Talk:Kevin Folta

Balance in representing POVs in last paragraph about FOIA requests

The final paragraph was previously dominated by voices saying that the FOIA requests are harassment a bullying tactics, with one small sentence saying "On the other hand, some have argued that such FOIA requests are useful to ensure transparency." Problems with this were (1) undue weight to the critics of the FOIA because of length and emphasis and use of direct quotations, and (2) the support for the FOIA requests is specifically for these FOIA requests, not just for FOIA use in general.

For these reasons, i added a source (the Nader essay) with a quote from it, here, and i changed the wording to be specific to this FOIA request, not just in general, here.

I'm explaining the reasoning here at length only because this has been a contentious article. SageRad (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A few things: Both sources are opinion posts, therefore they should only be used for notable expert opinions attributed to the authors. If you read Nader's piece he does not say that this use of the FOIA was "useful", he says "The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others are essential...", i.e. the FOIA itself. This is akin to someone saying after a mass shooting "the right to bear arms is important in this country", and using that in an article about a mass shooting would surely be a questionable use of such a source. This is further evidenced by the fact that Nader seems particularly concerned that "Scientific research should not be contaminated", and yet it's clear nothing in the FOIA emails revealed anything related to Folta's research being tainted or any research regarding GMO's (Folta's current research isn't even related to GMO's).

Furthermore, the use of "on the other hand" in Wikivoice implies that this is a counterargument to the scientists objecting to the use of the FOIA in this way, yet (as mentioned previously) none of them disagree with the existence of the FOIA and quite possibly do believe that it's necessary to even use on scientists who are committing misconduct.

To summarize, at the very least the preamble sentence that was added there is POV, factually incorrect, and unnecessary. And I further argue that the use of Nader's quote seems like a WP:COAT, as it's clear that Nader is talking about the Freedom of Information Act in general terms and not its specific use in this situation. Adrian^[232] (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The pieces used to support the other POV, that the FOIA was harassment, are also opinion pieces. What else can they be?

Nader is clearly including the FOIA that touched Folta in his affirmation of the importance of the FOIA.

This is nothing like a comment on the right to bear arms after a mass shooting. Very off metaphor.

There is nothing in the quote that suggests Folta's research was contaminated. The connection with Folta is more on science communication, of course. Nader writes, "how Monsanto and the agrichemical industry use publically-funded scientists to lobby, and to promote its messages and products" which makes this clear.

I don't see what's wrong with "on the other hand" in this context. How is "on the other hand" pushing a POV in Wikivoice?

This is indeed "a counterargument to the scientists objecting to the use of the FOIA in this way" and what's wrong with that? Except that i'd amend "scientists" to "people".

By "preamble sentence" i assume you mean "On the other hand, some have argued that the FOIA requests were useful to ensure transparency." What about this is is POV or factually incorrect? As for "necessary", i think it is brief and to the point and makes the paragraph flow, so i think it's needed.

SageRad (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears you may have misunderstood a few things that I've said here. I'll go ahead and quote the entire conclusion that Nader draws:

One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests.

The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.

The FOIA is a valuable tool to help citizens uncover corruption and wrongdoing, and to vindicate our right to know what our own governments are doing.

• Nowhere in his conclusions does he cite a valid use of FOIA to expose scientists for anything other than misconduct with research. Research is not the issue in Folta's case.
• "On the other hand" introduces a POV that Nader's view is in contrast to the scientists' views supporting Folta, when they are not actually conflicting. Nader is not making a counterargument to anybody in this blog.
• Now for the rest of the sentence: "some have argued that the FOIA requests were useful to ensure transparency." Nader has not at all said that this FOIA request was "useful", only that being able to make FOIA requests to expose scientific misconduct is "essential". Changing it to be accurate ends up being redundant because Nader's quote essentially says just that.

And my metaphor is apt, because it shows how stating one's general opinion about a policy being necessary to use is not the same thing as endorsing someone using it in all cases, merely reiterating the purpose of such a law existing. Adrian^[232] (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nader writes:

There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year. Based on documents that U.S. Right to Know obtained through the FOIA, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote a front page New York Times article about how Monsanto and the agrichemical industry use publically-funded scientists to lobby, and to promote its messages and products. For example, Lipton reported on a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, who had repeatedly denied having ties to Monsanto: "'This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we're looking to develop,' Michael Lohuis, the director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, wrote last year in an email as the company considered giving Dr. Folta an unrestricted grant."

The first part of the paragraph presents views that this FOIA request was harassment. Nader then presents the view that it was useful and right to use FOIA in this case so "on the other hand" makes perfect sense.

