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)

I don't quite get the hassle with blogs. We can cite newspapers as source even though there are countless examples of poorly researched articles(or even outright biased opinion pieces) on complex topics , but otherwise highly regarded specialist blogs are still frowned upon. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 23:41, 16 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)

I could do without the condescension, and i would say that calling the USRTK requests for information from Folta and others "a smear-campaign driven by certain interests groups who oppose Folta's science outreach program" is not a fact in the sense that "Rocks sink in water" is a fact (in most cases, not pumice by the way). It is a statement that contains a complex judgment that includes a reckoning of the context and attribution of people's motivations. Will you grant that point? And, can you show me evidence that they misrepresented Folta's statements? That also gets into interpretation. I'm calling it out, that calling the USRTK actions a "smear campaign" is a complex judgment, and in my reckoning a biased one, not a "fact". SageRad (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for the smear campaign? https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/640192353848786944 https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/641300376344358912 https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/641341694907039746 https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/642306324005388288 https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/643111456213368832 https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/642726258309140480 https://twitter.com/garyruskin/status/642712682064252932 Misrepresentation of statements (out of context) aren't even the worst aspect of this. They're calling him "corrupt" and under "corporate control". Contrary to the evidence in his writing and speech (which happens to be on record and supported by the scientific consensus). It's not a very complex judgement to identify the above tweets as a smear campaign. Unless your bias works against it. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I opened every one of the links you provided and read the tweets, and ironically, this brought me to an article by Vani Hari that showed moreso that Kevin Folta was engaged in a "smear campaign" against her, if ever there was evidence for a "smear campaign". A definition for "smear campaign" is "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations". I suppose the question is, what accusations are false or dubious, versus true, and that becomes a matter of very in-depth judgment. We could take any one of those Ruskin tweets and spend a lot of words here discussing whether it's false or true or somewhere in the middle. We could also take any of the many Kevin Folta quotes about Food Babe revealed in the linked Food Babe article, and spend many words deciding whether they are false or true, or somewhere in the middle. The point being that i do not agree with the term "smear campaign" as a primary noun to refer to USRTK actions in regard to Folta and others. Contrary to your final sentence, it is a very complex judgment to identify those tweets as a smear campaign, unless your bias works to make you jump to the conclusion that you assert. In short, it is a matter of point of view, and therefore i think that using the term "smear campaign" for USRTK's actions is POV-pushing in this context. We can use less loaded language, for sure. Describe the facts. Not perform this synthesis from a biased point of view. And i am being completely genuine and serious. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're shifting the goal posts and engaging in a tu-quoque-style argument. What has the FoodBabe to do with Folta's claims on GMOs, which is the scope of the USRTK's smear campaign against him? Nothing. After reading through your contributions I can only see some kind of "mission" on your part to force your fringe POV on legitimate science. I will refuse to debate with you any further. Bye. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty, then. I guess you're free to stomp out of the room, but my point still stands. You're trying to force a subjective judgment upon other people that USRTK's actions are a "smear campaign" and nothing else. I don't buy it, and there are others who do not buy that monochromatic ideological framing of it. And Wikipedia is not yours alone to do with what you want. SageRad (talk) 13:40, 17 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)

"This is probably where support for vaccine-related skepticism would fall." So now you're trying to say that anti-vaccine stances aren't fringe, but an alternate viewpoint? You're kind of digging a hole here, you realize? Silverseren^C 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, i don't realize that i am digging a hole by saying that, and i don't like your tone and the implications. You seem to be showing a superiority attitude, and placing yourself in judgment of all things, when you say that, as well as making a veiled threat of sorts. What's this "hole"? What's this sort of witch hunt feeling i'm getting? I certainly do feel it. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 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)

