Talk:March Against Monsanto

Thom Hartmann undue weight tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In your case, it most certainly is. Which source are you relying on that counters Hartmann's opinion? None, of course. 03:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

What about an acknowledgement of Hartmann's opinion without mentioning the content of his opinion? Instead of what is currently written in the "Media Reception" section, why don't you write something to the effect of, "and an op-ed piece by Thom Hartmann"? That position seems to acknowledge both sides of the debate: on the one hand, it doesn't give undue weight to Hartmann's opinion, but on the other doesn't exclude Hartmann's opinion about the protest movement. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but then it raises the question of why we'd be including it at all. I don't especially see why Hartmann's claim is noteworthy, but this was raised back when there was an issue of noting the actual coverage, which appears to have disappeared. The article, in its current form, handles it well enough, in my opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But Hartmann's claim is, at least to me, subjective as he's talking about the extensity of media coverage, so the objective fact of the existence of media coverage of the protest (your argument) is moot. I agree with you that it's undue weight to give one op-ed piece by Hartmann's the space of entire paragraph, but I don't see how expurgating Hartmann's piece would be justifiable either. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Future plans section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, footnote seven, which directly supports it. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Even though it violates WP:CRYSTAL? Even though it relies in part on a terrible source, Alternet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is violated, and it doesn't rely on Alternet. This has already been explained to you several times. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added yet another RS, this time The Louisiana Weekly. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarrification about the undue weight tag

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

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

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

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

Your statement is false. The science consistently states that further studies are required because there have been no long term studies on human health. Risks of toxins and allergies are often cited as concerns, as well as the safety issues concerning the overuse of pesticides needed for GMO crops. Further, science is a skeptical enterprise; it does not make blanket proclamations such as "totally safe" and "no safety concerns" because it acknowledges that everything has risks, even GMOs. The only people pushing the "no evidence of risk and totally safe" angle are biotech lobbyists and their paid minions. According to The Daily Ticker, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture ruled last month that it needs more time to conduct detailed studies of new genetically modified corn, soybean and cotton seeds from Monsanto and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) before approving their use in the food supply...These seeds 'may significantly affect the quality of the human environment,' the USDA said in a statement."[1] Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources addressed Monsanto's claims in May. According to Bloomberg, Benbrook said that "plant breeding does much more to increase crop yields than genetic modification [and that] engineering crops to tolerate herbicides makes farmers jobs easier, while increasing the public’s exposure to chemicals such as dicamba and 2,4-D that have been linked to reproductive problems...The best way to help alleviate hunger is for the world to reduce food waste, eat less meat, and restore soil fertility."[2] Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, nobody here is saying "no evidence of risk and totally safe" - the consensus statement acknowledges risk and is not about all GMOs possible - the consensus statement is, "currently marketed GMOs are as safe as (or if you prefer as risky as) food from conventional organisms." It is exactly careful and skeptical. Companies that make GM crops and regulators are very aware that it is possible to introduce toxins or allergens in creating new GM crops; there are two well known examples of GM crops that were in development but were killed by the companies creating them, when the crops turned out to have unexpected allergens during testing; the other example is Starlink, which got to market and because the allergic response in some people was known (as tests by the originating company had shown), regulators restricted it to use in animal feed; it turned out that the distribution system could not keep it separate from the food supply and it was removed from the market. So those are well acknowledged points that are indeed part of the scientific consensus about possible GMOs - currently marketed food from GMOs has cleared those hurdles, well enough. The other things you say are not relevant to the scientific consensus on the relative safety of food from GM crops. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Tag re-added

We now have two sources with complaints about the media coverage in their own paragraphs, with a third complaining about coverage that showed the scientific consensus, with all of those claims being factually incorrect. I have restored the tag for the section until we sort out how to deal with this situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the inclusion of this tag and would support conflating the paragraphs to a general statement about the lack of media coverage for the march (you can add the bit about the scientific consensus if you want). Gobbleygook (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we've had it tagged for a while with no debate, and I think if people don't speak up about whether they're against this consolidation and adjustment, we can make the change. I'll give it a little more time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean that they are factually incorrect? Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically the claim that it was ignored. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't in a position to evaluate that opinion as "factually incorrect". The most we can do is show that it was covered. And the fact is, most major media outlets ignored the protests. CNN didn't even cover them until three days later. Currently, you've got a bit of primary OR saying that multiple media outlets covered them, but a) the sources don't say that and that's your own original research, and b) the Washington Post didn't cover them, they only published the AP's report and a photo essay which used photographs from AP and AFP. The link you've currently got goes to the photos, so Washington Post should be removed. What you need to do is find a good source that says "the idea that the protests were ignored is ridicuous because", but you can't, so you're disruptively adding a tag. That's not how it works. We aren't in a position to prove a negative. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gobbleygook, you were specifically asked not to stalk my edits, and I'm bringing this to the attention of an admin. Thargor, there is absolutely no support for your addition of the maintenance tag nor your proposed "remedies". What you consider "factually incorrect" has no bearing on our inclusion of this material. They are opinions attributable to notable, reliable sources, noting more. Evaluating them for accuracy would entail you having to provide alternate opinions from other reliable sources. Because none exist, there is no reason to keep the tag or to implement the proposal under discussion. Your argument amounts to "I don't like it" and that's not good enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me this cant about stalking when you were wikihounding me for the first week of my Wikiediting career. Also, I happened upon this page by coincidence as this movement is prominent in the news. Gobbleygook (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're also incorrect viewpoints (not "I don't like it" but "that is factually wrong"), and the section is weighted towards them. Thus the tag. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, please read WP:NPOV. We don't deal with "incorret viewpoints" unless you have a source that says "the claim that the media ignored the protests was false". You don't, so you can't use the tag. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not an advocate for the "factual tag". Thargor seems unwilling to state his issue clearly, but based on other posts he has made on this Talk page, I believe that his understanding is that the March was covered by major media (print and local TV), as per the partial list that is in the article (which doesn't include the local TV reports, which are easy to find via google). I believe that is the "factual" issue he is contesting. Especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Does anybody have a comeback for that so we can resolve this tag? Seems to me there was a real dearth of actual reporting on the marches by solid journalists; lots of media picked up the AP story and just ran it. The NYT and WSJ said nothing. On the other hand, lots of outlets ran the AP story and CNN did pick it up, and there were lots of local news reports. So I don't know how to resolve this. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel I've explained it very clearly. As of the time of writing, we have two long paragraphs bemoaning the lack of coverage of the march, which is easily disproven. We have one sentence that collects a handful of the hundreds of articles that covered the march, so right now it's a serious undue weight situation in favor of a factually incorrect claim. At this point, we may be better off keeping the partial list of coverage, with a quick line afterwards along the lines of "...although some media commentators claimed the mainstream media ignored the march." I was okay with just Hartmann and the list of outlets, since he's a fairly noteworthy commentator, but this is too far in the wrong direction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not easily disproven, and you failed to disprove it. The May 25th March was covered domestically by only two large sources, Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. CNN didn't even cover it until three days later. There is nothing "undue" about this at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, the factual record tells us otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I do have 2 questions, which I'll put separately so they can be responded to separately:Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1) The article by J. Kojo Livingston in the Louisiana Weekly is full of factual errors and appears to be an opinion piece more than a news piece. Is there something notable about Livingston such that his analysis of the news reports as being biased toward Monsanto meets WP:NOTABILITY -- why should we rely on or care what this guy says? I've never heard of him. Real question, you all may have a great answer. It is just such a crappy piece of writing. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that we have three opinions about the media coverage from across the United States According to his bio, J. Kojo Livingston is "an ordained Baptist Minister with over 34 years experience as a community activist/organizer/developer. He has created and directed youth and violence-prevention programs. His ministry involves street-level direct outreach and crisis intervention. He is a 22 year veteran journalist who has written for , designed and edited local and national newspapers and magazines. His current and past affiliations include Christian Unity Baptist Church (New Orleans), the U.N.I.A., the Republic of New Afrika, Amnesty International, SCLC, the New Orleans Committee Against Apartheid and others." Sounds to me like he has expertise writing about protest movements. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Still a terrible piece of writing and the factual errors are real boners. Nothing in there about him being a media critic. As we are discussing above, pretty much the only coverage was the AP story, and that story does indeed say "Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply." The AP author did not attribute it, and if I google that phrase all I ever find is the AP story. How do you reckon Livingston decided that this is "Monsanto's definition"? btw I think this is bad writing and shouldn't be cited anywhere, but I will not argue to take it out. We should be able to do better than this though. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to take another look at Livingston. I suspect you may be right about either removing it or using it in a different context. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2) Secondly, all three paragraphs favor the march. There were columnists who were critical of it. Are you all opposed to "reactions" that are critical? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that critical reactions should be added. I am putting together a list of the most critical reactions for inclusion that I never had a chance to finish. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note for Thargor: I just justified the use of the maintenance tag for you, but not based on your erroneous reasons. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And I laughted out loud when I did it. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this here?

