.) Can you still not see that distinction? Because now you seem to be contradicting yourself. El duderino ^(abides) 07:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Jytdog the phrasing is a bit cumbersome, but no complaints here as to the sentiment. a13ean (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, just wanted to make sure we were on the correct side of the issue here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not fringe

Salk Institute biologist David Schubert may be in the minority, but he is clearly not fringe. As he says, "There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA" [7] I think this source as well as a piece in Nature [8] could be used in this article as well as at the GMO articles, which need reworking to better reflect the growing criticism. El duderino ^(abides) 07:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You have confused a claim with a fact. You claim his views are not fringe. As I pointed out when I showed the nature source, it says his is a different perspective precisely because it is in the minority (see the editorial on the same issue: [9]: "Scientific panel after scientific panel after scientific panel has concluded that GM foods are safe to eat."). Discovermagazine is not a scientific source. Use the scientific literature. Ask your self "would a scientist cite this source in a peer reviewed paper for the claim?". Sources like Nature (journal) and Science (journal) are some of the most reliable sources, and they even publish material from non-consensus positions as I have shown, they aren't trying to suppress dissent. Try this: [10], which is a summary of publicly funded research in the EU. Don't buy into what Viriditas is trying to preach, he views all editors who disagree with him as shills. He may seem friendly to you now, but once you disagree with him he will stomp on you (that's from my own experience), IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You've cited shills connected to industry front groups and you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being on the "fringe". That's complete nonsense. The sources show that the concerns highlighted by the protesters are not fringe at all, but based on solid evidence supported by solid sources. Plant pathologist and former EPA regulator and adviser to the FDA, Doug Gurian-Sherman says "it's a myth to suggest that there's a scientific consensus supporting genetic engineering and agriculture" and his opinion is shared by many scientists. According to Gurian-Sherman's experience as a regulator, GMOs are not rigorously tested, there's no approval process, it's entirely voluntary, Monsanto controls the testing, and there have never been long term human testing to determine if harm has ever occurred. Gurian-Sherman and other scientists have identified risks associated with GMO's, such as allergies and toxicities, but nobody has ever studied these risks. Further, the risks of herbicide use, the economic impact on small farmers, the exaggerated claims about crop yields, the continuing patent litigation against conventional and organic farmers, and the revolving door in Washington allowing private industry to write their own regulations while public policy is destroyed—these are all very serious and real concerns—none of which could possibly be considered "fringe". Finally, biotech shills have been at this for a very long time. You may want to start with the short introductory piece by George Monbiot called "The Covert Biotech War". You may recognize some of the names. :) Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the exact argument given by global warming deniers. They find one or two people out of step with the consensus and then claim that, because these people are dissenting from the overwhelming consensus, that there is no consensus. They try to poke holes in the argument, claiming that certain things aren't actually measured or the measurements are off, try to move the goalposts with economic arguments, and finish with ad hominem attacks against those who are part of the consensus. Why should we treat these claims any differently? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have it completely backwards, and I'm convinced at this point that you are reversing the facts deliberately to confuse this discussion. It's a well known fact that the same people who are pushing GMOs are the same people and organizations who are pushing global warming denial. IRWolfie himself proved that when he cited on Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on this topic. AEI is well known for supporting global warming denial as are most of the pro-GMO front groups. Again, you have it completely backwards. Feel free to read Monbiot's "The Covert Biotech War" linked above to see who is poking holes in arguments and moving the goalposts and making ad hominem attacks. The name starts with an "M" and ends with an "O". They are very active on the Internet, and even on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas - -thanks for joining the discussion here! It will be most helpful if discussion stays focused on current and proposed content of this article, and current and proposed sources. I am trying to be responsive to comments on content and sources, but there is nothing in your remarks above that I can respond to. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That some who engage in global warming denialism are also somehow found on the same side as the science on GM food is not something we can address here, it's far beyond the scope of this specific article. What is not beyond the scope is addressing the science and ensuring that we do not promote fringe viewpoints, period. We mention their claims, we deal with the fringe points of view, and we'll be all set. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no "somehow" about it. The same biotech companies pushing their products on the public use the same PR companies to sell their wares. Your claim that arguments by GMO skeptics are identical to arguments by global warming deniers was false. There are no fringe viewpoints in this article, and you've failed to show that there are any. Scientists have shown that there is a major conflict of interest at work, with industry-linked studies more likely to conclude safety,while independent studies are more likely to find problems". There have been no controlled long-term studies nor any epidemiological research. This is not "fringe", this is a fact. And as far as the patent litigation against small farmers and the threats to conventional and organic crops go, we have lots of problems with GMOs. As an example, GMO canola destroyed the entire organic canola industry. That's a crime against nature, and against the livelihood of the farmers who have been impacted. To make matters worse, Monsanto sues these farmers when competing GMOs take over their farms. This is not fringe in any way, it is a part of the historical record. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's fringe is the continued false claims about the safety of GM foods and the distortion of the scientific record. Once those are solved, I'll support removing the tag. Not before. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The only "false claims about the safety of GM foods" are coming from the GMO companies themselves, not the protesters. The non-Monsanto, non industry-distorted scientific consensus on GMOs is that 1) there is no signficant scientific research on human health risks from GMOS, 2) current safety testing fails to assess harm, 3) there is a risk of toxin exposure, and 4) there is a risk of allergic reaction. Beyond this, the risk posed to conventional and organic farmers from patent litigation is well established in the legal literature, and the risk to non-GMO crops is also well proven, with the almost total destruction of non-GMO crops, such as organic canola. Finally, the risk posed to biodiversity, to increasing pesticide use needed for GMOs, and the economic risk to farming communities is well established. There is nothing "fringe" about these concerns, and therefore, no reason for the fringe tags. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't confused anything, and though I don't consider that a personal attack along the lines of what Jytdog mistakenly cries foul, it is more of your condescension which we can do without. Are you able to disagree without being disagreeable? El duderino ^(abides) 07:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a fringe viewpoint that they're not safe to eat and that there's no credible evidence. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers about the safety of the foods. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Y'all talking about the genetic modification process itself, viewed in isolation? Or are you including the safety risks associated with the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed on crops and kills most organisms not modified to resist? Here is yet another example of a distinguished scientist who doesn't think Roundup is safe. Of course Monsanto has started to attack this guy ... just like they attack seemingly every person who takes a prominent stand against their methods. Jytdog claims to respond to everything everywhere but has done nothing of the sort to my detailed comments at Talk:Séralini affair. The response stops short when things get uncomfortable for Monsanto. groupuscule (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You know there are some very real concerns that should be addressed with GMOs and their potential effects on the environment. Gene flow is known to occur and will have some consequences. But this all gets obscured by people clutching at straws to find health reasons to oppose the technology. You throw mud at something hoping it sticks, but in the end it just makes everything look dirty. AIRcorn (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That the protests reflects those concerns is something that needs to be noted in the article. That the concerns lack scientific basis must as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice comment aircorn. And I will add that there are also valid concerns about industrial ag and sustainability. To answer groupuscule's question - the consensus statement is focused on food from the GMO itself. The question of what levels of residues of glyphosate formulations on food are safe enough, is a separate one, which we can also address but should be done separately. But I will say that Huber is waaaaaaaaaaay fringe. He has never been able to publish these "findings" in any peer reviewed journal and his entire department at Purdue disowned him on this stuff. He resorted to sending a letter to the EPA and then doing a press release about his letter. Really - an organism detectable only with electron microscopy that somehow thrives in glyphosate? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and he doesn't bring it. I believe I have responded to everything you have brought up on the Seralini page. Please let me know what you think I have not responded to on the Seralini Affair page (doing it there would be better than here). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not an improvement

