Talk:March Against Monsanto

IIVeaa aka 1Veertje removed a whole table of data

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

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

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

Or are you just doing it for your own rules?

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

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

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

and if you see a table messed up by someone,

why not correct the table format as you are experienced?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto march

hello,

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

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

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

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

Table of data are removed way too fast too fishy

The event took places in hundreds of cities.

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

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

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

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

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

Just a sense of justice.

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

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

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

Number of attendees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lead/intro needs clarification

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

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

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

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

List

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

Attendance to local marches

This is not an exlusive list.

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

Dave Murphy source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Broad scientific consensus" and WP:POVFORK

A user removed changed

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

to the weaselly phrasing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'mainstream science'

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

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

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

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

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

External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors are trying to insert fringe claims into this article

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

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

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

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

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

Also worth noting here: [4] "in recommending premarket safety testing, which is not now required, the AMA appears to be raising serious questions about the safety of GM foods." -El duderino ^(abides) 12:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not an improvement

I recognise that some people are keen to use this article as a platform to say bad stuff about Monsanto, rather than merely describing the March Against Monsanto; but that enthusiasm really should stop short of repeatedly inserting text which liberally copies from a copyrighted editorial whilst also misrepresenting that editorial in order to make Monsanto look bad. [5] [6] [7] bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WP;3O

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

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