The protests were covered by news outlets including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and Russia Today. On American cable news, the march was covered three days after it took place on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper".

I don't have a strong objection to it, but Thargor added this based on his own observations which sets a poor precedent. Also, the reference to The Washington Post should be removed, since the protest was not covered by them. All they did was run the AP wire story and host a photo essay page that supplied photos from wire services. As far as large outlets are concerned, the protests were immediately covered by only one wire service (AP) and one newspaper (LATimes). CNN covered the story three days later. So, as far as domestic coverage is concerned, the story was mostly ignored. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post did cover it, as they supplied a photo gallery covering the march. The point of having the section is to demonstrate the media coverage. If anything, we should be asking why the editorials making false allegations about coverage are still in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo gallery contains photos from the AP and AFP, not photographers from The Washington Post, so no, they did not cover it. All they did was run the AP wire story and create a web page to host the wire photos. No reporters or photographers from The Washington Post covered the story. The opinions, as far as I can tell, are based on a lack of coverage of the protests by major media outlets. However, smaller outlets did cover the story. I've already explained what you would need to do to challenge these opinions, and right now, the best thing you can do is do actual research on the protests to find critical opinions. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Covering" usually means putting it in their publication. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it does not. Large outlets have automated means of "covering" stories involving the publishing of wire stories and wire photos. That does not mean that their staff "covered" the story at all. Coverage, in this case, was provided by AP. This is unlike the Los Angeles Times, which actually covered the story. Do you understand the difference? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know all that. But I don't think that you understood what I was saying. Which is what a/the common meaning of "covered" is. Which is that the mere act of putting it in their paper is called "coverage" /"covered" per a common meaning of the term. Regardless of where they got it from. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In this context "coverage" means that the news outlet actually covered the protests with reporters and/or photographers. It does not mean that they simply repeated a wire story. Most major media outlets did not cover this protest nor did they cover their local protests. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The context of "covered" is how North understands it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not, which is the main thesis of the writers you oppose who maintain that major media outlets did not cover the protesters. And the facts show, they did not. Instead, AP distributed a singular narrative disseminated as a wire source which was reprinted on many media outlet websites. This is not "coverage" of protests; it's an automatic news delivery system which promotes a singular narrative for consumption. A media business model does not supplant or replace actual journalism that covers actual protests. I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but that's the entire point of the commentary. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, in this exchange, you have exhibited a lack of recognition of what I was saying (that we're talking about a common (and probably the most common) definition of "coverage" /"covered" , not claiming that those organization went there themselves) which so far is a lack of recognition. And your arguments have been basically repeating irrelevant things that we already know implying that they are new to us. That's not so OK. Then you top it off with silly sounding insults like "Do you understand the difference?" and "I'm sorry if you don't understand this,". Why don't you lose those insults and just converse here? North8000 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I did. The Washington Post did not cover the protest movement. They reprinted a wire story from AP. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to say again - after the March I spent several hours looking for RS to generate content from. When I say "RS" I mean really high quality, authoritative, objective, independent reporting that nobody could object to. Like what would be a produced if a NY Times reporter went out and talked to people, made a bunch of calls - if a NY Times reporter covered the story. I found pretty much nothing except variations of the AP story which is pretty thin in itself, and the LA Times article, which they probably did b/c of the local importance of Prop 37. Try it yourself! I'm not stating judgements as to why there was so little actual coverage, I am just saying that I think it is true that there wasn't much.Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear. There was little mainstream coverage by large media outlets. We can agree on that point. However, there has been a small number of smaller circulation coverage by local media outlets, perhaps a dozen or more covering major geographical regions. I plan on using this coverage to expand the march section. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Coverage" by your limited definition, one that is not agreed on by most. That it's not as "in depth" as some may want is perhaps a valid criticism, but in terms of "was it ignored," it's demonstrably false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)\

Hi Thargor, I don't agree with your definition of "covered" either. Thank goodness that important news is not usually "covered" this way! btw did you try to find RS that were of high quality for this article? Under my own standards of what I like to bring for sourcing (objective, carefully reported, well written, no factual errors, that nobody can disagree with) I actually found nothing. The AP story was pretty cursory and the LA times article was short and locally focused, and Jake's report on CNN was shallow and showy and had pretty much no digging. What did you find outside of those 2 and CNN? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are no really solid sources yet (that I could find). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources to help describe and detail the march? Not in the detail some would like, no. Sources that demonstrate wide mainstream coverage? Literally hundreds. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts

remove content based on commentary in Nature. Was written May 1; is not about the MaM nor in response to it. Let's not recapticulate the whole GM controversy in this article but instead focus on the march

Jytdog, I'm afraid I don't understand your revert.[3] Can you briefly explain why you left in Thargor Orlando's contribution which added content from a self-published 2003 position paper (a commentary by the Society of Toxicology), a 2011 opinion piece by Pamela Ronald, and a 2011 review by Ronald that cites evidence for a scientific consensus on safety from 2002,[4] — while at the same time removing a May 2013 news piece from science journalist Natasha Gilbert in Nature that was not commentary?

In other words, why did you remove news content from 2013 that was not commentary while leaving in two old opinion pieces from 2003 and 2011, and one old review from 2011 that cited evidence from 2002? According to your inclusion criteria, that material should not be in the article. But, it still is. Why is that?

You said that this content was not about the march or in response to it, so why does the article still say "This scientific consensus has been asserted numerous times, such as the journal Toxicological Sciences and University of California, Davis professor Pamela Davis in Scientific American" when that content is old commentary that has nothing to do with this subject? Please clarify your seemingly hypocritical position here please. It seems like you are not being consistent.