I recognise that some people are keen to use this article as a platform to say bad stuff about Monsanto, rather than merely describing the March Against Monsanto; but that enthusiasm really should stop short of repeatedly inserting text which liberally copies from a copyrighted editorial whilst also misrepresenting that editorial in order to make Monsanto look bad. [11] [12] [13] bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob, your attempt to improve the article by minimizing the statements of protesters is not helping the article at all. You removed one of the main reasons the protests were so large, saying in the edit summary that the addition was "not an improvement". Then you claim that it was the wording that bothered you. Now you are accusing editors of POV, saying our intent is to bash Monsanto rather than build an encyclopedic article. That is a huge accusation for which you have no evidence, and indeed your own edits here show a certain POV, so please be careful about pointing fingers. Thanks. petrarchan47tc 21:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Pick a random featured topic. How many large quotes do you see in that article? Do we have more quotes and opinions in this article? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant statements will be added back, and other quotes will be paraphrased or moved to Wikiquote. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[outside opinion

I was asked to comment. I'm somewhere in the middle. I think there's sufficient new coverage to justify an article. But the article should be about the protest as such, not about genetically modified foods. Our articles on he subject provide enough coverage. With that done, the article need carry no fringe label &there is no need to consider whether the opposition to genetically modified foods is fringe. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. The article was saved from the "delete bin" a few days ago. The only mention of GMOs in the article is this: "Anti-GMO advocates believe GMOs can lead to serious health consequences." It was reduced from "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" in this edit, because even this wording was considered "too much". We can barely share information about the protest because we aren't being allowed to quote the protesters or say anything disparaging about Monsanto. I am confused as to the boundaries here. It is proving a very difficult article to build. petrarchan47tc 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I reduced it. The biggest problem I had was that the article was misleading in suggesting there were reliable studies proving health consequences when their are none. It is similar to a saying "Anti-climate change advocates point to studies they believe prove climate is not caused by human activity". Just because protesters cherry pick or misinterpret studies does not mean we should do the same here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it's been reduced even further in this edit. Every one of these claims is sourced to an article about the protest itself, and tells what the protesters are saying, and what they believe, contrary to the edit summary which claims the articles are not about the protest. One source tells the % of GMOs in the US, and is not directly about the protests, but was added to give clarity. The other sources and claims should not have been removed for the reason given. petrarchan47tc 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I was looking at the wrong text. petrarchan47tc 22:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And now a single purpose account created moments ago has removed "Anti-GMO advocates believe GMOs can lead to serious health consequences.". Un believeable. petrarchan47tc 22:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And you replaced it with a link to truth-out? Seriously? Arkon (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that and the Guardian. petrarchan47tc 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Truthout isn't reliable for anything. You are also omitting the counter arguments from the Guardian article where what "some people" are saying is refuted by just about every acronym you can imagine. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So we'll go with the Guardian. My friend, I am simply trying to record the protest and their reasonas, their beliefs are imperative. I'm not sure what wording you would prefer, but we need to record the reason people showed up in the streets - they obviously have some strong beliefs and those are a very important part of this article. petrarchan47tc 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You are still cherrypicking. Also, the part you quoted is about "some people", not even specific to the people at the march. Arkon (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what I have added:

According to a Guardian article entitled "Millions March Against Monsanto", in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment.

This article is not discussing GMOs, as the above is the extent of the discussion - limited to a reference about the protest and the reason people are concerned about GMOs. It makes no sense to describe a giant protest about GMOs and leave out why people are concerned - or that they are concerned in the first place. We are simply describing the views of some environmentalists and food advocates - allow the scientific discussion of GMOs to take place at the allotted articles. petrarchan47tc 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And you cannot leave out that the mainstream view is that these people are incorrect, which also exists in the same reference. Arkon (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is rather missing the forest for the trees. The Guardian source is fine for explaining why the protestors wanted to protest, and I edited it accordingly. The sentence proposed above, however, is too vague in that regard. There is no reason to explain US agricultural practices and what anti-GMO activists who may or may not have been at the protest "say". The thing to do is explain why the protesters protested. That's what I found in the article and changed the text to read. Eliminatesoapboxing (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is very good reason to explain US agricultural practices, as they are directly relevant and responsible for the protests. I'm surprised that this specious argument hasn't received any rebuttals. Monsanto has filed 140 cases against farmers and their claims about patents, food safety and yields have been questioned by attorneys, former regulators and plant pathologists, and other experts. This forms the basis for any claims made by the protesters and is topical and encyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW I am happy for the article to assert the protesters claim, as long as it doesn't say scientific evidence supports them, with out the mainstream scientific POV being presented. I don't think this version needs the fringe tag. AIRcorn (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that version as long as it makes clear what the mainstream view is (see the text of the Fringe tag). Of course we need to present the claims of the protesters, but we also need to point out that some of their assertions disagree with the scientific consensus. It doesn't need to be any significant portion of the article, but we do need to mention it. a13ean (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fringe is not the right tag. You, IRWolfie and BlackHades have failed to provide convincing argument that all anti-GMO protest is based on fringe science. Some of the protest may be, but not all of it. I've changed the tag to one for POV. El duderino ^(abides) 15:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That reasoning doesn't make sense, the reason the tag is there is we give "appropriate weight to the mainstream view" and instead let fringe claims stand without defining the mainstream view. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We should summarize reliable sources. If the sources report protestor's claims in a notable way, we should report them with due weight. If sources criticize those claims in a notable way then that should be included also, again with due weight. We need to be careful though about bringing in unrelated sources that have nothing to do with the MAM organization and avoid WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL research. If there is a controversial sentence or two we can discuss and gain consensus here. Also, WP:TC says: "This page in a nutshell: Add template messages to inform readers and editors of specific problems with articles or sections. Do not use them as a badge of shame." and I would add: or to create drama. With this in mind, I think the tag should be removed since the issue is getting plenty of attention here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm against removing the tag until we resolve the issue. The tag is just as much for readers who come here and need to know that there's issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Keithbob, I don't feel that mentioning the scientific consensus is bringing in unrelated material. Most mentions of this in the news were based in part on the AP wire story, and include the line "The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe." As it stands now our article reflects the first part of the sentence, but not the second half. The best way to reflect this in the article, however, is not to cite a single line from a news article, but one of the many reviews or statements from the WHO, AMA, etc which say the same thing. I agree with the sentiment about the tagging, although I have always considered the fringe tag a special case of POV, the template for which states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". I'm more concerned about the lack of progress made here and in other talk pages. a13ean (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is a lack of progress because you and the,other pro-GMO editors are stonewalling rather than collaborating. Have you made any attempt to compromise? To work out specific wording here on the talkpage instead of slow revert warring?... El duderino ^(abides) 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one is looking to remove information at this time, but rather insert the proper information to ensure that fringe viewpoints are not treated as legitimate in the article. Why is that not a good way to do it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The last time I edited the article was a week ago, to prevent the removal of a tag without sufficient discussion. I've made a number of discussions on the talk page. The continued personal attacks such as this are starting to grate on my nerves, however. a13ean (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Another false claim of personal attack. What I imagine is really getting on your nerves is the legitimately growing opposition to your previously comfortable POV pushing on all things GMO. El duderino ^(abides) 12:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Duderino, what would be really productive, would be if you could bring objections to specific content or sources based on policy or guidelines, or, if you want to introduce new content or sources, to bring that. As far as I can tell we have responded directly to every specific point about content or sources that you have raised. If you feel we have missed a point you have raised, it would be helpful if you could bring that up again, ideally in a new section so we can all be sure to see it and respond. It would be great to talk about content. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Jytdog.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I dont think I will do your reading for you either nor play your increasingly transparent game of trying to wear down those who dare to disagree. El duderino ^(abides) 12:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

It is fine to talk about the issues that reliable sources have directly linked' to the March Against Monsanto. But a general airing of grievances should be left at other articles. Thus, a lot of soapboxing in that regard (and likely coatracking as well) was removed with this edit:

[14]

Please only include material that can be directly sourced to being about the March itself. General commentary on Monsanto, GMOs, or food politics is not what we're supposed to do in the article about this narrow subject.