Facts as to what? Facts such as the fact that azodicarbonamide does convert in small amounts into a carcinogen when baked in bread, and that Vani Hari was onto something scientifically sound when she raised this issue in the world, and that she cites a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Science to support this on her page about this? What sort of facts can be raised against this sort of attempt to demonize or ridicule a person in this way? I'm not saying she's perfect but i'm saying that the attitude of ridicule and slander is not pretty nor is it proper in my estimation here. SageRad (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dose makes poison. All studies I've read only show increased tumor incidents in some rodents at very high levels of ADA consumption. Even with the usual safety margins (100-1000x) for humans, the potential daily intake through bread is well within safe ranges. So, let's move onwards to the question whether or not pumpkin spice should contain pumpkin, right? (No, let's not do that) --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dose makes poison" applies to acute toxicity events, not carcinogenicity, and this shows your wrongness in regard to the chemical in question here, as well as your missing the need to specify which chemical you are referring to, azo or the breakdown product which is the severe carcinogen. Anyway, this is not the place for this debate. I used one example to respond to your rhetoric of "I think your position would be stronger if you were able to provide data... and facts." with a sample "fact" and ask you if this is the sort of evidence you're looking for. I think this is all too much rhetoric for this talk page, and it's beside the point in regard to the topic of the article on Kevin Folta. My initial point here was to call out schoolyard insults being used for someone involved in this article by an editor, and whether that is appropriate here. It shows the polarization of editors into taking sides, which shows a POV pushing. That's not right for Wikipedia process, which seeks to approach NPOV as much as possible for Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You haven't really read what I wrote. If you're unwilling to do so, why debate? Bye. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What indicated to you that i haven't read what you wrote? I am confused, since i did read what you wrote and responded to what you wrote, specifically, and in enough detail to prove to anyone reading this that i read what you wrote and responded genuinely and thoughtfully, using my own mind. Odd allegation. SageRad (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, Vani Hari profits from spreading FUD. She preaches chemophobia to build her personal brand and then sells products to her followers, which often contain the self-same chemicals. She routinely displays profound ignorance, most hilariously when discussing microwave ovens or aircraft. All this is documented fact. I understand that her anti-GMO rhetoric appeals to you, but your liking her message doesn't make her any less ill-informed. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What does "FUD" stand for? What if i were to use a term like "Kevin Foolya" when i refer to Kevin Folta in these pages? As for your judgments about Food Babe above, they are your judgments, and they show a severe bias in your POV. I reject your attempt to use this dialogue to try to cast aspersion upon me. This is the territory of loaded insult words, and "he said / she said" relativity and i am not engaging in this sort of baseless accusatory language. I am only pointing out that you are engaging in it here, and that this shows you are editing with a severely biased POV. SageRad (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This has gotten far from the subject of Kevin Folta. Either this discussion should be dropped here and the section collapsed, which would be best in my opinion, or, less ideal, taken to a user talk page or the Vani Hari talk page.Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FUD means fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's a common term in the IT business, which is Hari's area of expertise. Satirising her self-coined monicker is significantly different from twisting an actual name (a better analogy to your "Kevin Foolya" would be if I called her Vain Hari, which I didn't). These are not my judgments about the FUD babe's ignorant anti-science rabble-rousing. For example:

Cheryl Wischhover in Elle described Hari's tactics as "manipulative", "sneaky", and "polarizing rather than productive." Wischhover also noted Hari's tendency to delete and fail to acknowledge past articles and stated "The fact that she tried to disappear these stories makes me distrust and discredit anything else she has to say, and it's mindboggling that others still take her seriously." 31

That's one of the kinder ones. A professional chemist described her as "full of shit".

Example: Hari posted a hilariously nonsensical article about air travel, claiming that aircraft are pressurised above ground level pressure, cabin air is recycled from outside, that only pilots get pure oxygen and the sheeple have to make do with much less, so you have to sit up front and so on. It was ludicrous from beginning to end - and she went to great lengths to expunge it from all web caches. She also posted an equally ridiculous diatribe about microwave ovens. That has also been disappeared.