Either you remove alll old, off-topic content (opinion or otherwise) or you leave it in. Which is it, Jytdog? Is there a reason that Thargor Orlando's pro-Monsanto contributions are immune from your inclusion criteria? Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditias. Strong words about "hypocrisy" on my talk page! As has been stated many times on this page, there is a scientific consensus that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional organisms (it is not a broad statement - it is limited to currently marketed food, and it is relative). As per WP:FRINGE, if a fringe statement is made, it must be corrected. The protestors say that "GM food is dangerous" ( a broad, insupportable generalization, as absurd as "all food from GMOs is safe"), and that needs to be countered with the scientific consensus statement. That's it. 1, then 2. I am not invested in how the statement of the consensus is made; but the consensus existed before the march happened, so sources prior to the march are relevant and it reasonable that sources prior to the march would be used to support that statement. Your insertion of argumentation against the consensus is off topic - adding a "3" after the 1, 2. This article is about the march, it is not a battleground to fight the whole Controversies issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not responded directly to the concerns raised about your double standards. Scientific consensus isn't established by cherry picking a self-published 2003 position paper by the Society of Toxicology or a 2011 opinion piece by Pamela Ronald, or a 2011 review by Ronald that cites evidence from 2002. That's not acceptable on Wikipedia, yet you claim that it doesn't matter because "fringe" concerns by protesters "must be corrected" by any means necessary.

There is nothing "fringe" in this article. Concerns about the safety of GM food are well established in the literature, and I've already covered them adequately on this page. To date, 1) there is no significant scientific research on human health risks from GMOS 2) current safety testing fails to assess harm 3) there is a risk of toxic exposure, 4) there is a risk of allergic reaction 5) there is a risk posed to conventional and organic farmers from patent litigation 6) there is a risk to non-GMO crops (organic canola, for example, has been wiped out GMO canola) 7) there is a risk posed to biodiversity 8) there is a risk of increasing pesticide use 8) there is an economic risk to farming communities 9) there is a risk to democratic institutions, involving revolving doors between industry and government, lobbying, and corporate loopholes, and poor public policy making, and finally 10) there is a risk to consumer choice with the failure of labeling laws. There is nothing "fringe" about these concerns, and they are all supported by reliable secondary sources.

I have not inserted any argumentation "against consensus". I cited a reliable secondary source written by a Nature news journalist from May 2013 that said ""Researchers, farmers, activists and GM seed companies all stridently promote their views, but the scientific data are often inconclusive or contradictory".[5] It needs to be said that this Nature story is supported by other recent reliable sources showing that the literature is inconclusive or contradictory.[6] Note, I did not have to rely on a self-published opinion piece as you did. If you aren't going to accept the consensus that content must be about the event, both timely and relevant, then you aren't in a sound position to subjectively pick and choose what should stay. You deliberately left outdated, pro-biotech opinion pieces, some of which were self-published, in this article because they pushed your chosen POV. You then deliberately removed current, neutral news articles written by science journalists and scientists themselves that did not reflect your POV. You also made false claims about the sources, claiming the news story was a commentary.