Regarding the metaphor, an FOIA request that results in some messy COI revelation is not like a mass shooting of innocent victims. SageRad (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's what you thought I was comparing, then I think you should reread what I actually wrote.

Your quote also shows absolutely nothing in regard to what you are saying. The only thing Nader mentions is:

The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA.

So, if anything his counterargument is to people who want to block citizens or reporters from using FOIA, which is not the position of the people being presented as the other side here. Adrian^[232] (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, it might be possible to say that Nader sees this incident as a "government or corporate scandal" since he uses it as an example of such. Anything beyond that is reaching well beyond the text as it is written. Adrian^[232] (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's let some other people read the source and see what they think it says.

To me, it's clear that the article expresses his favor toward the use of FOIA in this case, as he provides it as one of two examples of recent useful applications of FOIA that benefits citizens. That's so clear to me, i don't see how you can read his essay and not come away with that. This is a clear counter-argument to those preceding sources in the same paragraph that opine that the use of FOIA against Folta and others by USRTK was harassment, and therefore it is clearly a good counterpoint to them. SageRad (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What Nader is essentially doing is presenting the two recent FOIA cases, as he's heard about them, as examples to support a (somewhat related, but not exactly) argument against the (possibly strawman) view of blocking FOIA access to citizens and reporters. The people whose views he cites are 3 former presidents of the AAAS, Monsanto, and the UCS, none of which appear to be any people mentioned in the COI allegations section to defend Folta. It would make sense as a response to one of their views, but presenting it as an opposing view to the people listed here is simply not correct, unless you are lumping everyone expressing views that side with Folta together as a single perspective. Adrian^[232] (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The title of Nader's piece is "Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information" for goodness sake. I welcome other editors' read on this as well. SageRad (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. You seem to be lumping everyone into the group of "Monsanto promoter" just for taking a stance on this issue against USRTK. Yet Nader seems to define who he considers "Monsanto promoters" quite differently. Adrian^[232] (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're making it way too complicated. There are some sources that say that the USRTK FOIA requests were harassment, in the first part of the paragraph in this article. Other sources say that the FOIA request was justified and useful, and Nader is one of them. Simple and accurate. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But Nader does not appear to have said what you said he said, Sage. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In this article, Ralph Nader is most certainly saying that the FOIA requests made by USRTK were justified and useful. If you do not think that he says that in the article, then please explain to me how you read it. The title of the article is "Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information". In the article, he makes a nod to the notion that FOIA can and has been used to harass researchers, and then he writes in contrast:

The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA. There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year.

He then describes the USRTK requests and what they have found out, and then concludes with:

One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests. The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.

Please tell me how you can read this and see something other than what i described. SageRad (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made a recent WP:BOLD edit to try to put Nader's statements more into context and following the timeline of events, and reworded the sentence to match. I believe this is a good compromise, and accurately represents Nader's statements. Adrian^[232] 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Balance in FOIA requests 2

I don't like the edit because it really seems to be stacking the article to make the FOIA requests seem like harassment with Nader's voice buried in there. There are two paragraphs that speak about the FOIA requests being bad, now. The UCS "decried" them -- is that verb appropriate? Did they say "We decry"? Does the UCS report even mention Folta or the USRTK requests at all? Not that i can see. Therefore to say that the UCS "decried the FOIA requests" is a serious misrepresentation of the source, as far as i can tell, or else you or i are simply mistaken and that will come out in the dialogue here. The UCS report was not in response to the USTRK requests, but the article currently implies that, thereby further pushing a Folta-friendly POV. We need integrity of representation of sources.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."

So, we have two paragraphs harping on "the FOIA request was harassment!" trope, and only the first has any rejoinder, which is provided by the Nader piece. The Seife and Thacker source is retained (thank for that) but not mentioned in the article text in any way, not "Nader and others" or anything, so it would appear to be a second source as to Nader's opinion. I think it's very unbalanced this way and misrepresents a source. Was it a problem that the article ended before on a note that wasn't favorable to a pro-Folta POV?

Here i have partially reverted this WP:BOLD edit. Thank you, Adrian232, for making a note of your edit and reasons.

