Talk:Kevin Folta

Role of Land Grant universities

I think it might be informative to add a couple quotes about the nature of Land Grant universities such as University of Florida with regard to the alleged conflict of interest. These articles explain how Dr. Folta's educational outreach program relates to their broader mission, and how such collaboration is a feature, not a bug:

There is a network of “Land Grant” colleges and Universities throughout the US that was first set up in the late 1800s through the Morrill Acts. Their purpose was to focus on agriculture, science, military science and engineering. They became important centers of applied research which has been of great benefit for the global food supply. These institutions have traditionally been part of a synergistic, public/private partnership for the discovery, testing and commercialization of innovations of value to the farming community. They also educate future farmers, the specialized scientists and engineers who become the employees of ag-related businesses, and the future faculty. [1]

[T]his is the way the land-grant university system is supposed to work. Part of our mission is to partner with others — be they corporations, nonprofits, or government agencies — to discover, test and commercialize inventions. It's also our mission to share science and innovation broadly with the public. [2]

Wurdeh (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm one of the first to admit many people fail to realize what role land-grant researchers are supposed to serve between the public and industry, I'm worried we might be getting into WP:COATRACK territory with this unless another source delves into that role a bit more directly on the subject of this article or the controversy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Land-grant university exists. I linked the mention of it in the strawberry section, but there isn't much text to get the point across you seem to be implying. If another section needs it, I'm sure a link to that would be sufficient for the bulk of the information, possibly linking to a subsection if an appropriate one exists. Then it might be sufficient to add one, maybe two, sentences to the fact that he works at a land-grant university, and academic-industry-gov't-etc partnerships are appropriate and necessary.Nrjank (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

COI

I think we need to talk about the changes made rather than just reverting. Some are quite good, and there are WP:RS citations for a lot of the changes made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Like most COI editor's edits, this section was fundetmentally non neutral. IT was biased in favor of its subject with the addition of unreliable sources and giving undue weight to the view that he did nothing wrong. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I see one SPS, and many many RS. Can you show RS that he did something wrong? He did go about editing in the wrong way, but he did add RS, and from what I can see, removed the NPOV. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case when an advocacy group is working on a smear campaign (or any nicer way to put it), we also need to be careful of undue weight for that point of view as well. That's especially the case given that this is a BLP. This is very similar in nature to Climategate, so while COI edits were made, I agree with Jerodlycett that a lot of them actually weren't too shabby as far as COI editors go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I have gone through and removed most of the unreliable sources and misrepresented sources, and I'll continue to work on the section for a bit. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In edits you made removing content mentioning SPS, what are you seeing as a problem? The sources I've seen deleted here appear fine under WP:BLPSPS. I don't think everything should have just been deleted, but some of that content associated with them can be reworked. I'll take a stab at that in a bit. Just wanting to make sure you weren't deleting content based on the source alone. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42:This: Kroll, David (10 September 2015). "What The New York Times Missed On Kevin Folta And Monsanto's Cultivation Of Academic Scientists". Forbes. Retrieved 10 September 2015. doesn't appear to be SPS, but rather an op-ed for Forbes, or maybe not, as he seems to be a semi-regular columnist for them.

Considering the evidence very clearly shows this is just a smear campaign and little more, a lot of the edits having been made to this article concern me. Especially this edit by Winner 42, which implies to me they know nothing about Wikipedia or RS's and shouldn't be allowed to edit at all. Of course, that implication doesn't make much sense, since they've been editing for a long time and have written GAs and such. Which then only allows one other conclusion: they are editing in bad faith and trying to POV slant the article because of personal biases against the subject. Silverseren^C 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

COI allegations: wording.