The bottom line is, we cannot depend on Monsanto lobbying groups or self-published opinion pieces by the Society of Toxicology from 2003. What we depend on are solid, current, reliable secondary sources written by neutral journalists and/or writers who present the topic in an accurate manner. I believe that the current sources on this subject show that there is no scientific consensus on this matter, and the safety concerns expressed by protesters are sufficiently supported by relevant scientific data. The only consensus on Monsanto's products appears to be coming from Monsanto and their lobbying group. That is not acceptable. I maintain that you are promoting a hypocritical, double standard of inclusion by keeping outdated, off-topic opinion pieces in this article that support Monsanto, while removing sources that don't. It should be very easy for you to represent the "scientific consensus" using the current sources in the article about the subject. The reason you can't is telling. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I heard you, that you think that either there should be no sources from before the march, or it is OK to have sources from before the march. That is your "rule". While I did not explicitly say "I don't accept your rule" I did address it by saying that the consensus statement existed before the March so using sources from before the march is OK to support it. So I did indeed respond to you - not perhaps as screamingly obviously as you may have liked, but I did respond. Other responses to what you write above. I have said about 11 billion times now, as I did above, that the scientific consensus concerns only the relative safety of currently marketed GM foods. Since it does not appear to be clear to you , let me clarify that the relative safety/risk that is discussed in the consensus statement, is the relative safety/risk for human health from eating said food. That has nothing to do -- zippo -- with your items 3 through 10 and it is exasperating that you bring them to me. Let me be even more clear. I have not commented on any of items 3) - 10) on this page nor objected to any content about them on this page, so your angry laundry list is misdirected with respect to me. Item 1 is actually a pretty silly statement (you may have an interesting point but the statement is too compressed to make sense of), and 2, I am sorry to say, is a FRINGE opinion, if you mean it as broadly as you say it. Also, I did not add any content to this article stating the consensus. NOT EVER. So please do not say I did and do not blame me for the selection of sources - as I wrote above I do not care how the statement is exactly stated and sourced -- it just needs to accurate and well sourced. Finally, somewhere above here, I responded to your quote from Nature - I noted that the extended quote in the article, from which you cherry-picked the sentence you quote here, does not say anything about the relative safety of currently marketed foods being the subject of scientific uncertainty. It does discuss some of your items 3-10. Have a good night. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything I've cited above is found reputable, reliable secondary sources. There is not a single thing listed above that can be considered "fringe" by any stretch of the definition, and I challenge you to put up or shut up with your claim. You are playing fast and loose with the facts, and by so doing, you are violating NPOV. When you remove off-topic material from research professor Charles Benbrook, scientific opinion from François Houllier, and news reports from Natasha Gilbert—but keep off-topic material by research professor Pamela Davis Pamela Ronald, you are the one cherry picking the facts to fit your POV. You also speciously claim that because you are only slectively removing material but leaving the addition of off-topic material to Thargor Orlando and not removing it, that somehow leaves you above the fray. Nothing could be farther from the truth. To summarize, I've refuted your central argument, I've shown that you maintain a double standard, and I've repeatedly challenged you to show how anything I've cited is "fringe" in any way. The most you can attempt is to claim that the statement "current safety testing fails to assess harm" is fringe, which at best is your unsupported opinion, and at worst is false. Plant pathologist and former EPA regulator and adviser to the FDA, Doug Gurian-Sherman says "it's a myth to suggest that there's a scientific consensus supporting genetic engineering and agriculture" and his opinion is shared by many scientists. According to Gurian-Sherman's experience as a regulator, GMOs are not rigorously tested, there's no approval process, it's entirely voluntary, Monsanto controls the testing, and there have never been long term human testing to determine if harm has ever occurred. There is nothing "fringe" about these factual claims. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Pamela Ronald.Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice. :) We had an edit conflict there. To reply a bit more at length. I appreciate very much that you have not made this personal, but we don't seem to actually be exchanging ideas and you don't seem to be listening to me. When I say "I don't care", I mean that I don't care. I am a volunteer editor, like you, and it is absurd to try to foist responsibility on me for something I don't care about. So I don't see a lot of point to continuing this discussion. Again, have a good night. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I note further, mr. angry viriditas, that you did not respond to what I said. This article is about MaM - Tami Canal and her 200,000 - 2,000,000 colleagues. But you seem to be trying to trying to turn this article in to a duplicate of the genetically modified food controversies article. That article is extremely long and detailed. Why do you want to do make a duplicate? (real question!) Let this article be about the March. I just reverted your effort to go to step 3 (argue with the consensus, as referenced in my original response to you in this thread) yet again. All we need is step 1 (statements about what the protestors were protesting) and only rarely, step 2 (statement of the consensus view only if something within 1 is fringe). Which was handled well enough, several edits back, before this latest spurt of nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I believe I responded to your claims and I've shown that you maintain a hypocritical, double standard. You claim that some off-topic, out of date sources are OK while others are not—as long as they support your POV. But that's not how the policies and guidelines work. I'm not trying to "turn" this article into anything. What I'm trying to do is write the best article I can from the sources about the topic. You've done just the opposite, and your reverts have shown that to be true. You have two sets of standards for inclusion—automatic inclusion of any content that supports GMOs, whether it is an self-published opinion piece from ten years ago, or review article that cites ten year old data— it doesn't matter. If it's off-topic it's OK because it promotes Monsanto, and you're fine with that. But, I have shown in this thread that you're not OK with material written by science journalists or by other scientists who agree with the protesters or who show that the consensus is weakened to nonexistent due to "inconclusive or contradictory" scientific data. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of bad faith editing. You are writing, following a line of reasoning based on some assumptions, and in that line, you happily find that you have "refuted" me or "shown" X. I have said that I don't share your assumptions, so your reasoning doesn't speak to what I am doing (and especially not to my intentions). Why you think that it is rhetorically useful to keep claiming you have logically defeated me, is baffling to me. Do you generally find that is an effective way to arrive at consensus? (I am really curious about that!) Martin Luther famously said "reason is a whore." Reason starts with assumptions and heads off in a direction, both provided a priori by the reasoner - and reason can usually get you where you want to go. So if you want to work with me, let's talk about assumptions and directions. About direction, I made it clear that what I am trying to avoid is this turning the article into a debate over GMOs and thus going off-topic, which, in my view, is what your adding a counter-counter was doing (the step 3). About assumptions, I also made it clear that if there is a fringe statement in Step 1, a Step 2 - a counter-statement, clarifying the consensus - is required. I responded to your assumption that "source-date parity" is of paramount importance, when I wrote that Step 2 predates the March, so sources predating the march are of course OK to support it. You have responded to my assumption about complying with FRINGE policy by claiming that nothing is Fringe. I appreciate that you did that - and I think this is where we really differ and where a real conversation could be fruitful. You have not responded to my concern about direction, that by adding a Step 3, you are recapitulating the GM debate instead of writing about the March, other than to simply deny that you are trying to turn the article into anything. Please explain to me how adding a Step 3 is not going off topic with respect to the MaM. And again, I have added none of the content that you are objecting to.Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a simple matter, but for some reason, you always make things difficult. To clarify (as is my wont) are you saying that the statement there is no significant scientific research on human health risks from GMOs is a fringe statement? That is what you are saying, is it not? I would like a yes or no answer, please. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this question. Sorry but it needs a long answer, because the question is badly framed. In studying the toxicity of a substance, substances are tested in vitro and in animal models, in experiments that are carefully designed such that their results can be extrapolated to humans. Once a substance is on the market, it is ~possible~ to do epidemiological studies in large populations, but these studies lack controls and the most that can come out of them are correlations, from which it is very dangerous to draw causative conclusions. (famous example: a survey of a large number of college students' health and behaviors finds that a strikingly high number of people who slept with their clothes on, also woke up with headaches. Should we conclude that sleeping with one's clothes on, causes headaches? No. The real underlying link is probably late night drinking) It is of course true that with some substances, like asbestos, case reports emerged that exposure to asbestos seemed to be correlated with mesothelioma, and subsequently big epidemiological surveys were done to test that specific hypothesis, and very very clear correlations emerged between asbestos and mesothelioma, and these correlations were clear enough, and hidden variables were analyzed, such that very high likelihood of causation was accepted and asbestos was banned. Additionally, nobody has done a drug-like clinical trial of eating GM food, again because this is scientifically untractable. First, the issue of the intervention itself -- the study drug is a very well characterized, single chemical; we know exactly what we are giving, and we know that nobody in the control arm is getting it. We have a very good "intervention" "no intervention" control. Secondly, is the issue of hypothesis - what you are looking for. In a Phase III trial of a drug, you give the drug to sick people, and give placebo to sick people, and you pre-define what you are looking for: a) efficacy of the drug in treating the disease; b) toxicity, based on (i) known risks from previous trials and (ii) a standard battery of other things (e.g. you always look at liver function and CV effects). With GM food, with regard to the intervention, a) "food" is a very poorly defined thing, and (b) it is very difficult if not impossible to control differences in the experimental arm vs the interventional arm. We are left with an essentially epidemiological trial. With GM food, with regard to hypothesis, there is no well-defined hypothesized toxicity that you would look for. So, both in terms of intervention and hypothesis there are big problems -- this is what I mean by untractable. Going back now, again toxicology is based on in vitro work and animal studies. The scientific consensus is that based on the tox studies that have been done, which showed that the GM food that is currently marketed was substantially equivalent to its conventional counterparts. Finally, no health problem with currently marketed GM food has emerged (think asbestos). All that said, yes some in vitro and animal model studies have been published that claimed to show negative effects, that the authors and activists have claimed signal that currently marketed GM food is toxic to humans (if they were being more rigorous, and some are, they would say "currently marketed GM food has a high likelihood of being toxic to humans). Yes these studies exist. However, regulators worldwide and mainstream scientists have shown problems with these studies and most importantly, with the conclusions drawn them. Scientific consensus, btw, does not mean "unanimity." There are some scientists who, in good faith, reject human-caused global warming. There are some scientists who have axes to grind and who not-in-good-faith, reject human-caused global warming. Both kinds are outside the consensus. Likewise, scientists and others who claim that currently marketed GM food is more toxic than conventional counterparts are way outside the scientific consensus; those who claim there is a strong chance it is more toxic than conventional counterparts are outside the consensus but are at least speaking scientifically - both however lack any solid hypothesis as to why and in what way (where is the asbestos-like evidence?), and both are outside the consensus that currently marketed GM food is as risky as/as safe as food from conventional counterparts. There you go. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, if someone has been exposed to asbestos, it is easy to track. If I buy food that isn't labeled as being of GMO origin, how can I track what I've eaten? It's pretty convenient to deny consumers the right to know what they are eating and then claim it's safe because they can't track it. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to the question about "there is no significant scientific research on human health risks from GMOs" which I found difficult to respond to. If what you mean is clinical-trial-like testing, I tried to show that this is not feasible and is probably unethical. If what you mean is epidemiological studies in humans, I tried to show that doing them retrospectively or prospectively is also not very feasible and that there have been no reports of asbestos-like toxicity to spur them. If what you mean is standard tox studies in vitro and in vivo that are extrapolated to humans, I tried to show that these have been done. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

btw, I thought this version was pretty good at striking a reasonable compromise. That got blown up by a string of pretty aggressive edits that I think has kind of mangled things.Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have had numerous opportunities to correct the problem, and I've raised it over and over and over again in this thread. Your response has been "I didn't make the edit, and I'm not going to remove the material, BUT I'll remove any material that questions Monsanto's claims." Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See above, especially my comment that it is absurd to hold a volunteer editor responsible for content he or she did not add and has explicitly said that he or she doesn't care about the details of.Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work when the content has been brought to your attention numerous times. I pointed out the hypocrisy I perceived and instead of helping to solve the problem, you dragged your feet and hemmed and hawed. For someone who doesn't "care" about this content, you seem to be intimately involved in every dotted I and crossed T, so you'll excuse me for not "buying" your explanation. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision 560456035 by Viriditas (talk) rv good faith edit -- an editorial printed before MaM is hardly a response

A13ean, if that is the case, could you explain why you left in the self-published 2003 "editorial" from the Society of Toxicology, the 2011 opinion piece from Pamela Ronald, and her 2011 review which cites evidence for a "consensus" from 2002? Is it my imagination, or are you and Jytdog enforcing a double standard, where old, pro-Monsanto editorials/opinion pieces are acceptable for inclusion, while old, neutral editorials and news stories are not? You can't have both. You either remove them all or you leave them all in the article. Which is it? The article still says "This scientific consensus has been asserted numerous times" and cites old, off-topic opinion pieces from 2003 and reviews from 2011. Why?