She claims that aluminium in deodorants causes cancer and Azheimer's, but promotes a deodorant that contains aluminium. She claims that vitamin A in suncream causes cancer, but promotes skincare products containing vitamin A. She claims that anything ending -siloxane should be avoided as toxic, but promotes a mascara containing cyclopentasiloxane. She attacked Starbucks because one of tis products contained a class 2B carcinogen, but promotes skin lotions containing titanium - touted as a "must-have" ingredient - which is a class 2B carcinogen.

In short, the possibility that she is simply ignorant is the charitable interpretation. If she is not ignorant then she is a hypocrite of the worst kind.

And that's why a spat between her and Folta, conducted on each other's blogs, does not merit inclusion. Her opinion is not worth the electrons it's printed on, and we would not in any case cover this without independent sources demonstrating its significance and giving context and making at least some attempt to assess the facts at issue. We can't take her word for it, because she's not competent, and I would imagine you would not want to take his word either.

Your problem here is that you are judging the merit of people's platforms according to ideological consonance with your well-known anti-GMO agenda. That would be wrong in the real world as well, but it's especially wrong on Wikipedia. This is ont unique to you, everyone weighs things through perceptual filters and individual bias, but Wikipedians are supposed to at least try to rise above this. And that's what you need to start doing. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So you quote people who hate Food Babe to show that she's not good. Why don't you also quote Jon Entine? Anyway, i agree mostly with Dialectric that this discussion is out of scope here, but still i think that it shows the extent to which POV pushing has occupied this page, as well as Vani Hari's page, on which i just left a comment in the talk page about a general sense of bias there as well. As for your advice to me about rising above bias, i would like to hold a mirror up to you in that regard, and ask you to take your own advice. Everyone needs to pay attention to this, and i certainly am trying. I also reject the aspersions that you cast upon me and your attempt to characterize me. This is a POV battleground dialogue, and it's as if we are people in POV rafts pushing each other with sticks, and every push moves us as well as the person we're pushing. It's a situation of relativity, in which you seem to be trying to claim objectivity, but in the course of doing so, it is clear to me the extent of your own POV boundedness. My point in beginning this section of the talk page was to make it plain the extent to which POV pushing appears to be dominating the editing of this article. I do not wish to continue to engage in a POV war here. SageRad (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jon Entine? So you mean pieces like this http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/letter-to-food-babe-why-are-you-vilifying-science/ ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course that is what i mean. The larger point being that we could refer to people who have an ideological bent on demonizing a person to "show" that they are a bad person, but what does this show? It shows that there is a polarized battleground around the person in question, but does not "prove" that the person is bad. It can alternatively indicate that there is a phalanx of people with an agenda of demonizing the person in question. One must take a wider view of the issue, and consider the sources. Jon Entine is a person with a very specific an pointed agenda. Of course he is in the camp of people who have it out for Food Babe. The relevance to the Kevin Folta article, here, is that this illustrates the partisan nature of the POV pushing around these ideological lightning rod people, and this is something we do not allow to infect Wikivoice, but rather to describe the controversy from a distance with Wikivoice. Wikipedia is not in the business of taking sides, but rather the ideal is to describe controversies as if from a neutral point of view, as much as possible. SageRad (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've lost me. I have no idea who Jon Entine is – never even heard the name until now. At Talk: Vani Hari you're calling for pro-Hari sources to be added. Yet when I search for Jon Entine, the first thing I find is this, which is far from supporting her. I'm not against using competent independent WP:RS that support Food Babe, but so far I'm still waiting to see one. When you ask, "Why don't you also quote Jon Entine? " I have to wonder just what you're reading that I'm not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. My comment on Jon Entine was irony, to the point that "Why don't you quote more people who have an agenda against Food Babe in order to "prove" that she's bad?" And, on the Vani Hari page, which i just visited for the first time, i was not calling for pro-Hari sources to be added. I simply noted there on the talk page that the entire article strikes me as very obviously POV-pushing. We do get quite outside the scope of this article's talk page, though. I simply respond to answer your confusion and to correct your mischaracterization of my comment on Talk:Vani Hari. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will add pro-Hari RS when someone finds pro-Hari RS. I regard their absence thus far as indicating their scarcity, and perhaps something deeper about Hari, rather than indicating bias here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, i found and added a pro-Hari source and then it was promptly removed by another ideological user at the page about her, which shows the extent of ideological capture of Wikipedia by a skeptoid contingent. SageRad (talk) 13:41, 17 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)