Thanks,

Eliminatesoapboxing (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not OK to remove sources directly linked to the subject of this article. You may have missed it, but one article you removed was entitled "Florida rally says: "Buzz off, Monsanto" and the claim added to the article came from this text "Polls conducted by MSNBC, Reuters/NPR, the Washington Post and others show that more than 90 percent of the American public want labeling of genetically modified foods. Up to 75 percent of processed foods include GM ingredients, according to the Center for Food Safety."

You removed "Protesters rally worldwide in march against GMO giant Monsanto" that used the following text "Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment." to support mention of GMOs in the US. Please replace these sources and claims immediately. petrarchan47tc 22:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the sources, only the text. The text absolutely must connect to the MAM or it is essentially irrelevant. If you want to include some sentence that MAM was trying to make a point by saying "Buzz off, Monsanto", that's fine. Adding sources back to support existing sentences is fine too. What's not okay is to have large swathes of content that are about things other than MAM itself. The reason I removed the sentence you cite is because it is not about MAM but is rather about farming practices in the US and what critics of those practices say. If you can find a way to rewrite the text to link it to MAM, I'm happy to work with you to reinclude it as I worked below. 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliminatesoapboxing (talk • contribs)

I think you are missing the point. The reasons behind the protest, when they are given in an article about the protest, most certainly belong in this article and do not fall under "soapboxing". petrarchan47tc 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the reasons behind the protest need to be in the article. But the reasons behind the protest are best explained by the organizers and the attendees. The previous wording and included sentences was trying to frame the backdrop for the protests which is an analysis that is not encyclopedic. Putting in large amounts of text that explains other controversies related to Monsanto (such as legislation that Bernie Sanders introduced) is not about the protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliminatesoapboxing (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I just spent the last two weeks pouring through the sources and reading through the relevant scientific and legal background. I find this material to be highly encyclopedic and directly relevant to this subject. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Work on this paragraph

There may be some usable content in this paragraph:

Crop contamination is another concern raised by the protesters, who worry that pollen from Monsanto's genetically modified plants could contaminate the crops of organic farmers and those not using Monsanto products. Unapproved GM wheat made by the company was found growing on an Oregon farm days after the march, bringing the issue into the spotlight. On May 31, 2013, Monsanto announced it would halt further lobbying for GM products in Europe. A Monsanto spokesperson said, "We’ve understood that such plants don’t have any broad acceptance in European societies". The announcement came days after the MAM protest, "amidst a series of recent public relations battles" for the company and during a "revival of opposition to genetically engineered foods".

I'm not sure how to incorporate it though. From the Syracuse.com piece, the journalist didn't really make the point that is claimed in the sentence. Rather, what the reporter said were the issues were: "MAM advocates for repealing the Monsanto Protection Act, independent research on the health effects of GMOs, and boycotting Monsanto products and companies." I'm going to include that in here.

Eliminatesoapboxing (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage section

Right now, we have a bit of an undue weight situation where Thom Hartmann's claim that the media ignored the protest is the key point in the section, but does not reflect the coverage given by the mainstream press, especially in the United States. Has anyone found a counterbalance to this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thargor. I spent a little time looking into this today and I couldn't find a source that talked about coverage except ones complaining about the lack of it. My own OR - nothing on BBC or NPR, nothing in NY Times, WSJ. Which is pretty huge. On the other hand, you have CNN, NBC, CBS, NY Daily News, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today... but I again I found no source that says all that. SO I don't know how to address your concern. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick additional note. March on Monsanto site lists only bloggy media reports (sigh): http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/in-media.html bubbles inside of bubbles.Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So, that said, how can your concern on this be addressed, Thargor? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure. How should we handle a claim that is a complete fabrication? This is somewhat rare. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree about the "complete fabrication"... when I tried to work on finding sources to add content to the article, I had a hard time finding any real reporting on the marches. The AP stories were picked up (most of the outlets I mention above are the AP story) but, for example, the only source I could find that even tried to provide its own number for total number of protesters was the CTV article - everybody else just repeated the number given by the organizers in the AP story (some without attribution). In contrast the Occupy movement and its sitins got major original coverage in MSM, and really huge protests (where you had thousands marching in a given city), like those against the Iraq war, have also been directly reported on by MSM. My ~sense~ is that most march against monsanto protests were smaller, say 500 people or less, and this is why there was not widespread original reporting by major news outlets. So - while I agree that the quote is silly in claiming the march was not widely covered because "corporate News" suppressed the story, I think it is accurate that the marches were not covered by MSM. To be clear, I think the quote is silly because pretty much any news organization is a corporation - Truthout is a corporation, and really major stuff like Occupy and the Iraq protests are covered in MSM. More concretely, I would be satisfied if we just deleted the quote which has the claim about the reason in it. Would that satisfy you? Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The occupy movements were also a more major protest than this was, so it received plenty of coverage as a result. When we can point to multiple major mainstream sources that covered the march, as you and I have found (you cite CNN, NBC, CBS, etc), it's important to make sure this fringe viewpoint that it was not covered is refuted. I know we need to be careful of synthesis here, but I'm sure, with some effort, something exists. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you please make a suggestion of what exactly would satisfy you? Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hartmann's statements have nothing to do with undue weight. It is not for Wikipedia editors to try to correct the statements of anything that a notable person says when it is quoted in a RS. If a WP guideline that states otherwise cannot be furnished I'm going to remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They specifically give undue weight to a point of view that is not supported by the factual record. If we're going to talk about "response," we cannot allow the only point about media response to be a falsehood about the coverage, thus the undue weight tag. User:Jytdog, I missed your reply earlier: all we need is to get something in there about what the actual coverage was. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find RS that challenges the statement it should be added to the article. In the meantime editors are required to not attempt to discredit a statement by tagging it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to discredit anything, merely highlighting the point that we're giving undue weight to a claim that is not actually true. Part of the discussion here is to work to try to find something that reflects the truth. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been unable to find RS to back your assumption--tags are not meant to just sit there forever. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears discussion is ongoing, as of just yesterday. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fringe tag

For those who have supported the presence of the "fringe" tag, can you please propose specific content that you would like to see added to or removed from the article as it currently stands, that would allow removal of the tag? Let's move concretely toward wrapping the "fringe" issue up. ThanksJytdog (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In no particular order:

• The Thom Hartmann theory about media coverage needs more information about how the mainstream media actually did cover the event.
• The first paragraph in "Issues," where the fringe claim of health issues surrounding GMO foods is basically stated without proper information about the actual science.
• Somewhat unrelated to the fringe tag, but worth noting, the reason the labeling law failed in the background section.