Mainly, i removed the UCS reference because it was misrepresenting the source as being against this FOIA request, explicitly as well as implied, and i condensed the topic back into one paragraph. I did retain the additional Guardian source added by Adrian232, although it seems to be getting a bit heavy now on the "FOIA was harassment!" side of representing points of view. SageRad (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS secondary source reporting on the incident in a comprehensive journalistic fashion, and not an opinion piece, susceptible to Wired's fact-checking. The wording is identical, as is shown in the quote above, so I fail to see how it's a "misrepresentation of the source". Right below that part of the article, Wired quotes UCS, who specifically mentions the "genetic engineering researchers" clearly referring to USRTK's targets:

“These requests to the genetic engineering researchers, just like other overly broad open records requests that seek excessive access to scientists’ inboxes, are inappropriate,” reads a February 20 statement.

As for Nader, he made it clear in his piece that it was a response to both the former AAAS presidents, and probably more specifically the UCS, as both are cited directly in his article. The timing of all the pieces shows how it fits into context. If you would like to work Seife and Thacker into the article, I don't see a problem with you doing so separately. Their piece was written in October after the FOIA emails were released and do make it clear what FOIA case they support. However, I suggest you get consensus first before attempting to portray Nader as having said something that he appears not to have said, as two editors have pointed out to you. I am removing this as per WP:BLPSOURCES, as it is contentious information that appears to be poorly sourced about a living person. Adrian^[232] 13:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So, good, the UCS source got explained here in the dialogue. I'll double check it myself.

You better get really specific with the Nader piece. I've gotten extremely specific above. It was clear to me and this removal doesn't seem correct. SageRad (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, when i go to the UCS source that had been used in the text that said "the FOIA requests" in your edit, i do not find the text "These requests to the genetic engineering researchers, just like other overly broad open records requests that seek excessive access to scientists’ inboxes, are inappropriate" that you quoted above from "a February 20 statement" and i do not find any reference to Folta or to USRTK in the press release or in the document "Freedom to Bully" that it links to. Therefore, i continue to hold that the text you'd written did misrepresent the source and i think that you just attempted to weasel out of that. You cannot perform a synthesis and say that it was "clearly referring to USRTK's targets" as you just did, in the content of the article itself. OR and synthesis are not permitted.

So, on my double checking, i find that you misrepresented the source to make it look like the UCS had spoken against "the FOIA requests" meaning specifically the ones by USRTK.

And, you're saying that I have misrepresented the Nader piece, when i have carefully parsed it out above, and gotten inadequate responses from others. So... this is wrong. This is not a productive and good editing atmosphere. Where is the integrity? SageRad (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how I could be more specific here, as I have shown why Nader is at the very least unclear whether he supports that specific use of the FOIA, as he appears to simply be reiterating the importance of having the FOIA and being able to use it against scientists, a position specifically contrary to UCS's position. I've offered a compromise. If this is still an issue with you I suggest to take it to dispute resolution.

Additionally, you can follow the link on Wired's article (here) to read UCS's actual statements. What other FOIA requests against "genetic engineering researchers" do you know about? Specifically ones that would be mentioned around the same time and written about in an article that mentions Folta by name? Adrian^[232] 13:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You misrepresented the UCS source. If you want to use other sources, then do. Notice that original research is not allowed, nor synthesis. We don't need to "compromise" -- we need to get it right based on the sources. I will continue to engage in dialogue as long as there is integrity in the dialogue. We don't need arbitration unless editors refuse to engage in dialogue and to edit with integrity. SageRad (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Back to reality, i see that the UCS blogger Gretchen Goldman has called the FOIA requests by USRTK "inappropriate" because they are "overly broad". This is supported by sourcing. That is not a UCS statement. That is a single person writing a blog post on the UCS website's "blog" section. To be accurate. SageRad (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Wired reports that blog as being the voice of UCS. Are you challenging the reliability of that source? Adrian^[232] 14:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, why do you start your comment with "You are mistaken"?