According to an article in Nature, in August 2015, the investigation began to produce documents which indicated that he had not committed scientific misconduct, but revealed that he had close ties to Monsanto and other biotechnology interests and that he had received a unrestricted $25,000 grant from Monsanto.[5] Folta responded to this article by denying the article's claims that he had "close ties" to Monsanto.[8]

To me, this seems like bad style. The sentence is way too long, and the first part actually severely modulates the truth value of the last part. The last part, however, starts with a "but", which actually negates the first part. Without careful and close reading, it might not occur that this is what a blog article on Nature said, and that those statements might not (and to are not exactly) factual. Was the "grant" unrestricted? From what I read, it was actually tied to the outreach program. That's not unrestricted. Also, "close ties" doesn't seem like a word that should be used like that in an encyclopedia, but that might be only me.--2A02:8070:8883:CA00:F9D1:2926:E0D9:E757 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's actually two sentences in the original article, and whoever wrote that phrasing dropped something which I added. Can I invite you to signup for an account? Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I spent way too much time on a non-English(hint:not a native speaker of en) wikipedia (including admin stuff) and essentially was driven out. I'm sure you've heard stories like this a plenty. I'll be gone sooner than later, and I'll not do any actual edits, sorry.

I just saw this article being discussed in a social network and this sentence immediately struck my eye. It's not only meandering, it's also reported speech. I'm not even sure what the purpose is. I don't feel informed reading it. Yes, there's that blog entry on Nature with its interpretations. But there's also actual source emails (caveat: cherry picked and out of context), as well as Folta's statements for further context. Can we un-entangle this, instead of trying to cram everything into one sentence or even paragraph? --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:F9D1:2926:E0D9:E757 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Unrestricted grants have special meaning in ag research. As a professor, a company says you can do whatever you want with the money in exchange for doing a research trial, outreach program, etc. regardless of results (part of where unrestricted comes in). On the university side, the professor may dedicate that money to specific program of theirs (which is also why they money could be moved to another program as it was). Just a caution that unrestricted funding is a bit of a jargon term in this context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we have wikilink for that version of unrestricted, I think it's quite important to include that. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but you've got to explain this to readers, or not use that kind of jargon. "Unrestricted" is a common word most readers will understand literally. I suggest not using it, and instead just say what such a grant may be used for, and what it has been used for. Much clearer, no? --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:F9D1:2926:E0D9:E757 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that really needs to be better defined in the article. Most people will think unrestricted actually means bribe, when it really means non-influenced. Silverseren^C 00:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the problem and play on words. I think it's as good as we can do for now, but I'll do some digging tomorrow on if we have sources we can use here that describe it. It's tough because professors almost never talk about the jargon at that level except to their account people, much less sources we'd use on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll pay a visit to our university accounting folks and pick their brains on any descriptive paper sources other universities might put out (especially where I might find them for Florida). Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed much better now. Best of luck finding good sources for such specific jargon. However, as you pointed out, it seems to be a term only used by very few people. Consider Wikipedia:Technical and Wikipedia:Jargon --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:F9D1:2926:E0D9:E757 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a few university sources that discuss unrestricted grants without too much jargon. The language we currently have seems fine though, so I'm just putting this out there for FYI:

https://www.umass.edu/research/training/unrestricted-grant-definition

http://osp.finance.harvard.edu/gift-vs-sponsored-research-policy

https://guru.psu.edu/policies/RAG04.html Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I found U of F's statement on unrestricted grants, namely that, "Gifts are made for a restricted or unrestricted use, as specified by the donor at the time of the gifting. Provided funds are used in the way specified by the donor, the support is irrevocable and requires no deliverables or substantial benefits in return."[3] In short, money with no strings attached, as opposed to restricted grants that professors usually get from granting agencies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's pretty nice. I had no idea it's so well defined. Still don't think the article can benefit from this kind of jargon and its explanation. Common usage interferes... --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@IP, I just try to invite all IP editors to join, I'm sure you realize how IP editors get treated here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature states: "The records, which the university gave to US Right to Know last month, do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta. But they do reveal his close ties to the agriculture giant Monsanto, of St Louis, Missouri, and other biotechnology-industry interests." That is unambiguous: there was no scientific misconduct. The version you quote makes it seem that early evidence doesn't support scientific misconduct, but dear me, look at these links, no smoke without fire, get the pitchforks and form an orderly mob. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: The statement about email exchanges is unnecessary because the very next line details the communications. Including the email exchanges part seems redundant and purposefully POV-negative toward the BLP subject. Silverseren^C 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