Clearing that up would solve my problems with the article as it's currently written in regards to the fringe situation, although there are still some POV issues that need to be addressed. I agree that the fringe tag is the bigger issue in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Thargor. Are the Thom Hartmann and labeling points really necessary to address the WP:FRINGE tag? From my perspective the only real fringe issue is the issue over comparative risk of GM food. Also what I am looking for is specific correctives. Lots of folks have pointed things out - let's move toward solutions! Thanks again for responding. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also a fringe point of view, based again in an anti-corporate mindset, that there's some sort of concerted media blackout on the protests as Hartmann alleges. It's a common theme among fringe players ("the media won't give those who expose global warming for the fraud it is time," "why won't the media do the research on Obama's birth certificate," and so on). Specifically, we need the information that reflects the mainstream realities of those complaints by the March participants/defenders. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hartmann's article is supported by other articles like Joseph Bachman writing for the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune. Hartmann's (and Bachman's) opinions do not meet the criteria for the "fringe" view guideline nor the criteria for our policy on undue weight, so please take a moment to review them. Additionally, there is nothing "anti-corporate" about their views and they are based on solid evidence behind concentration of media ownership. The WTVT Whistleblower lawsuit between Jane Akre, Steve Wilson and Fox-owned WTVT over the censorship of their investigative report on the health risks of Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin is well known. I would also like to point out that your false analogy with global warming and birther-ism is historically inaccurate. According to scholars who have studied climate change coverage, the American media in particular have given dominant and unbalanced coverage to climate change skepticism, not the mainstream science based on consensus. The late Stephen Schneider noted In the case of global warming:

...political actors and corporate representatives edged out scientific experts as the dominant sources in these news stories...opposition to mainstream climate science began to emerge with the growing concern over the economic costs of binding action and the ascent of the George H. W. Bush administration...In general, U.S. mass media coverage of climate change science since the early 1990s has focused disproportionately upon the uncertainty of climate science knowledge claims, scientific controversy, and the economic costs...[In the U.S.], a pro-corporate bias often arises in newspaper coverage of climate change...In explaining the pro-corporate biases and persistence of uncertainty in U.S. news coverage of climate change, some researchers have focused on the broader structure of the media and corporate power in the United States...(Climate Change Science and Policy, 2009)

In other words, the U.S. media gave those "who tried to expose global warming as a fraud" dominant coverage, and they did the exact same thing by giving birther claims dominant coverage before Obama released his long-form birth certificate. What is interesting about your false analogy is that even though you got it backwards, the bias of the media against climate change and Obama's birth certificate is the same kind of bias we see in the American media today regarding their pro-GMO stance. This proves Hartmann's & Bachman's point about the corporate-controlled media, and your example shows the opposite of what you set out to claim. Namely, that the mainstream media has a tendency to highlight fringe positions and downplay the consensus and/or investigative reporting which threatens their corporate interests. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That the media gives way to fringe positions (like the Monsanto march and global warming denial) does not mean we have to push fringe views. Your citing of the Wilson/Akre situation is telling in this scenario, given their also-fringe viewpoints and the fact that they were fired for trying to push them without correct balance. It's an excellent mirror to the situation at this article, where there appears to be voracious opposition to noting the viewpoints espoused as fringe. That cannot be allowed to happen. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Except you've got it backwards again. The media did not cover the March Against Monsanto, they ignored it in most major U.S. markets, according to Hartmann's & Bachman, and this can even be proven by going through the letters to the editors in the news indexes, and comparing the "why didn't you cover the protest" letters published in regional papers. But to get back on point, the opinions of the protesters at the Monsanto march are not considered "fringe" by any scientific or legal authority on the subject. Factually, the literature shows there is no scientific consensus supporting genetic engineering and agriculture. We know that GMOs are not rigorously tested, there's no approval process and it is entirely voluntary while Monsanto controls the testing. We also know there have never been long term human testing to determine harm, so no scientist can actualy claim that the safety has been proven. Scientists have identified possible risks, such as allergies and toxicities, but they've never been studied. And, we know that the protesters concerns about herbicide use, the economic impact on small farmers, the exaggerated claims about crop yields, the continuing patent litigation against conventional and organic farmers, and the revolving door in Washington allowing private industry to write their own regulations while public policy is destroyed—these are all very serious and real. There's nothing "fringe" here except your interpretation of the guideline. The protesters are voicing real concerns supported by real scientists, attorneys, farmers, and consumers. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the position by Hartmann et al, we can point to plenty of media coverage, which is why the claim is untrue and is a fringe position. Factually speaking, the literature very clearly shows a consensus for the safety of GMO foods. One of the better blog reports on the matter comes from Ramez Naam, who outlines it here. To claim otherwise is to engage in the same sort of conspiratorial thinking that pervades the anti-vaccine movement, global warming denialism, and so on. Wikipedia cannot become a soapbox for fringe, antiscientific claims, nor can this article become a POV fork for them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline that supports your unique interpretation. Hartmann's opinion piece is actually quite tame and mainstream. His theme, what columnist Konstantin Ravvin of The Oracle calls an "active lobbying effort designed thwart the democratic process", appears in many articles on the subject. Ravvin in fact argues that this biotech lobbying effort itself is a fringe movement, "not representative of the American mainstream but rather an agenda propagated by a strong corporate interest in keeping legitimate public concerns about the implications of GMOs out of the realm of public policy." As I have said previously, this has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot covering it in 2002 with his piece on "The Covert Biotech War".[15] Hartmann's opinion, that "despite demonstrations in over 400 cities, in 52 countries, there was hardly a peep about the event in the corporate media", has plenty of evidence. Most of the protests were not covered by the corporate media. There was one solitary news story distributed by the Associated Press, with smaller outlets making up the bulk of the reports. Columnist Joseph Bachman wrote about this in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune: "Wait, you didn't hear about it? A global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right? It wasn't on CNN, or FoxNews?"[16] CNN covered the protests briefly three days later.[17] The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a paper with a circulation of 200,000, failed to cover the local protests involving 600 people against St. Louis-based Monsanto in their local paper, opting for coverage like "Monsanto is No. 1" and "Monsanto grows globally: Biotech giant leads Post-Dispatch list of top performers" instead.[18] On the other hand, their online edition carried the syndicated AP piece on their website, falling in line with all the other corporate medias outlets to get their story "straight".[19][20] Similar claims were made about The Bulletin in Bend, Oregon.[21] None of this actually matters, however, as news coverage was extremely sparse and was carried predominantly by the single narrative promoted by the syndicated AP piece. No competing narratives, and little to no actual investigative journalism by any large media outlet. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As my edits at the time showed, this is simply a false assertion that should be dismissed outright. I agree that we're better off without the mention entirely. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits showed nothing of the kind. The assertion isn't false. Major news outlets waited three days to cover the article, and only one news wire story was syndicated, intended to cover all of the protests. Further, both Western Communications and Lee Enterprises Inc., corporate news owners, were criticized for refusing to cover the protests. Finally, covering this kind of media reception is a standard appendice, and regardless of whether you personally believe it is false, we represent prominent POV. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a complaint that's impossible to evaluate objectively, and so common that it's not particularly unique here. We already have several good quotes that represent protesters aims. I would be happy to include yet another, this one just happens to strike me as not adding a lot of information or being particularly interesting. This is fairly low on my list of things wrong with this article at the moment. a13ean (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