Let me summarize the consensus here:

1. Sources, including editorials/opinion pieces, printed before the event occurred, should not be included.
2. Sources that are not about the event nor in response to it should not be included.
3. We should include sources (and their relevant content in said sources) only about the topic.

If this is correct, then I will plan on removing the off-topic, out of date content, starting with "This scientific consensus has been asserted numerous times..." since it refers to opinion sources and evidence from 2002, 2003, and 2011—before the event occurred. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The probable use of the leeway in that would make the problem worse. The problem is the trojan horse/ coatrack effect. I.e. to start placing the arguments and talking points of one side of the GMO debate into this article on (essentially) the basis of "this is what the protestors said" and excluding the other side by saying "this article is about the protestors and the protestors didn't say that". North8000 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing part of a page does not imply that the editor agrees with everything in the resulting diff. If you're that concerned about something that ended up in the response section, the best thing to do it remove it yourself, and not accuse two other editors of hipocracy for failing to also remove it when they removed other problematic material. I already made clear what I thought was a reasonable start at a balanced page. I think the mainstream view should be mentioned briefly somewhere, as per this excellent quote at WP:FRINGE (emphasis mine):

We need to point out what the majority viewpoint is, which is represented in the statements issued by organizations like the WHO and AAAS, and also in quality academic review articles, such as those listed above. As I have suggested previously, the proper place for this is not in the response section. What popped up on my news feed, was your addition of a letter to the editor, which shares some themes with MaM, but was published well before the event, and is thus not a response. I reverted it as a no-brainer. a13ean (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

this "fringe" statement is being misapplied, there is no undue weight issue here and this is not an article about a mainstream idea, it's about a bunch of people marching. Additionally, we need a secondary source that states this consensus matter in specific relation to the views expressed by particular members of the MAM group, it is synthesis otherwise - a matter already solved in the statement offered by the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association. It is also a mischaracterisation to present them as a group whose sole concern is the food safety matter when it isn't, there are a range of issues, most of which have zero to do with dismissing scientific consensus and reflect more so issues pertaining to public consensus and the role of the BT industry lobby in dictating policy. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi i just gotta say that you are making some really beautiful edits and statements lately. There is some good, tough, common sense in what you write above. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your first point based on my reading of the guidelines; the article is in part about a minority viewpoint, and we need to make clear what its relationship is with the majority viewpoint. Again, all I have ever asked for on this front is a single line, somewhere in the article, that makes this clear in a brief, neutrally phrased way (and that we don't use quotes which make statements of facts, but I no longer have any complaints on this front now that the Dave Murphy source is summarized). Perhaps you and I could agree on the wording of a RfC to settle this, unless you think that a consensus will be made clear here. It's entirely true that discussion here has focused on their claims re safety, but I think that's just because no one disagrees with the way their other issues are presented in the article (although if we use the quote from the Maui protestor, should make clear that Taylor is not actually the head of the FDA). If you have concerns that these are not sufficiently reflected in the article, please feel free to make some changes. a13ean (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A13ean, I've recently cited several current articles from both the journal Nature and Discover magazine that question the safety, efficacy and sustainability of GMOs. The only majority "consensus" that you and others appear to be citing appears to be based on old data from 2002 (it's now 2013) and from industry front groups. This article should represent the issue fairly, with the most current research and data. Interestingly, the majority of the claims made by the protesters are claims that can be verified in reliable secondary sources written by academics and journalists, including experts in their relevant fields. To date, when asked to show me where the "fringe" is here, nobody has been able to give an answer. Could it be that you and others are misinformed on this topic? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction: you've failed to accept the answers, and accused us of being paid shills. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're familiar with the standing and extensively sourced line at Genetically modified food controversies: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." Nothing has changed about this, but if you wish to persist, we can take it to WP:RS/N and have the larger community evaluate those sources verses GS's essay or whatever other sources you have found. This article presents a minority view of the safety of GMO foods; per the fringe guidelines we also need to make clear what the majority view is. a13ean (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association is a lobbying front group funded and run by Monsanto employees.[7][8] It is not a neutral, independent organization nor is it able to accurately state the "consensus". It is explicitly, in their own words, an advocacy group[9] that works to promote Monsanto's line of products. That is not exactly a reliable source. If we are going to cite an industry front group, should we also be citing the OCA and the UCS? Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this, that's why I added (it was missing) "a Hawaiian agricultural biotechnology trade association," and added a link to their website, readers can make up their own minds on the nature of the source. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of new quote from Monsanto CEO

Viriditas added the following today: "In the runup to the protests, Monsanto's CEO Hugh Grant told Bloomberg News that critics of GMOs are social media elitists who fail to recognize the global food needs of a growing, hungry population.(ref)Murray, Ryan (8 June 2013). "Backlash growing against GMOs". Daily Inter Lake. McClatchy-Tribune Regional News. Retrieved 18 June 2013; Milner, Conan (21 May 2013). "Protests Against Monsanto in 55 Countries". The Epoch Times. Retrieved 18 June 2013; For the original Bloomberg interview, see: Kaskey, Jack (15 May 2013). "Monsanto Sees 'Elitism' in Social Media-Fanned Opposition". Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 June 2013.(ref/) "

Not sure what is up with the reference overkill - the original bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/monsanto-sees-elitism-in-social-media-fanned-opposition.html is all that is needed. If you read that article, it is dated May 16 and does not mention MaM. So the preface, "in the runup to the protests" is OR/SYN. The article discusses the recent petitions to the USDA over new products that Dow and Monsanto are trying to bring to market. That is the context. And the whole quote is as follows: "Those who can pay more for organic food want to block others from choosing more affordable options, Grant said. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” Grant said at Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters yesterday. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”" This is entirely different from the way the quote is presented in the deleted text. So, it is not about MaM, and it is distorted. Doesn't belong on both counts. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "reference overkill" here, nor is there any OR/SYN, nor is the content unacceptable. There are three sources in use, two about the march and a third which is used to reference the original interview. The first citation, The Daily Inter Lake (8 June) a news story distributed by the McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, is about a March Against Monsanto that took place in Kalispell, Montana. It notes that "Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, made comments to Bloomberg News in May that those opposed to GMOs are not using data to support their claims, just emotional pleas and a 'strange kind of reverse elitism."