POV disclosures

Off-topic per WP:FOC

Before anything breaks out into an edit war, anyone else care to join with me on this? This isn't a count, nor is it meant for consensus, just as a guide to others, so we can understand who may have emotions involved on what end. you mean Pro-Science? --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:F9D1:2926:E0D9:E757 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Funny timing, what with my response below. SilverserenC 23:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC) And you're right on point with regards to work in an encyclopedia (I used to write a lot for wiki (not en), but the internal wars made me stop. Sigh.). Still, I'd actually be curious if someone assigns themselves to the middle category. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:F9D1:2926:E0D9:E757 (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Pro-GMO Jerod Lycett (talk) Anti-GMO Pro-Science This is stupid and pointless. I support the scientific consensus on all subjects, including the safety of biotechnology and vaccines and the existence of anthropogenic climate change. That's all science and Wikipedia is meant to present science, not fringe nonsense as if it's true. SilverserenC 23:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC) I'm closing this as this is inappropriate for an article talk page. We are expected to check in any POV we have at login afterall. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Self published source " Between Scientists and Citizens"

The Blog "Between Scientists and Citizens" written by a certain Jean Goodwin, looks terribly tendentious, uses dramatic rhethoric (Folta "targeted by McCarthy-style attacks") and has climate change pieces on it making fun of James Hansen. Winner 42 had removed it stating in his editsummary why: Self published source. However, agroscience editor, which is what Kingofaces calls himself, re-introduced it with the misleading edit summary: "Restore sources with better attribution per WP:BLPSPS. If there's some wording that doesn't quite match up, happy to discuss on talk." but not discussing after a bold edit was reverted is NOT DISCUSSING. This is editwarring, even though King writes nonchalantly" happy to discuss". The source is an absolute no no for WP. --Wuerzele (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. Wikipedia allows for statements by individuals to be sourced from their own self-published work, as this is. It would not be admissible as a statement of fact in respect of some contentious item, but as a source for a statement by Folta about the matter in question, it is entirely legitimate. That does not in any way prejudge the veracity of the statement, it is clearly his own words on his own site and the reader can conclude for xyrself whether to accept it in the context. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you mixed up sources, JzG/Guy: I am not talking about Folta's own blog. It is WP:Uncivil to call my communication "rubbish".--Wuerzele (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

edit warring about COI investigation

@Wuerzele: Retroactively moved comment here The statement about email exchanges is unnecessary because the very next line details the communications. Including the email exchanges part seems redundant and purposefully POV-negative toward the BLP subject. Silverseren^C 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Over the last 9 hours I have been trying to straighten out language of this page, keeping info according to the main sources ( (Nature, NYT and an admissible WP:SPS, Foltas blog) and and pointed out ONE unacceptable source ( section above), reverted reinsertions per WP:BRD, was reverted and have discussed here.

Silver seren, Kingofaces43, Glen, Jerodlycett have clearly expressed their feelings and/or opinion about the COI above investigation ("smear campaign"}, and Winner 42 who has expressed his position as "extremely pro-science and pro GMO here, has done good work eliminating unreliable sources, yet was attacked by Silverseren here, after which winner 42 filed an ANI against him.-- Oh my!