a13ean what do you need to see addressed to have the Fringe taken off, and what are your thoughts on how to address that? thxJytdog (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with the Dave Murphey quote -- as it reads, it implies that Monsanto products are in 70% of the food we eat, which is simply false. We know what he was trying to say (GM foods are in 70% of the products), but only because we did the research. The same thing goes for saying that M is responsible for some of the "most lethal chemicals in history". Infamous chemicals to be sure, but not most lethal by a long shot. This is why we should not be using opinion articles for statements of fact. There's other parts of his column which may be appropriate, but in general summaries of protesters views, printed in secondary reliable sources are preferred. We similarly need a very brief mention of the standing scientific consensus. On the other hand, I think the line by Alicia Maluafiti is a bit dumb -- she happens to be quoted in an article about MaM, but her opinion is not nearly notable in the global context of scientific consensus. a13ean (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the history of editing here, originally the people trying to write the article put statements of the reasons for the march in Wikipedia's voice; these were rejected as being fringe or nonfactual, and then those editors resorted to putting quotes in, to try to accomodate those objections. But the fringe tag remains. What I am trying to drive towards here, is an answer from the objectors as to how we can describe the protesters' motivations (some of which may be plain wrong or distortions, some of which may reflect reality) in way that satisfies those who are finding problems with FRINGE. And without editors performing OR by critiquing those claims? The latter seems very hard to avoid because the marches were not covered by much original reporting in objective, reliable secondary sources (as per my discussion with Thargor above) so I don't see how we can avoid OR if we proceed by stating a motivation and then critiquing it. As an example, I created a note following the quote that Michael Taylor "runs" the FDA which is not true - the note states the fact that he is a deputy commissioner, not The commissioner). I was a bit uncomfortable doing that because it could probably be struck as being OR or SYN as no secondary source connects that quote to the actual facts. So really - concretely - how should this article deal with the "Motivations" section in a way that accurately reflects those motivations and complies with policy? Let's keep moving toward solving this, please. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with representative quotes as long as they don't make nontrivial statements of fact, and don't see any problem with the article summarizing the views of the protesters. See for example the summary of protestors motivations here. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone can disagree with a presentation like this -- it presents their concerns neutrally and accurately. If some creation design advocate says "evolution can't explain [random bit of biology here]" we don't print the quote on his biography, especially without mentioning the fact that it's wrong.

Similarly, I would stress that counterbalancing a minority viewpoint with a reliably sourced, majority one, is not original research or WP:SYNTH. The protestors have raised concerns about the safety of GMOs; the safety of GMOs is directly related to the article, and we must briefly present the majority view, and not bend over backwards to find it in a source that mentions MaM. For example, every time someone thinks they've invented a perpetual motion machine, we don't need to find a source which mentions that the specific model is unphysical. This is the entire point of POVFORK and SOAPBOX.

Neither of these things requires radical changes to the article. Find a better quote or replace it with an overview of concerns from a reliable source. Add a single line that makes clear that these are minority viewpoints. a13ean (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have no issue with this when it comes to the GMO materials. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? It's not exactly clear (to me at least) what you don't have an issue with. a13ean (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically "counterbalancing a minority viewpoint with a reliably sourced, majority one." Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that there are people here who prefer edit warring over tags instead of discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fringe tag is not warranted because fringe viewpoints are not being presented in this article. It's quite that simple. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann undue weight tag

Could the person that added this tag (or anyone that supports it) please state exactly why it is appropriate and what they believe would be necessary to remove it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

HI Gandy - this exact question is being discussed above, in the "media coverage" section that is 2 sections up. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. Gandydancer (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed with absolutely no guideline or policy-based response justifying the tags, so I've removed them. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. Can you imagine what Wikipedia would be like if every statement would get tagged just because an editor did not think it was factual? As for the article tag, it has been said time and again that this article is not a debate over GM. Like the "Occupation" protests, it is meant to cover the protest movement not whether or not the participants are right or wrong in their reasons for protesting. Gandydancer (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored them per the ongoing discussions above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "ongoing" discussion. There's only you saying "it's fringe because it is fringe", which is not a good argument. As for your evidence, you seem to relying on your personal beliefs which we can't use. As a result, there is nothing to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That you do not like the direction the discussion is going does not mean the discussion is not ongoing. As we've made progress (without your input, interestingly enough), we may not actually need to restore the tag, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The only "direction" your discussion seems to go in is "I don't like X so we must delete it" at which point the progress that results is the unsupported deletion of material that you personally dislike. That's not acceptable and the material will be restored without your disruptive arguments or ridiculous tagging. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"It isn't true, and we can verifiably prove it" is not "I don't like it." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The section about the media that has covered the March was removed as original research. Can someone please point out how it's original research? Or why Hartmann's op-ed should be included at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Report on sources for "broad scientific consensus"

Hi everybody. Here is a report on the sources currently used to support the claim of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified food. I have found that these sources are of poor quality; some are mis-represented and some mis-representative. (Among these sources, the reports published in peer-reviewed journals actually provide least evidence of a broad consensus, often deferring this claim through citations to low quality non-peer-reviewed sources.) I hope that everyone interested in this issue will read the report and take action as they see appropriate. I have already posted the link (and preceding text) at Genetically modified food controversies, but I have reposted here due to the intensity of recent discussion—and the centrality of the "consensus" claim. Editors are welcome to discuss the report at the associated talk page, or to open up some new space for discussion of this issue. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. This is a claim promoted by Monsanto and other biotech companies, with the help of their team of Internet shills who work for a known PR company and troll message boards and Wikipedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Viriditas - Hi. It is clear that there are differences here. However, please do not personalize them. Your comment above is over the line with respect to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Keeping the conversation WP:CIVIL is very important to me. Please keep the conversation focused on content, and please do not continue making comments along this line. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion relates to. Currently there is a parenthetical indicating that several scientific organizations etc. have called genetically modified food "safe." I have altered that to read that they say that there is no evidence of harm. However, I am not convinced that the parenthetical is needed at all. It opens up a hornet's nest and is just not necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's specifically to combat the unchecked fringe point of view being espoused in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions about the safety of GMOs are not "fringe", and are fully suported in the scientific literature. The only sources that have made "fringe" claims about GMOs are Monsanto and its associated biotech lobbying groups. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• In Norway, where I am from, there is no scientific consensus that GMO does not have adverse effects on health and environment. The Norwegian law on the matter is very strict, and almost no GMO has been accepted. The politicans are guided on this issue by the The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board. Here are some excerpts from a recent interview with the director of the board, Sissel Rogne, who is a professor and specialist in genetechnology and named "Academic of the Year" in Norway in 2012. The interview is headlined "Biotechnology Advisory Board calls for better GMO research":
• "(Journalist): Why do Norwegian researchers disagree so much about GMOs? (Sissel Rogne): Natural sciencists are as subjective as any other, and have the ability to pick out the articles and points of view that fits with their political views. GMO field has become very politicized. There are also differences between being thorough and to be comprehensive. The treatment of GMOs is first and foremost comprehensive, and not necessarily thorough assessment of health and environmental effects. In the bottom lie assumptions that are continued without the researchers going into the material. Many articles are based on a simple and short study that is used to show that genetically modified corn is safe. I can not understand that this is good research."
• "Is genetically modified food dangerous? - There is nothing to suggest that it is "dangerous". The word dangerous is seldom used in connection with GMO foods unless there is talk of allergies. The major problem of GMO food is not whether it is dangerous, but if it is safe or healthy. Food is consumed differently in different cultures and ages. For instance, the maize porridge porridge is the first staple food many babies get when they are three months, although Norwegian children do not get porridge from GMO corn. When genetically modified corn is one of the most important products on the market, one must ask whether the corn is tested out from being a food for children. Today the usual tests based on adult rats for 90 days. I'm not impressed with how scientific it is tested."
• "It is alarming to observe how some are critical to critical research on GMOs. One must ask oneself whether the current tests are good enough to determine if food is safe." (End of excerpts)
• There are also other concerns related to GMOs. I think it is very simplistic to say that the scientific consensus it to state that there are no reason to worry about GMOs and that those who want precautionary regulations are a sort of fringe movement. Concerns for GMOs can it no way be compared to Climate Change Denial etc. If the article is to compare the view of the Montsano proteters with the views of academics it should be much more nuanced than saying the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed. Unfortunately, in the United States, we have the problem of media consolidation, so we are generally presented with singular, corporate narratives that present only one sanitized view, usually from the perspective of Monsanto and the biotech lobby. This has been a serious problem in the U.S. for many years now. One of the tricks our media will use is to pretend to give "equal validity" to both sides, even when one side has a substantiated complaint and the other one doesn't. For example, in the media coverage surrounding the protest, you will rarely see any relevant experts cited on this topic. Instead, you will see biotech lobbyists, conservative think tanks, Monsanto representatives, and other shills. In this way, the media can portray this as a "he said, she said" issue, or even a warped version of "David and Goliath", rather than a valid concern over food safety and labeling laws. The bias in the U.S. media is so bad, that most media experts depend on Canadian, European, and other outside sources to find out what is going on in their own country. The country has essentially become a corporatocracy. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that everyone involved in this discussion will take some time to review the report—particularly the newly added Part 2, "Evidence of Dissensus", which compiles a large number of reliable, independent secondary sources disputing the "broad scientific consensus" claim. As I mentioned at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, the page has already been vandalized several times, and I'd appreciate folks who might keep an eye on it. Special thanks to Historyday01 for initiating this process, and to Iselilja for providing the article from Norway. groupuscule (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You went to incredible trouble to help us sort this GMO matter out, and I am wondering how to promote your work to get more eyeballs on it. It's really important given the number of Wiki articles that make these same claims, that GMOs are indisputedly safe, and any studies ("affairs") saying otherwise are promptly smeared. petrarchan47tc 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is claiming that "GMOs are indisputably safe". Part of the difficulty of this discussion is that the scientific consensus keeps being mis-stated by those who oppose it.Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits to remove the need for tags