Those comments were also covered by a pre-march news story about the March Against Monsanto in The Epoch Times (21 May), which read: "In an email, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said the company had no statement regarding the upcoming protest. However, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant recently characterized GMO critics as social media elitists who overlook the pressing food problems of the less fortunate. 'There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,' Grant told Bloomberg in a May 14 interview. 'There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.'"

The third source is the original Bloomberg source, "Monsanto Sees ‘Elitism’ in Social Media-Fanned Opposition" (15 May), that both The Daily Inter Lake and The Epoch Times refer to here. The "social media-fanned opposition" is clearly the March Against Monsanto campaign, which had been in the works for months. Your claim that this is not the actual context is clearly wrong. It is not "the recent petitions to the USDA over new products" that is the context. In any case, even if you dispute that is the context, The Daily Inter Lake and The Epoch Times both cite it in articles about the march, and it is acceptable to use it here to show that Monsanto was commenting about the social media campaign just weeks before the march occurred. Need I remind you, the active social media campaign against Monsanto at that time was called "March Against Monsanto".

To conclude, your argument for excluding this material is unsupported and it is discussed in two different articles about the protest, and in the original context of the social media campaign, "March Against Monsanto". Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is appropriate content for this article. It should be replaced. petrarchan47tc 05:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Bloomberg piece would be fine for one of the other GMO articles but this one is about this protest movement rather than protest in general. I can see where some would say that the Monsanto remarks are related to social media and that this movement has relied on social media, but even still if we don't keep a strict limit on what we allow in this article it will turn into a GMO debate--which we don't want here. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

All GA and FA articles on similar topics like these cover extensive background information beyond the event itself; Stonewall riots is a good example, there are many more. I'm not sure where you latched on to the erroneous notion that this article can't include such information, or the equally bizarre idea that the "GMO debate" is somehow separate and distinct from this topic, but both ideas are flat wrong and unsupported by our guidelines, our policies, and our GA/FA articles. There is ample space to expand upon the position of Monsanto itself on this topic, and the "GMO deabte" as you call it, is embedded in the demands of the protesters and is thematically linked to the protest movement itself. All of these things will be covered as the article expands and improves. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Stating "in the runup to the protests" in WIkipedia's voice is indeed OR/SYN because it leads the reader to think that he said this about the MaM protests which he did not. Stating that news reports about the protests cited this in discussing the protests is not SYN. Taking the “strange kind of reverse elitism” bit out of context does make it just "strange" - including the whole quote allows the reader to see what Grant was talking about. Compromising - I have re-instated, using the whole quote and its context, and attributing the connecting of the quote to the marches, to the news sources that did that. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Stating "in the runup to the protests" is in no way, shape, or form classified as "OR/SYN", so I suggest you familiarize yourself with those topics. Describing and/or paraphrasing the relevant chronology is supported by the sources, and there is not interpretation at work. As for what Monsanto's CEO said, it does not lead the reader to think anything other than what Monsanto's CEO said—a comment about the social media opponents. Who were these social media opponents at the time? Well, if one does actual research (something you have failed to do so far, instead opting for the delete, delete, delete, delete model of "improvement") one finds that the only social media opposition at the time was the "March Against Monsanto", which was widely advertised for weeks and months before the event, and the two secondary sources demonstrates this is true. Therefore, there is nothing "out of context" as you assert, and the context is intact. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've cut down on the size of the quotes from the Monsanto CEO, removed the newspaper-style attribution, and also taken out the photo. Otherwise we're just falling into the trap of using this article as a coattrack for pro- and anti-modified-seed viewpoints. His full opinion is still there, but in summary fashion. There is no point whatever is having the photo, and it is excessive and over-weights the quote. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Though I have not looked at the edit. I agree with your intention and reasoning. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving the picture out; i didn't add it and don't care. i would be fine with completely excluding the quote, but if we are going to use it, a) it must be made clear that he wasn't talking about the protests; and b) we have to include his modifier, "a strange kind of reverse elitism" which is less rude and stark than "reverse elitism" (also, one doesn't split genitives!) Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the inclusion of the photo is entirely inline with our guidelines, policies, and best practices involving articles of similar scope, and I will be arguing for retaining the photo. Aside from "I don't like it", I don't see any valid arguments for exclusion. The notion that this article is "falling in the trap" of being a coatrack for pro and anti viewpoints is absurd, as this section is about the response from Monsanto, nobody else. Furthermore, I expect to expand and improve upon the scope of Mosnanto's position towards the protest and the protesters, and I would invite anyone to give me a good reason why I should not. Again, the GMO "debate", "controversy", or whatever you want to call it, is part of this topic, is found within the sources in use, and will be adquately represented. Anything less than that is a violation of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that provide Monsanto's actual reaction to the actual March, knock your self out! I cannot imagine that the company said much outside what was in the AP article and what the Hawaii rep said. Will be interesting to see what you find. btw with the new section title it is all the more important to make it clear that Grant's comments were not a response to the March. fine to say that other sources connected it, but it is not part of "monsanto's response" to the March.Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The problem with this article has been excessive material on the underlying issue, mainly of the pro-Monsanto variety. I think that Monsanto's response needs to be mentioned but should not be overemphasized. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources

The Daily Inter Lake (8 June). McClatchy-Tribune Regional News

• "Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, made comments to Bloomberg News in May that those opposed to GMOs are not using data to support their claims, just emotional pleas and a 'strange kind of reverse elitism."[10]

The Epoch Times (21 May)

• "In an email, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher said the company had no statement regarding the upcoming protest. However, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant recently characterized GMO critics as social media elitists who overlook the pressing food problems of the less fortunate. 'There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,' Grant told Bloomberg in a May 14 interview. 'There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.'"[11]

RT (26 May)

• "In an interview with Bloomberg earlier this month, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant portrayed those who do not agree with his business tactics as snobs: 'There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,' he said. 'In the US, we’ve got a system that works.'"[12]

Bloomberg (15 May)

• [13]

The passages from epoch times and RT are just so funny - especially the RT one. Great job of twisting the quote so it makes him look as much like an A-hole as possible. funny! Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please try to WP:AGF. I don't believe anything was twisted or anyone was shown in a bad light. If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate it. My only purpose here is to expand and improve this article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry I wasn't clear - with twisted quotes I was not talking about you, but rather the authors of those articles. This section seems stable now, in any case... Thanks for your nice answer btw. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

More deletions

removed ", the site of the largest experimental crop trials in the United States and the largest producer of genetically engineered seed corn in the world" which is not in the source. really true of Hawaii?? seems unlikely

Jytdog, I am once again speechless at your continuing deletion campaign based on your baseless ruminatinos. First of all, why would this information need to be in the source? Second of all, on what basis are you questioning its veracity? You say it seems unlikely, but you don't explain why you personally believe it is unlikely. In the future, please use the talk page to ruminate about your concerns, not the edit summaries. Now, given the fact that Monsanto Hawaii is the site of the largest experimental crop trials in the United States and the largest producer of genetically engineered seed corn in the world, do you think that might be relevant to this topic, and go towards explaining why Monsanto Hawaii released a longer statement than Monsanto HQ itself? And if you didn't know that, have you ever thought of doing the slightest bit of research to confirm it? Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I temporarily removed it since it confused people, but I will be adding it back with clarification. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii has the largest number of experimental biotech crop trials in the country[14]

Hawaii is the world’s leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed corn[15]

I've left it out for now. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are great sources; I was ignorant on this point. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

US bias?