Gentlemen, please chill, and work with the page, which Kevin Folta apparently wrote himself, as Jerodlycett said here. I think we dont need to make the tempest in the teacup bigger than it is. Please read my arguments. I am not asking much. When I move a wikilink to prevent sea-of blue consecutive links as here chill, think, discuss and don't revert a copy edit. thanks in advance. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, i'm still contemplating on whether I want to take this article to AfD or not. It very clearly runs afoul of WP:1E and notability requirements, as there don't seem to be any actual sources about Folta or his work. And before this controversy, the only reliable sources about him seem to have been a few discussing his challenge to Bill Nye and a smaller amount discussing his challenge to an anti-GMO person. That's it. Nothing that would meet actual BLP requirements and put this article beyond being an attack article on a BLP subject based around a controversy. If the source of the controversy had been about his actual scientific work, then it might be different, but the entire controversy seems to be just about attacking him personally. And with no other notability to stand on, this article really shouldn't even exist. Silverseren^C 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

interesting suggestion. no comment. i am busy working on keeping this NPOV as long as it exists.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing your comment to make it an aspersion against me is pretty sad. Just saying. It rather puts your claimed neutrality in question. Silverseren^C 19:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

what aspersion? --Wuerzele (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC),

oh and please dont forget to move your comment filed in an old section down here, as I asked you here and here twice politely on your talk page now!--Wuerzele (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Which I already did long before you made this comment. A full thirty minutes before, in fact. Is this how you work, make subtle negative comments about people and never explain your own actions while calling out everyone else for opposing what you're doing? Silverseren^C 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

your reply is still invisible in this section, so you are incorrect. you also didnt reply to my question "what aspersion", INSTEAD you make convoluted aspersions against me, non-constructive and obviating transparency. This is an artcle talk page.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: You're the one that needs to discuss things. You seem to be following (re)move, accuse, and that's about it. Can you explain why when you get reverted you don't discuss it, bur just keep putting it back even when others revert you too? It's very disruptive. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerod, I do discuss, and I am glad we are talking. you have overlooked my edit summaries . I quote per source: "Folta received..." is what Nature says. There is nothing BAD in stating that. Please lets agree on that, read the source, its even quoted in the reference itself, look. If you want to explain in the text, that it goes through the UofF go ahead, please. I thanked you for the other edit , that was a good one --Wuerzele (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Glen I see you insist on this version, preferring to slapping a 3RR template on my page instead to discuss. show me this sentence in the Nature article "We funded Dr. Folta's proposal through an unrestricted grant to the University of Florida". It is not there. so, stop introducing wrong information. I suggested an alternative already, write an explanatory sentence. and I will offer another one: write the sentence and attribute it with another source that states it. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you don't understand what an unrestricted grant actually is. We discuss it in a section up above. A grant has to be to a university for a professor This is further shown by the university being able to move the grant to something else, something they couldn't have done if the grant hadn't been given to them. Silverseren^C 22:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Told you the term shouldn't be used, as per cited guidelines. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I left here yesterday thinking this article is on good tracks. Now I come back and find several issues. Yawn?

1. Notability. You guys need to settle this pronto. It's a waste of time arguing about things if notability isn't given and the article shouldn't even be here. Priority #1. In German Wikipedia, professors of Folta's caliber are deemed notable, especially due to their obvious impact on research. No idea what your guidelines say. He's also somewhat of a person of public interest, no? What do the guidelines say? Easy question.
2. NPOV. Oh joy. Come on. You're trying to write an encyclopedia. This means you absolutely have to filter out personal feelings, and those of others. It's not rocket science to formulate this in neutral language. You know what non-neutral language looks like. I can also refer to guidelines. If you think neutral language doesn't fit, write a blog about that but leave wiki alone. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion platform. You might think it's important to "flavor" an article, but it's not. Imagine everyone thought that way. Wikipedia would be useless. Thank you. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

self published source: Neurologica blog

I removed another shrill, non-permissible source for WP:BLP at the end of the COI section: Novella,Steven (11 September 2015). "How To Attack a Public Scientist". Neurologica Blog. Retrieved 11 September 2015.. someone really is pushing the martyr image, here.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I undid it. You really need to discuss changes before making them here if you want to be seen as editing constructively, as your changes are obviously not making consensus. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect. no editor needs to discuss changes before making tehm. The source is not allowed per WP:BLP. clearcase. take it to ANI if you want.