I made a number of edits which are an attempt to address some of the issues raised on the talk page, and which I would consider sufficient to merit removal of the fringe/fact tag. I hate to spread out the discussion more, but if you have any specific constructive comments on these edits this would be a good place for them. a13ean (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, but proposing two fixes before removing my personal complaints on the matter:

• The way you formatted the list of international scientific claims is basically unreadable in its current form. I understand what you've tried to do here, but it makes it very difficult for readers.
• The article no longer notes that GM food safety is the scientific consensus, and it needs to say that somewhere. I noted the duplication when reading through your edits, but it may have been an oversight in your series of edits in not replacing it.

If we can come to a consensus on these two issues, I'll be on board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. What I really would like to do for the cites is instead of have it read [5][6][7][8] to just have a single [5-8] like you would have in a paper. Does anyone know a trick to doing this? I similarly agree with you on the second point, but I've attempted to get the article to the bare minimum standard of where I think the tag could be removed with these edits, and not to where I think it should reasonably be. Hopefully there's a consensus to start from this point and discuss further. a13ean (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO foods because there is no evidence indicating any such safety, as there are no long-term studies on humans. The only evidence we have is a "lack" of evidence, and that's not how science works. I can't help notice how convenient it is for the biotech industry to fight labeling laws; after all, if you can't track GMO foods you've eaten, how can you record their impact on human health? Sorry, but this is industry PR, not science. The question of whether GMOs are safe for human consumption is an open question in the scientific community, not a fringe question, and there are dozens of journal articles calling for more research because of the lack of the data on this subject. Monsanto can't spin a lack of evidence as proof of safety. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the science clearly against you (and we have reliable sources, scientific ones, stating a consensus of the science), but it may, in fact, be the consensus of this page as well.Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such "science", therefore it cannot be against me. Further, you have not provided a single reliable source saying anything about the safety of GMOs on humans because they have never been tested. Finally, the scientific literature is full of the health risks of GMOs, with new sources being released daily. The Chicago Tribune covered this yesterday.[22] Only Monsanto and its biotech lobbyists claim there is a consensus. Scientists do not. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is your claim from a reliable, scientific source, that there is no consensus? Because I can point to at least two scientific articles stating a consensus, and can find plenty more. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already answered this a dozen times. You keep asking the same question over and over again expecting different results. A scientific consensus that something is safe does not arise from a lack of evidence, it comes from proven studies on human safety. Those studies have never been performed, and the literature is full of scientists in their respective fields recommending these studies. The literature only says that some scientists believe that GMOs are as safe as conventional agriculture, and those claims have also been disputed. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So this is a no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, you've failed to show there is anything "fringe" in this article. Therefore, the tag gets removed. You can't be allowed to hold our articles hostage. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll note that I'm not the one who re-added the tag. I have shown where the fringe information is. You lack the evidence to support your position, which is beginning to look like a POV push. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The opposite is true. You added the tag and another editor tag teamed for you because you had already violated the 3RR. Since I'm not the one who added the tag, and I'm not the one who is arguing that there is "fringe" material in the article, I'm not the one who needs "evidence" to support my position, you are. I don't have to prove a negative, you need to prove a positive. In other words, exactly where is this fringe material and how does it violate our guideline? You can't answer this question because it doesn't, therefore the tag will continue to be removed. Capische? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, actually, but the fringe material, at the time, regarded the unquestioned statements about GM foods being unsafe. Those claims have been moderated, and the scientific consensus has been clearly asserted, so in its current form, I have no further concerns. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually you did, but you're just distracting again. There is no fringe material nor is there any scientific consensus, so you're just making shit up again. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:A13ean, agreed as well. I'm not sure there's a way to do as you ask, though, and it seems to be common practice in contentious cases to use multiple cites when necessary. We might be able to scale back as things die down or if a better omnibus source brings itself, but I'd prefer we not untag until we fix those issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am OK with it as it stands - the tags can come off. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple portions of these changes have been reverted without discussion here; I can no longer support removal of the tags. a13ean (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, nearly all the work discussed here is gone. I also support putting the tags back until this is resolved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The way it works is like this: you need to show that the tag, whatever tag you choose, is appropriate. You've failed to do that. What's going on here is you are holding this article hostage until your personal POV is implemented. That's not how we use maintenance tags, and the tags will continue to be removed. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag is appropriate (or was, I am all set but recognize others still are not) because of the fringe viewpoint regarding unquestioned presentation of GM foods as unsafe, which goes directly against the scientific consensus. You keep arguing that we are wrong, but have no evidence to support it. Meanwhile, we can come up with plenty of high-quality, scientific sources that prove you wrong. That's why the tag is there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag was entirely inappropriate and you have been unable to demonstrate anything "fringe" in this article. Please look at the guideline on WP:FRINGE and show me what part of this article violates it. Please quote the FRINGE guideline and quote the material in this article. I've asked you to do this several times and you've refused. The reason you have refused is because there is nothing in this article that violates FRINGE. What you are doing is holding this article hostage to your POV. You will continue to add maintenance tags, over and over and over again, until we write the article according to the way Monsanto wants this topic presented. Isn't that correct? Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I could care less what Monsanto wants. The fringe point of view that GM foods are not safe being presented without the consensus position of GM safety to clarify (in violation of WP:FRINGE's point of an idea "that depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" as "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.") is the problem. Hopefully you will work with those of us who are trying to get the article to meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia to come to a solution. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't say that. Could you please cite me a statement from this article or from its sources that support your claims? I'm afraid they don't support your view. What you are doing is holding this article hostage to your POV. The article meets our guidelines and policies, and you have been unable to demonstrate that it does not. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gene Patent Question

Did Monsanto have any patents on genes occurring in nature? If so, they no longer do.