The article makes contradictory (and weakly-sourced) claims that this is an International "grass roots" movement, and that it is a movement with a single Californian founder started in 2013. Looking at the literature, it seems outside the US "marches against Monsanto" were taking place well before 2013 (see the Haiti link just added). Is this article taking a blinkered/parochial view? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are completely different marches you refer to and I'm working on a version that will refer to those precious marches. I don't see anything contradictory or weakly sourced about this being an international grass roots movement founded by a single person. Can you describe the problem as you see it? Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Monsanto article has a section on protests etc. This march is referenced in it; this article to the best of my knowledge refers to The March Against Monsanto - the event (and possibly movement, we will see!) that occurred in May. There of course have been other protests. Are you all proposing some larger article that is "Protests against GMOs" or something that would subsume this one? Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing that, and the AfD determined this subject is notable as a standalone topic. The OP appears to be confused about this protest. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the article upon my coming here was that the article was not just about the actual May march, but the broader movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see where that confusion comes from, however, this article is only about the "March Against Monsanto" movement established in Feb. 2013. I am working on adding additional background information to clarify this, but only if the sources cover it. To summarize, there is no consensus to merge this article into any other article at this time, and it is still being expanded and improved. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, taking the above into account my problem then is that "the" March Against Monsanto was an event not a movement, and that is how the sources seem to refer to it. Even the "official page" seems to support this: "After the incredible success of the grass-roots 'March Against Monsanto' last Saturday ... ". Now, the organizers seem keen to stretch the event into a movement ("This just the beginning"), but Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily be buying into that but should be reflecting the sources. As to "grass roots" this is laregely a PR term and I'm not sure its use is justified. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the sources, it's considered both a movement (established by Canal and spread around the world via social media) and an event. As for "grass roots", that refers to what is commonly defined as "ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership", which is what we have here. Please keep in mind, this is vastly different than the Tea Party movement, which uses the term "grass roots" for PR, as they are not run by ordinary people, but by corporate front groups, commonly referred to as "banksters and billionaires" in the press. To summarize, 1) it's considered both a movement and an event, but further clarification on this point is needed per your comments, and 2) it's defined as a real grass roots movement, unlike other movements which use the term for PR as you correctly observed. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"both a movement and an event" ? ... that's kind of confusing, and also not what the article says. What is the source for this dual definition? And what is the source for "grass roots" (such a loaded term it is probably better not used as part of initial definition). Right now, this article's opening reads like an uncritical reflection of MaM organizers' own PR and aspirations. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you find it confusing? The sources are pretty clear that the MAM movement led to the event around the world, and that this movement is planning other, upcoming events. I've already explained why the grass roots term is appropriate here and is not a PR term. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you do a news search, the overwhelming majority of sources call MaM an "event", a "rally", a "protest", etc. If the organizers are trying, off the back of the success of this, to stretch it into a "movement" then WP should not be following them, but sticking with what the sources say (or neutrally reporting the organizers' ambitions). The first mention of "movement" from a source (currently citation number 2) actually refers to the "Anti-Monsanto Project" movement, not MaM as a movement. And, do we have an RS for "grass roots" ... ?

The sources substantiate that this was an international grass roots movement that culminated in the one day event. We can get into specific sources and wording, but at this point, I want to better understand your point. Are you arguing that this was not an international grass roots movement? If so, what was it? Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, taking the first descriptions from the excerpts on a first page of a GN search:

• A protest (Osceola Sun)
• "March Against Monsanto world wide, in May" (Redwood Times)
• An event (Maui Weekly)
• A rally (Vancouver Observer)
• "Having succeeded with the March Against Monsanto in May ... The March Against Monsanto was very successful" (Blog for Iowa)
• A movement (Ring of Fire Radio)

So (and I think this sample is representative) most sources seem to consider the notable thing the protests (i.e. the event), and call MaM some thing that happened on a certain day. One wouldn't know that from reading the opening sentence here. Also "grass roots" doesn't appear to mentioned in sources: this is a PR term chosen by the MaM organizers and unless there's a RS for it it needs to go (it seems to me the real "grass roots" protests were happening outside the USA starting years ago; this in contrast appears to be a top-down effort with an identifiable founder). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has performed extensive research on this topic, I don't think the sources you present are a representative sample. First of all, we don't write articles based on the "first page of a GN search", so please don't do that again. I do think that most reliable sources refer to this topic as an international grassroots movement that engaged in a protest. In any case, before I show the sources that support this wording, I would like an answer to my question: if the March Against Monsanto was not a grass roots movement, then what was it? A few definitions for your benefit:

grass roots: The most basic level of an activity or organization: "a campaign conducted at the grass roots"; Ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership.

international protest movement or social movement: transnational networks of actors that define their causes as global and organize protest campaigns that involve more than one state

Is there anything about these definitions that do not apply to this topic? If not, why not? If your objection is simply based on the sources, then I will easily present the sources that support this wording. If your objection lies outside the sources, then please clarify. At this point, your objection isn't very clear. I think most rational people would agree that this subject falls under the category of an international grass roots protest movement without any objection. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On the GN search, I didn't advocate basing the article on it - but from my own research across library services and Google, what I listed is a representative sample: here was some evidence. There appears to be no coveage of MaM as an ongoing movement - it seems this is a non-notable aspect of this subject area and so it is POV to have it so promiment in the article. The thing that is notable here is the series of protests around the world.

On "grass roots" the point is not what we think is a good term, it is what reliable sources state. Since you've already acknowledged "grass roots" is wording that has a PR aspect to it, this is something we should be strict about for reasons of neutrality. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what you listed is not a representative sample, nor could it be, as we don't use Google searches to write articles. Your assertions that 1) the protest is not grass roots, and 2) that it is not a "movement" are both in error. We have many reliable sources indicating explicitly that this is an international grass roots movement.[16][17][18][19] And, I did not acknowledge that the term "grass roots" as used here has a PR aspect to it, I acknolwedged that non-grass roots movements have used the term erroneously. You still have not answered my question so I will expand upon it: if this isn't an international grass roots movement, then what is it? And, if you dispute the sources, which sources cast doubt on the idea that it is an international grass roots movement? Again, most rational people will agree (and the sources will reflect) that the protests 1) took place globally, and that 2) ordinary people, not corporate interests, are regarded as the main members of the movement, and that 3) this movement consists of "transnational networks of actors that define their causes as global and organize protest campaigns that involve more than one state" (country). If you dispute any of this at all, please explain your dispute. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I never advocated using Google searches "to write articles" - that is a complete straw man. I have no interest in what MaM is, I am interested in what reliable sources say it is. By and large they seem to say it something like "an event which took place around the world on 25 May 2013 in protest at Monsanto's business activities"; that, I think, is a rather more neutral and better-sourced description than what's in the article currently, which seems to have a certain POV.

I just gave you four sources that support the current wording; there are many more. Again, if this isn't an international grass roots movement, then what is it? This wording is neutral and reliably sourced. You challenged this wording by doing a Google search. That's just not how it works. If you really want to challenge this, forget about the sources for just a moment and challenge it conceptually. You began to do this when you questioned the use of the term "grass roots", but I believe the definition I gave you supports the wording. At this point you appear to be saying that the term shouldn't be used because it isn't neutral, but in this case, is that true? Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, so there is no RS support for the term "grass roots".