Has just been declined, for anyone not directly involved, since this article is within the scope of the ArbCom on GMOs. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Kevin_Folta#Research Strawberry Genomics

There are a few passages that do not meet requirements. They're very likely true, but not sourced. We can probably rephrase it and will have to omit some parts unless we can find sources. I've only skimmed the material so far.

1. Folta's work in strawberry genomics began in 2002.

This should be easy to verify in theory. I've not succeeded thus far, though.

His official CV and bio lists this:

"November 2002-June 2008: Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL"

It's certainly safe to assume that he was indeed tasked with strawberry genomics beginning with that date, but it would be good to have a source. If all fails, we could rephrase it, starting out with the new assignment beginning Nov 2002 and culminating in the first publications on strawberry genomics afterwards.

2. His earliest publications helped to develop a set of molecular tools for strawberry research that quickly seeded community building among researchers.

While this likely is true, I find it a bit iffy. Unless we find a source for the last part it's borderline OR and should be omitted. Regarding the "set of molecular tools", I'm curious if its reach is somehow documented. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

3. These early efforts raised the amount of public information in strawberry and other rosaceous crops,

That's the outcome of his research, but in, uhm, CV-lingo.

4. culminating in the sequencing of the strawberry genome in 2011, where Folta was the contributing author (sourced).

5. Ongoing work in the laboratory continues to use genomics tools to identify genes associated with flavors, disease and other important industry traits.

I found a lot of talks of Folta where he describes this, including interviews, podcasts. Probably the easiest to source, even though it's about ongoing processes.

Maybe we can figure this out. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Given he has a wiki account should we ask him if he has any sources on this stuff we can use? Brustopher (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt he's a regular. Twitter or Facebook seem better ideas. Or email, but that might just get your email released into the hands of some activist group thanks to FOIA. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a rewrite. This is a better source about the genome sequencing and there are a couple of reviews he's written which might contain details which could be included here: [4] [5]. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-GMO" epitaph on USRTK?

In this edit, i reverted a recent edit that added "anti-GMO" as an epitaph to the first mention of U.S. Right to Know, on the basis that the epitaph is not known to be accurate by RS judgment and is not supported by USRTK's mission statement, which is explicitly for transparency. Their page on GMOs is surely critical of GMOs, but explicitly only advocates for labeling, and does not explicitly state that they are against GMOs nor that they want them to be banned, nor that they state that they are inherently dangerous. Clearly, they are a group including many people that could be considered "anti-GMO", but they as an organization are not explicitly "anti-GMO" and therefore, i think it is synthesis to use this epitaph. There is no need for it, either, and its presence in this context seems to me to imply a synthesis analysis of USRTK's motivations that i do not find supportable without reliable sourcing. Transparency is a different goal from banning or stopping GMOs, and this is a real distinction. Let's keep this language as neutral as possible. POV creeps into the details too easily. What if someone were to edit the article to add an epitaph to the first mention of Monsanto, along the lines of "the for-profit secretive corporation Monsanto"? You'd probably take issue with this epitaph, even if you think it's accurate, right? It would indicate a point of view in the editing. SageRad (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto have a wiki article where you can read about them and I'm fairly certain the first sentence of that article doesn't describe them as "the for-profit secretive corporation Monsanto." USRTK has no article and therefore there is nothing on wikipedia describing this group and what the deal with them is. They have been described as an anti-GMO group in reliable sources.[6][7] Their own page can also be read easily as anti-GMO. Brustopher (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times article describes them as such: "the nonprofit group U.S. Right to Know, which receives funding from the organic foods industry". The Scientist uses: "a nonprofit organization called US Right to Know". The sources you listed are Florida papers, one of which is Gainesville, the hometown of Folta i believe. The website can be read as pro-transparency. I would suggest that the NYT method is a reasonable way to refer to them in the initial mention, more reliable than the Florida papers. On a Google News search, i find few sources other than the NYT and the two Florida papers you mention that do use an epitaph for the first mention, other than sites like GLP and Science 2.0 which clearly are biased on this issue. I'd suggest we take the NYT's lead. SageRad (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