I don't think that the Supreme Court case touched on patents for genes modified by genetic modification. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rash edits

Please do not blank out entire sections with out prior discussion. The future plans for the march participants is certainly not an "advertisement" for them. Does anybody here actually believe that they are using Wikipedia to relay information? Also, there is no sound reason to keep blanking out Thom Hartmann's views. Read any similar article in the 'pedia and you will find similar opinions by well-known personalities included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

First, you have four reverts in the last 10 hours, which could get you blocked. Second, yes, it reads solely as an advertisement for future activity, and is not sourced reliably even if it weren't. It's not an appropriate section and needs to go. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You have the same number of reverts, Thargor Orlando. It does not read as an "advertisement" at all, and it is reliably sourced regardless of the misplacement of website links, which should not have been added. The section is entirely appropriate per our policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC concerning tags

There is a dispute at March Against Monsanto as to whether undue weight tags and a fringe science tag are necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Neither tag warranted. This article is on an anti-Monsanto movement, and it is not being used as a platform for presenting of fringe point of views of any kind. There does seem to be some sentiment to include a large portion of text in the footnotes heralding the safety of genetically modified food. That effort is misguided, I think, because it is not needed to counteract any claims in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The fringe point of view being presented without question is the one concerning the safety of GM food, which has been discussed in-depth above. The overwhelming preponderance of the data shows the foods are safe, and it is considered by many to be a scientific consensus on the matter. Per our fringe theories guideline, we must note that consensus and that point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No, a fringe point of view is not being presented. That's my point. Just mentioning it isn't the same as "presenting" it, detailing it. The parenthetical material and its lengthy footnotes would provide far more of substance talking up genetically modified food than is in the article knocking it. In fact, there is basically no argument made for that point of view. Its existence is simply noted. If this was being used as a coattrack for presenting the anti-genetically modified pov then I would see the complaint here. Note that I'm not even getting into what is or is not "fringe." I don't think one has to get into that to see that the tag is not needed. Coretheapple (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The fact that it's presented without comment at all is a passive acceptance of the point of view as valid. Thus the need to explain the consensus position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not a fringe position and there's no need to explain anything. Your misinterpretion of the fringe guideline also runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, which is policy. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Some balancing needed The "it's bad" statements are attributed to the protestors, so the article isn't making the offense of stating them as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. But the article is glaringly missing at least mentioning the other point of view (that the current widely distributed ones are safe) and it's doubly so given that the missing view has a lot of acceptance, backed by a preponderance of evidence. BTW, I also saw some notes above on how science operates. That would take a book to cover, but in the relevant area, there are varying degrees of acceptance, including "widely accepted" (including supported by work per the scientific method) but the non-existence of something (e.g. harmful effects from the products) is never considered by science to be "proven". So nothing is ever "proven" safe, and saying that that is a criteria for something is a red herring. And considering "not proven safe" as as support of the reverse view is even more logically and scientifically outlandish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• No tags, fix the problem - If we're going to have a month-long, publicly-advertised RFC, fix the problem (if there is one) instead of just coming to a consensus that the article should carry tags indicating that there is a problem. The only scientific claims I see the article coming close to saying about the safety of GM foods is: "The primary goals of March Against Monsanto were to expose what protestors believe are the dangers associated with genetically engineered foods" and it's properly attributed to beliefs of the protesters. Why not use this NY Times article, for example, which says "Regulators and some scientists say this poses no threat to human health" and maybe something from this LA Times article. Then a tag wouldn't be needed. Zad68 03:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the tags I added a response about the march, but it was removed[23]. I found that in a five second google search, so if it is not the best (I have no idea who or what the Hawaii Crop Association are, but it was mentioned in a "March" article so was relevant) then add another. I don't like the way this tag is being used here and don't think this article should be a defence of the technology. As long as the protesters claims are not being presented as scientific then I see no need to have the scientific opinion tacked onto this article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the tags I put Aircorn's edit back as I agree with the editors that believe that it is easy enough to find RS that disagrees with the protest's position on the safety of GM plants. As has been said, this article is about a protest, not about an attempt to settle the question about the safety of GMOs. Gandydancer (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Assuming the key points in the article stay as they are as of this edit, remove the tags. I don't like that we've shuttled the scientific consensus as an offhand "response" to the March as opposed to it being, well, the scientific consensus, but that might be the best we can do for now and at least the consensus is mentioned. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Without the scientific consensus information that was removed in this edit, I cannot support removing the tags. We cannot, per WP:FRINGE, allow the fringe claims to go unquestioned. A simple expression of the consensus without the evidence does not meet our guidelines or policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• No tags needed. There is nothing in this article that falls afoul of our guideline on WP:FRINGE topics. This article is also written in accordance with our policy on WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Neither tags warranted, by coretheapple and Viriditas. (I may elaborate my views on this later). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• No tags needed The one, very anemic, statement regarding GMOs requires no rebuttal since it is sourced to and is about the beliefs of the protesters. The statement could be expanded (and still it would not require tags). MAM was an anti GMO protest as well as an anti Monsanto one. It seems a bit silly to raise such a fuss over allowing this bit of information on Wiki petrarchan47tc 19:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This statement is not anemic, it's actually completely false, misleading, fringe theory. That's the type of problem we need to avoid putting unquestioned into the article. No one, to my knowledge, is against including the claims of the protesters. In situations of fringe science, however, guidelines and policy require us to include the consensus position. When people remove that information, we run into problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-GMO advocates believe GMOs can lead to serious health consequences".Marching against Monsanto in "The Belly of the Beast" - this is a perfectly anemic statement (now long removed) referring to - not science - the beliefs of a crowd topping two million. We have links to the Wikipedia articles about GMOs and the controversy, which is entirely appropriate. This is not a page for that debate, and simply telling the reader what these folks were protesting should not cause this much trouble. petrarchan47tc 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, the fact that it's not science is the problem. It's a fringe position that must, per guideline and policy, be noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• No tags needed The article is a useful description of a movement that is generating publicity. In view of the subject of the article there are a lot of quotations from marchers or those that support them. It is not a balanced view of the GMO debate, but doesn't claim to be. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Future plans section

This section keeps getting added back in. It's horribly sourced and reads like an advertisement. Why are we including it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are poor, however it is not a case (as far as I can see) of doubting the accuracy of the sourced material (and I don't see it to read as an advertisement). Although some editors here feel this protest was well-covered, I'd say that it was not. But that does not mean, for one minute, that Monsanto and other similar corporations have not taken note of it and remain extremely aware of the implications and have serious fears of where this may lead... I'd guess that they are working on their plans for a counterattack at this very minute. I tend to believe that much of corporate America, including the media, believe that this issue is still cooking, though on the back burner at this time. I see no problem with including the fact that future protests are planned in our article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what most of this comment has to do with it. Why is the section appropriate? "Corporate media" and "Monsanto counterattack" aren't reasons to include something that almost certainly violate WP:CRYSTAL. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that your viewpoint has a lot of merit and your WP:CRYSTAL seems appropriate. I am hoping that other editors will weigh in on this as well. I am certainly willing to change my mind but for now the inclusion seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is not horribly sourced, and can found in many different reliable sources already in the article. The problem is that the person who added it made it seem like the material was sourced to primary websites instead of the newspaper articles. This is a common editorial problem that is usually solved by moving the links to a footnote. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you present a source in the article that supports the claims that isn't Alternet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the actual sources in the article? This paragraph is already sourced. Alternet shouldn't even be there. I'm getting pretty tired of your red herring arguments. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you present a source or not? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "the paragraph is already sourced" aren't you getting? Stop disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it's sourced. It's sourced poorly, to Alternet. You claim that there's other sources in the article we can use, I'm asking you to present them. This still assumes the section should be in the article at all, of course, but please work with us, not against us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