Steven Novella is most definitely a permissible source. He is the very definition of an expert source. Silverseren^C 00:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

this is a nonsensical, illogical, irrational reply. I am afraid that in this short time since I have met you , after assuming best of faith, thanking you where possible, I have seen you contribute mostly noise. you are also not courteous, you do not reply to issues, but waffle, you bicker and therefore waste space on talk pages. You are are the very definition of a WP:troll on this page. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What, because I and others are opposing your clear attempts to negatively slant the article? Silverseren^C 02:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I'm trying to figure out what is the matter with you. Someone says, as it turns out correctly, that person X is an expert (and thus deserves to be cited here, as an expert in the field), and you launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense. JzG, you're the fringe expert, please have a look at Wuerzele's comments and see if they deserve a warning or notification of some sort. In the meantime, I am going to warn them for a personal attack--this rant was ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, we havent met before. I am impressed by your extremely quick judgement. I am trying to figure out in what capacity you post what you post here. I hope this is a bit more polite than "what is the matter with you". Are you posting here as an administrator that has to decide if Jerod lycett violated the 3RR rule? Or as a WP editor of the page, or maybe both?

• Re "Someone says, as it turns out correctly, that person X is an expert (and thus deserves to be cited here, as an expert in the field)" User:Silver seren claims that Novella is an expert and you believe Silver seren. why? Steven Novella is a neurologist and no expert on this situation. Please explain why Silver seren is correct and why Steven Novella is an expert.
• Re: "you launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense." I disagree with your opinion. I have not attacked Silver seren. I mentioned the word troll, which is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what you can see for yourself in the diffs of Silver seren's editing and talking here and so the term makes more than "a bit of sense".
• Re:"..fringe expert, please have a look at Wuerzele's comments and see if they deserve a warning or notification of some sort." Please explain why you are suspecting "fringe" in my comments. It is interesting that you order a known tendentious editor JzG to check my comments out for fringe. First this shows your bias, and with whom you side as an administrator. shouldn't you have recused yourself in the 3RR case if you have such strong alliances or maybe opinions on this? Second, you admit that you actually did not carefully read any of my comments here or in the edit summaries, nor did you check any other background of mine, otherwise you would not have surmised WP:Fringe, nor would you have needed someone else to make that call "for you".

I hope you understand why I question why you are posting here. The content issue of this section is, that the Novella blog is clearly non permissible for WP:BLP, which you havent mentioned, and I wonder why not.....Looking forward to your polite reply. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Troll" can well be a personal attack. Also, I didn't "order" JzG, who is a known longterm admin with sound judgment--I asked them for their opinion, since they are better acquainted with the relevant ArbCom rulings than I am. My opinion is confirmed by your response: I think you are a POV warrior and you are poisoning the atmosphere here. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to focus on content here rather than contributors. Wuerzele has asked some straightforward questions to clarify why the Novella blog is being used here. As blogs are often avoided as sources, such questions seem reasonable and the answers, while evident to some, may not be clear to all - working through the questions will help everyone move past this.Dialectric (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• The guy is a bona fide, certified scientist, and an acknowledged voice in the field of science and skepticism. That he's a neuroscientist and not a...wait, what is he supposed to be here in order to comment on a scientist being attacked? a logician? a rhetorician? a politician? No, such compartmentalization is silly: scientists, at least the scientists that I know, become scientists not just because they know a tibula from a fibula or a jamb from an anapest, but also because they've been taught a thing or two about scientific methodology, and that's what's at stake here.