An editor changed the reference to USRTK to echo that used by the NYT and i am fine with that. Thank you, Silver seren, for this edit. SageRad (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Forbes-sourced content

I reverted the recent removal of Forbes-sourced contextual content in this edit on the basis that it seems extremely relevant to the understanding of the controversy. Forbes is not a reliable source for this kind of information, really? I have seen Jon Entine's writings in Forbes used in many locations on Wikipedia to support content in favor of the agrochemical and GM industry, prolifically, and therefore it seems like a double standard for it to be removed here on the basis that Forbes is a "content farm" as the editor who removed the passage stated as reason. I find the content that was provided by the Forbes piece to be very relevant to a contextualization of the controversy. It's very relevant background for understanding the whole situation and events. SageRad (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: If it's used in other articles it shouldn't be. The Forbes "contributor" system is a WP:NEWSBLOG and not a reliable source. Writing by contributors has close to no editorial oversight from Forbes,and does not represent the views of Forbes. See this discussion which explains the issue better than I do. Please self-revert. Brustopher (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, and i understand your point. I take this seriously, and it sounds like you might be right, if that's the case. I will take a few minutes to look into this, and search through reliable source discussions for Forbes to see what's been said about this matter. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, it might be the case the Forbes is an unedited newsblog, and yet the contributor David Kroll might be considered a reliable source nonetheless, so the lack of editorial process by Forbes may not be relevant if that is the case, in a similar way that you support the inclusion of the commentary by Novella on his blog, right? SageRad (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i found this discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard] regarding Forbes that echoes your concern. However, this resolves that Forbes is a reliable source. But then there is this much better discussion that indeed makes the same point you're making, but then goes on to say that these sources can be used if attributed according to WP:NEWSBLOG guidelines. So, since this information seems very relevant to the context of the controversy, i think i will work on including it but making sure that it is attributed to the author of the article at Forbes, so it is not stated in Wikivoice. Does that sound like a good working solution? SageRad (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Following up, when i check on the actual wording, it does indeed begin with "David Kroll writing for Forbes wrote that..." and therefore i see it as properly attributed, so that it is not using Wikivoice to David Kroll's claims as facts, and therefore i feel satisfied with the sourcing. Are you ok with this? SageRad (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion that resolves that Forbes is a reliable source is talking about Forbes main staff, not Forbes "contributors" who work under a different system. Also we're not citing Kroll for his opinion, but citing him for facts which seems inappropriate. It doesn't help that newsblog source is being used to depict a BLP in a more negative light. If what Kroll has written is so important contextually, then hopefully someone will have written the same thing for a more reliable source. Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I might be missing something in regard to the issue, but i don't see how the content puts Folta in a bad light, as you stated here and in your edit to remove it. To me, it simply contextualizes that Monsanto has given a lot to the U of F for various purposes, and that could actually be a mark in favor of Folta, as he's not singled out as a recipient in that light. Again, i haven't read it in depth and probably am missing some part of the story. SageRad (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The way I read it in this context (as someone who's never heard about this story outside of wikipedia), was implying that UoF (including Folta) are deep in the pocket of Monsanto. I feel the forbes article itself takes a more nuanced approach on university funding by corporations than the one sentence soundbite would imply to the lay reader. If I just read things weirdly, and others feel the sentence implies something completely different in this context, feel free to revert. Brustopher (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's revert and the guy (AKA Steven Novella)