Secondly, that is a blog post. That is not a UCS statement made by the UCS. That's clear, isn't it? I haven't read the WIRED piece. If they say it's a UCS position statement then i think they're probably wrong. Source can also be wrong, you know. We don't echo everything said by any source ever. SageRad (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Going to the Wired story, i see their mention of it, and they are in fact wrong in characterizing the blog post as a UCS position statement. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't read the WIRED piece." Reading the sources may be a good start. If you believe Wired is wrong here, please provide a WP:RS that contradicts their assertions. Adrian^[232] 14:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Drop the attitude. Read my latest comment. I believe you're being onerous if you want me to provide a reliable source that states that the UCS blog post is not a UCS position statement. You know that will not be found because there are not reports on such things. Obvious mistakes do not need to be echoed as fact by Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What I am asking for you to provide is some reliable source that contradicts that information or even suggests that it might be false. Consensus on these issues is drawn based on the reliable sources and not an editor's opinions on whether information is correct or not. As it stands, Wired says specifically that the post is a "statement" by UCS, in an article under the magazine's full editorial control. Adrian^[232] 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've lost track in this long conversation of what the issue is, but what is the exact line of content being discussed at this moment with the relevant source(s)? Wired does appear to be a general WP:RS though, so I'm getting the feeling this conversation may have run its course. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You could read the dialogue in full, but in summary, Adrian232 had added content attributed as a UCS position that was not supported by the source, and i called that out, and the editor then said that a blog post on the UCS site is a UCS official position statement and is using this Wired article to try to force that incorrect content into the article, despite it flying in the face of common sense, and is now asking me to provide another source that contradicts this small misrepresentation in the Wired article in order to desist from wanting to misrepresent the UCS website blog post as an official position statement of the organization. SageRad (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And i am calling that ask of yours onerous and not in good faith or good practice. You're asking for a source that says that a small error in the Wired article is incorrect, or else you're going to exploit that error and claim in Wikivoice that the UCS put out a position statement that they did not put out. That's the actuality of what is happening here. That's not good editing. Appears to be an attempt to push a POV. SageRad (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From my understanding, there are two separate issues involving accurate representation of sources. One is with Wired here supporting the statement:

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."

And the other is Ralph Nader here supporting the statement:

On the other hand, some have argued that the FOIA requests were useful to ensure transparency. Ralph Nader wrote, "One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests."

(with "some" referring to Nader and one other source that was cited). Adrian^[232] 15:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's focus on the UCS issue here. The Nader source was discussed at length above. SageRad (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The content fits the Wired source just fine reading it over. The actual contributors at UCS aren't just random bloggers where anyone can contribute either. No issue there as position statements aren't the only representation of UCS. As for the Nader content, "On the other hand" is editorializing and the use of some is a WP:WEASEL word. Best to remove those and just start the sentence with Ralph Nader. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So Kingofaces43 and Adrian232 both think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to say that UCS has made an organizational position statement against the USRTK FOIA statements because a Wired article claims that a blog post is a UCS position statement? That's your position here? I find this amazing. Meanwhile, you think the phrase "on the other hand" is POV pushing. Just astounding bias here, is my reckoning. Willingness to push POV at any cost. SageRad (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing comments like that misrepresenting editor's statements that induce drama, it seems best to just end the conversation then. Best to wait for ArbCom to settle things with this drama raising behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think i'm misrepresenting the terrain of this discussion here. The mention of ArbCom case seems to be an implied threat with chilling effect, and calling my questioning of this content that was unsupported by the sources "drama raising behavior" doesn't seem good to me either. SageRad (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SageRad, who is entirely justified in questioning with incredulity strained tactics of content addition and sourcing that are way off base, as I see it. Jusdafax 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I made an entry at the RS noticeboard to gather inputs on the principles of reliable sources as relates to this issue. SageRad (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so now that there has been some feedback over there, how about we craft a version of the UCS statements in a way we can both agree. Some contributors noted that even though it could be reasonably interpreted as a statement by the UCS, given the author's role in that organization, that we can write it as attribution to her. So I propose the following wording:

In February 2015, Gretchen Goldman writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit science advocacy organization, criticized the FOIA requests for being "inappropriate" and "overly wide", saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."

We can use both Wired and the blog post for the sourcing of this statement. Adrian^[232] 20:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that edit. It really does represent the sources properly. Thank you for working with me in a collegiate way. SageRad (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How to represent +UCS positions

We might wish to discuss this edit. I guess i'm okay with the edit, as it still may retain the cumulative sense of UCS positions, as well as the more recent reference to Michael Halpern's piece in October 2015. Just noting it here for others to discuss, if desired. SageRad (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this section. My general sense of the second bog post is that the author is not saying it wasn't inappropriate, just not "wholly inappropriate". Not contradicting per se, but at least casting doubt on whether their position should be represented solely by the word "inappropriate". Both sources do agree explicitly on the "overly wide"/"too broad" statement, so that part should represent their position accurately. Other than that, the rest seemed to be redundant, which is why I removed it. Hopefully that expands on my reasoning for that edit in more detail. Thank you for finding the source to help clarify their position, Sage. Adrian^[232] 16:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Adrian232. I agree with the reasoning, and i think the current content represents the ambiguity of the UCS position well. A reader could explore more if they're curious, given the refs. It feels good to work cooperatively. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversion by Minor4th

Kevin Folta HAS been subject to harassment. See commentary by David Gorski. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/05/a-sad-day-for-public-science-advocacy/ Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also commentary by Jack Payne at Phys.org http://phys.org/news/2015-08-activists-misuse.html Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And here are some more news sources on it. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/12/14/harassment-scientists-threatens-independent-research-science-journal-wa