  Now, that we not use blogs is a requirement that in this case is a bit narrrow-minded, since the particular reference is not to attack the subject of a BLP but rather to defend one. Our BLP is pretty sacred to me, but like everything else we have for policies and guidelines it needs to be read in context. This is a context that, in my opinion, allows this blog post. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest mediation

This issue has been raised as a COI issue at WP:COIN#Kevin_Folta and as an edit warring issue at WP:AN/Edit warring#User:Jerodlycett reported by User:wuerzele. There appears to be a COI issue, a BLP issue, edit warring, personal attacks, a huge number of recent edits starting Sep. 13, 2015, and a surprising number of involved editors who haven't been editing much else recently. I don't think we can do much for this at WP:COIN, and there are too many editors involved for simple 3RR blocks to help much. This article is going to need some form of dispute resolution. I suggest mediation. See WP:DISPUTE for the process. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a simple reason behind this, the "Folta case" is being pushed on social media. It's essentially a smear-campaign driven by certain interests groups who oppose Folta's science outreach program. This attracts people with bias (of any kind), as it always does. Rigorous editing is needed to avoid adding slanderous passages that might be subject to legal action. Over time, things will calm down, but as of now, it's probably a good idea to lock the article in a state that is as NPOV as possible and sit out the storm. YMMV --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"a smear-campaign driven by certain interests groups who oppose Folta's science outreach program" ... Well, that is one way to characterize it. Another way to characterize it is that there is a group called U.S. Right to Know, funded by a citizen's advocacy organization, who think that the public needs to know about how perception about the food system is shaped, and whether there is influence of any improper sort between people who appear to be neutral scientists or science communicators, and the industry that has a vested interest in one outcome of public perception and science-generated knowledge. And then one could say that this controversy attracts people in the "skeptoid" sort of camp who wish to control the output and perception of science among the public, and who wish to smear the group that wants transparency in matters that relate to public safety and health. Just saying, there are different ways to look at it. SageRad (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Therefore, i would say that the above comment by the numerically named editor shows a clear POV and their proposed solution of locking down the article is a tactic of POV pushing in favor of Folta and the industry in general. SageRad (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NPOV means to you, but it is well defined in Wikipedia. Are you trying to say NPOV isn't possible in this case? What's your point?!