@Andy Dingley: You made two claims when reverting.[8] Firstly that the guy's blog is a reliable source. However the last discussion on the issue seemed to be pretty torn and disputed. Secondly you say he should be included due to notability. However as you can see above people using this as a rationale has been strongly criticised.[9] Can you please explain your rationale in greater detail?Brustopher (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You described Steven Novella as "some guy's personal blog" and summarily removed the ref. This suggests that not only does Novella meet our sourcing standards, but that you've made no more effort to determine who he is than to just lump him in as "some guy".

You then proceeded to describe Forbes as "a content farm" when removing them as a source. That's either two surprising judgements of sources contrary to our usual judgement, or else they were simply sources you wanted gone for other reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What "other reasons" would there be for removing one source that makes Folta look bad, and another that makes Folta look good? I must have a Jekyll/Hyde situation going on, where I'm simultaneously two opposed POV pushers. Also your response in no way explains how the guy's blog is a reliable source. Also also, I'm not saying Forbes is a content farm, I'm saying Forbes' "contributor" system (which is not the same as all Forbes' articles), is a content farm.Brustopher (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What matters is the rules of BLPSPS. Basically, is the person notable on the subject involved to be included. Then it doesn't matter where they publish their opinion. Steven Novella is clearly notable for this topic, as has been already discussed. The question is whether David Kroll meets that same level. Silverseren^C 19:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS Starts with the line "Never use self published sources" and then proceeds to say none of the stuff you've written above. Also it seems to me that relevance should be more important than notability when it comes to self-published sources. While this is obviously some big scientist man and a neurology expert, what relevance does he have to agricultural sciences? Is his usage in the article warranted by expertise on chilling effects faced by scientists? Has he done any academic work in that area? Brustopher (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

He is en expert source on skeptic topics. He is the prime expert source for those topics. And this entire controversy revolves around a skeptic topic, anti-GMO thinking. Just like with anti-vaccine topics. Silverseren^C 22:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• The Kroll source appears entirely appropriate. It is couched as opinion, but the opinion of someone who is credentialled in a relevant field and published in a source with a history of editorial oversight and fact-checking. Novella can normally be cited for opinions on neuroscience and related subjects (e.g. autism) published on Science Based Medicine, which has editorial review and fact-checking, but I would not normally include statements by him published on TheNESS. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Forbes contributors such as Kroll are not subjected to the same editorial oversight and fact checking as regular forbes journalist. See the following articles about Forbes' contributor system.[10][11][12] Brustopher (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Jzg: Can you explain how "pharmacology and therapeutics" is a relevant field here? Unless he has involvement in the skeptic field, I don't see his relevance. Is he involved in agriculture in any way? Silverseren^C 22:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Outside of widely-recognized pseudoscience debunking, the 'skeptic field' is poorly defined, and some have the tendency to include everything a prominent skeptic has written about within the field. Writing a blog post does not automatically make one an expert on the subject. This was an issue raised in the discussion on the use of Quackwatch as a source earlier this year.Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I understand that. However, there's a few names that are THE names in the science skeptic field. Steven Novella is the quintessential biggest one there. I mean, being the head of the New England Skeptical Society is proof enough. I would also include David Gorski as one of the biggest names. And perhaps Derek Lowe, since he was arguably the first, though he isn't as well known as the other two. And I suppose Hank Campbell would be the "up and coming new kid" in the skeptic area, largely because of Science 2.0. Of course, this is only for science skepticism. Religious skepticism has its own group of people and i'm not as knowledgeable there. Silverseren^C 13:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Skeptic" in this context does not mean the same as the normal English language definition. It refers to an ideological set of people with a certain agenda, who use and co-opt science for specific purposes. Being a renowned "skeptic" in this sense does not make a person an expert on the underlying science, but rather more of an expert on using discourse to take down people who are counter to their agenda and ideological goals. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)