More of your red herrings. What part of "Alternet shouldn't be there" aren't you understanding? The material is sourced to reliable sources in the current article and in the same paragraph. There are additional sources available in the news indexes. You continue to ignore the sources that support the material while focusing on sources that are superfluous and should be removed. You're obviously here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any further defense for including this section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of Associated Press source

There is only one Associated Press source that should appear in this article. This is the full, revised version of the original story with correction. Currently, we have numerous uses of different versions of this source which confuses the coverage. I'm going to switch this to one single version per best practice. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There are more than two versions in the current article, and I don't think an editor removed the right one. There is at least one full version of the AP source comprising around 800 words or so. I believe that is the correct one to use unless there is a longer one. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I did it. I had originally reduced the number to two and had kept both because they had separate dates. One was dated 5/25 and one dated 5/26, and you were right they were nearly identical. (even though the AP puts the legend on not to change their text, people do! crazy). I used the earlier, longer one. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You removed the wrong source and you left in multiple copies of the AP source, so the problem is now worse than it was. You also added an older source which has since been corrected and superseded by a newer one. AP sources are routinely chopped up and torn apart in syndication, so the legend only applies to the use of a sentence, not to the removal of entire paragraphs. The reason I started this thread was to try and solve the problem, not make it worse. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, until your most recent edit, the AP story was repeated five times. I'm getting the sense that people do not read the sources they are adding. HuffPost and the USA Today appear to have posted the entire news report, whereas The Guardian, Yahoo, and The Province posted snippets. Here are the publishers and word counts:

• HuffPost - 821
• USA Today - 818
• Guardian - 629
• Yahoo - 626
• The Province - 571

Using DiffNow (or any other text compare tool), shows that the USA Today and HuffPost stories are identical except for stylistic changes, such as the use of a percentage sign instead of "percent". Therefore, I'm going to link only to the USA Today version, which appears to have published the most complete (and revised) edition of the single AP story. The Guardian, Yahoo, and The Province published older and/or incomplete versions, which is very common with wire stories. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Note, I've completed this task. I've also removed the Al Jazeera cite as it was not about this protest nor a news story. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto's statement

respects people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintains that its seeds improve agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources such as water and energy.

If that's going to remain in the article, then we're going to have to write about the many rebuttals to this marketing claim which is considered highly dubious by numerous reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a protest not the GMO argument. If you are going to remove the Monsanto statement because you believe it to be highly dubious I can't imagine why you have no problem with the statements that the protestors have made that criticize Monsanto, which Monsanto and their supporters consider to be dubious. Same thing goes for the other criticism you removed. They should be returned to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Except, you've just quoted the GMO argument, namely that Monsanto's "seeds improve agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources such as water and energy". That has nothing to do with the protest. The other "criticism" was nothing of the sort, it was a statement from a biotech lobbying organization that explicitly exists to support Monsanto, and their statement deliberately misattributed the scientific litearture to to make a GMO argument. Sorry, but I'm not following you here at all. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Viriditas, the opposing views and statements are already in the article. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur with the two above. Monsanto's statement appears adequate for the artice, and is attributed to Monsanto. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is an expression of a GMO argument that has been refuted in the scientific and legal literature. We do not need or require a statement from Monsanto. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The entire article is about a protest filled with verifiably dubious claims. A line from the target of the protest is more than appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Filled with dubious claims" - for the life of me, I cannot figure out what you're referring to - would you make a list here so I can understand? petrarchan47tc 19:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

About the safety of GM food, the media coverage, Monsanto having a food monopoly, Monsanto's influence in Washington, the relationship with citizens united. Not all of them are fringe statements, but they're surely dubious. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those claims are neither fringe nor dubious, but entirely supported by the relevant scholarly literature and reliable secondary sources. Reality is not whatever Monsanto says it is. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A line from monsanto makes sense as long as others are included too (all but Monsanto's response was removed recently but at last check, other viewpoints were re-added). petrarchan47tc 19:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The current version[24] seems balanced. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the statement from Monsanto's biotech lobbying organization. It has no place in this article and they do not accurately represent the science. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Added back in. We need some responses to the March that are not in agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarrification about the undue weight tag

Can someone please clarrify what exactly the article is giving undue weight to? Is there some criticism of March Against Monsanto that has not been included here in the article? If so, please add them. I could not find any such criticism --Wikishagnik (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My inclusion of the undue weight tag earlier in the week was in regards to the claim about media coverage, which appears to be solved. The existing fringe tag is in regards to the continued unquestioned assertion of GM foods being unsafe against the clear, documented scientific consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GMO's have not been in use long enough to know whether there is any long term risk or not (including generational). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is simply untrue, and the science overwhelmingly backs this up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is false. The science consistently states that further studies are required because there have been no long term studies on human health. Risks of toxins and allergies are often cited as concerns, as well as the safety issues concerning the overuse of pesticides needed for GMO crops. Further, science is a skeptical enterprise; it does not make blanket proclamations such as "totally safe" and "no safety concerns" because it acknowledges that everything has risks, even GMOs. The only people pushing the "no evidence of risk and totally safe" angle are biotech lobbyists and their paid minions. According to The Daily Ticker, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture ruled last month that it needs more time to conduct detailed studies of new genetically modified corn, soybean and cotton seeds from Monsanto and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) before approving their use in the food supply...These seeds 'may significantly affect the quality of the human environment,' the USDA said in a statement."[25] Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources addressed Monsanto's claims in May. According to Bloomberg, Benbrook said that "plant breeding does much more to increase crop yields than genetic modification [and that] engineering crops to tolerate herbicides makes farmers jobs easier, while increasing the public’s exposure to chemicals such as dicamba and 2,4-D that have been linked to reproductive problems...The best way to help alleviate hunger is for the world to reduce food waste, eat less meat, and restore soil fertility."[26] Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article took the direction of becoming a soapbox-via-coatrack of espousing the views of one side of the GMO controversy. Some balancing is needed. The best way would probably be a reduction in the repetitions of the statements of their position & talking points (via quotes etc.) as that is the main way that the article has become a soapbox for one side of the GMO debate. BTW, I don't like GMOs, so my concerns are based on doing a proper article, not a RW POV. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote from an unidentified protestor should probably be removed or at least paraphrased. I think it is already covered in the previous sentence anyway, but can't quite make sense of it. Is "until Monsanto conducts further testing" supposed to be on the end? AIRcorn (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto voted Most Evil Corporation (twice)

Most evil on the planet, to clarify. This should be integrated in the article. Here are some WP:RS refs: http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2009/11/17/monsanto_the_most_evil_corporation_on_earth http://voices.yahoo.com/monsanto-voted-most-evil-company-world-environmentalists-8388725.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/25/1211599/-Monsanto-A-Beginners-Guide-to-the-World-s-Most-Dangerous-Corporation http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/11/monsanto-modifies-soy-beans-to-grow-fish-oil/ http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-named-2013s-most-evil-corporation-new-poll-1300217 http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/08/tthe-most-evil-company-on-the-planet-monsanto.aspx MaxPont (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

the first "WP:RS" source is blog on Salon that a) has nothing to do with the votes you mention but is just a random reaction to watching Food Inc; b) is a blog so is not an RS anyway. sheesh.Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on a WP:RS (Salon, Forbes, Daily Kos, Yahoo) should be considered a reliable secondary source that gives notability to this fact. MaxPont (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, are you suggesting some content for the article or are you just here on a WP:SOAPBOX?Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that other editors could find a way to integrate this in the article. MaxPont (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)