That "citizen's advocacy organization" (Organic Consumer Association), which funds USRTK is primarily funded by Eden Organic, Nutiva Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and Mercola, by the way. I hope you weren't serious with those statements. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is very simple. At the same time that you are paying lip service to NPOV, you are evoking an extremely biased point of view on the matter, which is a contradiction. And then you go on with more of the platform of your biased point of view in stating the funding of OCA. My point is that there are multiple points of view, and your point of view is not neutral and therefore your suggested course of action is far from neutral. SageRad (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You know the difference between facts and e.g. hyperbole? Stating a fact is NPOV. Hyperbole isn't(I still hope your above statement was meant that way). You can easily compare statements made by USRTK and the OCA against the scientific consensus, or depending on the type of statement, data. It doesn't take much comparison to see they're not objective entities. You can do the same with Folta. USRTK has so far failed to show how Folta's statement about science and technology were different from the scientific consensus or contrary to solid science. However, they do claim his opinion was influenced by "the industry" and money. Misrepresenting someone's statements to undermine their credibility is the definition of a smear campaign. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pro-science. Period. Our WP:FRINGE rules show that quite clearly. The people behind this smear campaign are in support of pseudoscience. This is well documented and easily shown, whether one is talking about the Organic Consumer Association's anti-vaccine stance or its support of homeopathy or we're talking about March Against Monsanto and its belief in chemtrails. And all of these organizations have direct ties to each other, between USRTK to those organizations and then further connections to specific scientists involved with the CRIIGEN organization, among others. All of it is pseudoscience that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 18:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But... to characterize Folta as "science" and those who are interested in seeing the level of collusion or cooperation between industry and Folta as "fringe" is completely biased. You are pushing a point of view and you are extremely biased when you make these sorts of statements. You do not own science, you know? You do not know everything that science says, personally, do you? You have a conspiracy theory going on that rivals chemtrail people, i think. SageRad (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So, by your description, we would never be able to classify anything as fringe, because doing so would be taking a stance against it and that would be biased. Is that what you're trying to claim? Silverseren^C 18:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not true and it's simply a fallacious ad absurdum statement. SageRad (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Science is also a social institution and it generates knowledge in part through the workings of human interaction. There is a sociology of science, and it's not completely a reflection of the reality of the physical world, as there is some play of influence that goes on, and there are vested interests. These things are real. A group asking for transparency or openness in regard to public research or science communication is not necessarily a "smear campaign" nor "fringe". That's a leap to judgment. SageRad (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are because they claim to be a "group asking for transparency in regard to science communication". I'm saying they are a smear campaign and fringe because of their stated stances on actual science and the direct ties they have to other pseudoscientific organizations. Silverseren^C 18:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I could equally assert that Monsanto is an organization that endeavors to smear anyone who disagrees with them, and who has direct vested interests in maintaining and protecting a certain version of reality, and that they have a vested interest in smearing the OCA and any other group who they perceive to oppose their interests, and that any supposed knowledge that is sourced to Monsanto or anyone affiliated with them is tainted and therefore not admissible in Wikipedia, could i not? I could say that the Glyphosate Task Force is an industry group who put out propaganda in favor of their members' interests, and that the EFSA and the BfR who produced a report favorable to glyphosate are equally suspect as information sources, could i not? I could call them, perhaps not "fringe" because that term is already taken, but "propagandist organizations" and state that any "science" they generate is actually pseudoscience and not admissible here, could i not? You might have an issue with me if i were to say these things. I might have an issue with you if you say that the OCA is a silly bunch of unicorn-riding hippies using their third eyes to divine their prophesies, as you seem to be saying. They clearly are not worth noting, right? They're clearly completely off base and simply tripping on acid or something. SageRad (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. You managed to completely strawman the comment I just made and also whip up a rant, it seems. If you actually read what I said, you would see that I was talking about scientific stances and actual science. Actual science is what the EFSA and BfR do, among other regulatory organizations, and it is them that release summaries of accepted scientific consensus. That is the science and anything opposed to the scientific consensus on any topic is called fringe. That is how we do things here on Wikipedia. If you disagree with it, then you should probably not be editing here. Silverseren^C 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I admit that i did go into a very extreme strawman, but it was in humor, and clearly you did not say that the OCA are unicorn riders on acid, literally. Note that if there is a reasonable level of academic debate on a subject, then a hypothesis or a strain of thinking may be called "pseudoscience" by its critics, and yet not be considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia standards, but rather "questionable science" as described at WP:FRINGE, which also reads, "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective." This is probably where support for vaccine-related skepticism would fall. Support for homeopathy by the guidelines would be considered "fringe". But, these sideline positions that the OCA has taken are not their main reason for existing, not their main mission, and not related to the current question about undue influence in science, are they? SageRad (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What is meant by "FUD Babe is by now busted as a serial dissembler" ?

I am wondering about an edit by JzG in which s/he stated a reason to delete a statement sourced to Food Babe as "FUD Babe is by now busted as a serial dissembler". The diff is here. I wonder what is meant by the spelling "FUD Babe" for "Food Babe" and what is meant by "serial dissembler". Please clarify. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a funny term for her, since her anti-science views are well known by anyone who knows anything about science. Silverseren^C 18:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it derogatory and unprofessional, and i also think there is a lot more to the Food Babe controversy than "skeptoids" would characterize it, even while they make it seem that anyone who questions them is stupid because "anyone who knows anything about science" should agree with them. She's become a lightning rod for skeptoid attacks. SageRad (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, i still do not know what is meant by "serial dissembler" and i would like the original poster of the comment to provide their meaning. SageRad (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You're kinda revealing exactly what sort of side you stance on when you're trying to imply that Vani Hari isn't anti-science. Silverseren^C 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly revealing your bias when you make that very comment. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your position would be stronger if you were able to provide data... and facts. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I have asked for mediation in regards to this page. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)