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2015/12/02/how-organic-agriculture-evolved-from-marketing-tool-to-evil-empire/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-new-gmo-controversy-20150925-column.html

http://www.science20.com/science_20/environmental_groups_continue_their_harassment_of_scientists-156785

I respectfully suggest that Minor4th do his/her due diligence before engaging in rule violations and knee-jerk reversions as well as mischaracterizing edits, such as claiming that stating that harassment occurred is an "accusation". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Secondary complaint about Minor4th's inappropriate behavior: s/he chose to mass revert a number of edits, including structural edits to simply put a sequence of paragraphs in chronological order, thus damaging the article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

USRTK

USRTK is an organic industry front group. From [1]:

Major Donors

Organic Consumers Association: $194,500

Just that, no other donors listed. We don't need to WP:ATT this to Forbes, since they are completely open about it. USRTK exists solely to pursue political actions at arms length, and there is no significant source of funding other than OCA/OCF, whose own funding is obscure but whose foundation was fully funded by the industry.

This is not controversial, as far as I can see, they don't do anything to deny it or even try to hide it. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

dude, you've just pissed all over the 1 revert discretionary sanction to make this point, how about discussing your eidts before swinging your dick in future? Semitransgenic _talk. 17:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I totally missed the discussion on this page about this particular thing. Oh, wait, there isn't any, because people were too busy "pissing all over 1RR". Now let's all behave like grown-ups shall we? Guy (Help!) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, we shall, let me just bend over here so you can spank me with those ever so manly hands of yours. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

May want to remind yourself of what you just said there too. Irony is one thing, but if you want to take it to WP:AE, we can discuss your violation as well. This was discussed with arbs a bit where gaming of 1RR by doing things like continuously readding similar content even after it was initially reverted is a problem. Proper protocol would have been for you to come to the talk page after Guy's first edit when it was clear your edit didn't have support rather than try to edit war similar things in.

Focusing on actual content, if it's described by Forbes in this manner, we have a reliable enough source to not need attribution. We generally reserve attribution for weaker sources that aren't as reliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

yes sir, thank you sir. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversy in intro

@Tryptofish: regarding [2], is the controversy in the sources cited "over his rebuttals to critics" or because he accepted tens of thousands of dollars of industry payments which were not disclosed until his emails were FOIAed?[3] ("his university now intends to donate the Monsanto grant money to a food pantry."[4]) EllenCT (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The language that I changed it from said "His work in promoting GMO food...". So I was thinking in terms of his public statements rather than in terms of the money. And I think that "promoting" the food was a somewhat POV description of what he actually did. It was more like arguing that criticisms of the food are unscientific. It seems to me that the language I provided does make clear that the criticisms of Folta are based on what his critics call a financial COI, and I don't think that we need to provide details of the dollar amounts or the FOI request in the lead, because the page covers all that below. And what I wrote about the criticisms of the critics reflects the later paragraphs of that section, and I think it would be POV to leave that out. That was my reasoning, anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Do you think his acceptance of the $25,000 grant from Monsanto after and prior to subsequently claiming that he was an independent expert was ethical? Is there any evidence that any of the disputes over "his rebuttals to critics" rise to anywhere near the same level of controversy? Is the financial conflict of interest more accurately described as "alleged" or both proven and admitted? ("'I can understand that perception 100 percent,' he said, 'and it bothers me a lot.'"[5]) Where are the sources supporting your statement that his critics have been criticized for their claims? EllenCT (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, so you don't need to ping me (although I'm now about to log off for the day). It doesn't matter what I think is or isn't ethical. I don't see the rebuttals and the COI thing as being separate: the criticism is that those rebuttals were made because of a financial COI. As for "alleged", that word was there before my edit, but I would keep it in light of everything that is in the section about what happened, and per WP:BLP. I don't think that there is any doubt that the money changed hands, but there is clearly disagreement about whether or not that had any effect on what Folta has said about GMOs. We should be cautious about going beyond what the various sources say, and there were a lot of sources saying things like the FOA was a "hatchet job" and so forth; they are listed on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What you think is ethical most certainly does matter, since you are editing about an ethics controversy, and I would appreciate an answer on whether you think the self-characterization as an independent expert after having personally accepted the money was or was not ethical. I would also like to know the specific reasons you think "alleged" is more appropriate than proven and admitted, please. Then we can move on to whether the FOIA request is or is not legitimately described as a hatchet job by reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)