Of your four sources, the first describes MaM as "an event that was held in other locations around the country and internationally", the second describes it both as "protests" and as a "movement", the third states "The March against Monsanto was notable in several key respect" (i.e. places it in the past as an event), and the fourth gives a breakdown, over several hours of the march. This rather strengthens the case that my Google News results were representative. Third-parties sources are, on the whole, describing MaM as an event which happened, not as a movement which is ongoing. The article here needs to reflect that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there are more than enough sources supporting the term "grass roots", and I provided you with some, starting with a sample of local, domestic, and international coverage. The first source is an example of a local protest covered by a local paper, the The Bangor Daily News. The local journalist describes the protest as a "grassroots activist event". The second source is a link to the domestic wire story by the AP which describes the "'March Against Monsanto' movement" and illustrates its grass roots origins. The third and fourth sources are examples of international coverage by RT, which call the movement a "grass roots anti-GMO protest", a "global protest organized by the 'March Against Monsanto' movement", and "an international movement". Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! So, a better opening sentence might be "The March Against Monsanto is a grassroots event which took place around the world on 25 May 2013 in protest at Monsanto's business activities." ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a global grassroots movement (as sourced by the AP and RT). What exactly is the problem you have with the current wording? Please be brief in your reply. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No sources says "grassroots movement" -- this is your WP:SYNTHESIS isn't it? A few says it is/was a movement, and some says the events were grassroot; but nearly all sources refer to MaM as an event or a protest (which took place on a certain day), and not as a "movement". We need to go with the weight of the sourcing here. My proposed wording does that, I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not synthesis at all. The protest movement is grassroots and global, as such it is a global grassroots movement. Both RT sources call it a "grass roots anti-GMO protest" and a movement, and so does AP. How could this possibly be synthesis in any way? I'm going to ask you the same question again which you refused to answer: if this isn't a grassroots movement, then what is it? Is there a source that challenges the claim that this is a movement? Once again, grass roots refers to "the most basic level of an activity or organization, "ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership." The sources make that clear. And the movement, in this case is a "transnational networks of actors that define their causes as global and organize protest campaigns that involve more than one state (country)". Exactly what are you challenging here? The sources describe it as grassroots and a movement. There is nothing being synthesized here. You seem to be arguing that it is either grassroots or a movement, but I've already explained this is not true. There is nothing contradictory here, nothing synthesized, and everything is appropriately defined. Again, if it is not a global grassroots movement, then what is it? It doesn't even matter, because the sources in this article already call it a grassroots movement.[20] Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry: "sources describe it as grassroots and a movement" <-- could you help me and and lists the sources which do this for me? ... The first RT piece is an op-ed, so really shouldn't be used as news, and needs to be attributed; in any case it does not call MaM both a movement and grassroots. The second RT piece doesn't mention "grassroots". To repeat, I am interested in having a verifiable opening, not debating this in the abstract. If you can't give a source then we need to correct the WP:SYNTHESIS. My proposed wording is easily verifiable BTW. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already sourced in the article many times, with The Wellingtonian.[21] It also doesn't require a source in the lead section and it is completely non-controversial. Why are you having difficulty understanding that it is a grassroots movement? In any case, I've already refuted your statement that "no source says grassroots movement", so I suggest you drop the stick. Unless you can explain why it isn't a global grassroots movement, then I think we are at the end of this discussion. The sources are clear. There are numerous sources supporting this in the current article, and dozens more that aren't in it. For example, New River Valley reporter Ken Heineck of WSLS-TV called it an "international grassroots movement".[22] Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks! My general "difficulty" is when I read about MaM in a variety of news sources it seems to be about an event, but when I come to WP it seems to be about a movement. Maybe I'm reading the wrong sources! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My take on this is that MaM was an event, organized online, the organizers of which have expressed some aspiration to turn into movement. I think "movement", in common understanding, is something that is sustained over time, i.e the Civil Rights Movement. Or like the Arab Spring. One can talk already about an anti-GMO movement that is loosely organized and has indeed been sustained over time, in which MaM is an event. MaM may prove to be a movement (or an organizer within the larger anti-GMO movement), but it seems to me too early to label it as such.... Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the usable definitions of global protest/social movements, this is classified appropriately as a movement. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

here are some definitions:

• miriam webster: b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>
• oxford: 2 [often with modifier] a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas: the labor movement
• wikitionary: A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals

I think all of those include the notion that activities are sustained over time. Which is why it seems too early to say whether MaM itself is or is not a movement within the larger anti-GMO movement, which has been around a long time. I am not saying that MaM is not a movement; I'm just saying there is insufficient information to call it that now. How about if we say something like "March Against Monsanto was a worldwide protest held on May 25, 2013 against Monsanto corporation's business practices, organized via social media. It was part of the larger anti-GMO movement and its organizers aspired to hold further events and actions under the March Against Monsanto banner." or something like that? We can update that over time if/when future events or actions take place. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I completely disagree. Those aren't the definitions used by sociologists and others who study protest movements. Consulting your dictionary is not helpful here. Your assertion that it is too early to call it a movement flies in the face of the sources and the specialized definitions used by people who study these movements. For only one example of this treatment in the literature, see this definition. I'm afraid that unless we have a source that argues against it being a movement, we have to accept that that the sources and the specialized definitions used to classify protest movement support it. To summarize, the sources call it a movement, people who study protest movements classify it as a movement, and we call it a movement. What editors think is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, a minority of sources call it a "movement"; most call it an event/rally/protest. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, could you please clarify - what are the sources in which "people who study protest movements (ally) ctuaclassify it as a movement"? with "it" being the MaM in particular (and there must be more than one since you say "people")? It cannot be the google book since it was written in 2006. That book section points at the anti-globalization movement, which in 2006 was validly called a movement as there had already been sustained action over time; fits the dictionary definition very well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed non-WP:RS source

I've removed a reference to the non-WP:RS source Stephen Lendman. Frizzmaz (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I got that, but the reason I asked you to comment here was so that you could explain why the author is not a RS. I haven't had time to look into this, so I would appreciate you sharing your expertise. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Lendman is a minor blogger. One quote in one newspaper mentioning his posting on a non-notable, non-RS site festooned with an impressive sounding name (Centre for Research on Globalisation) is not enough to establish him as WP:RS. If what he's saying is true, then it should be possible to find it in actual WP:RS sources. Frizzmaz (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Far too promotional.

I have read the article for the first time an it looks like promotional material for the MAM movement, failing to distinguish exaggerated claims made by the organisers from generally accepted facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide glaring examples that we can address, otherwise, there is nothing actionable about your opinion and that leaves us with nothing to address. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To start with have in the lead, 'On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000 to 2 million supporters participated in marches and rallies; organizers claimed that marches took place in 436 cities around the world'. The 2 million and 436 city figures are estimates by the organisers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've previously discussed this. First of all, most, if not all protest estimates originate with organisers. Sometimes, depending on the protest movement, you'll have competing numbers released by government sources. Second of all, the numbers were widely reported by RS. I'm not seeing anything "promotional" here at all. The largest coverage came from the Associated Press which said "Two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto Co. in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday." What exactly is wrong with the lead? Nothing I can see. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You say, 'most, if not all protest estimates originate with organisers' that is no doubt correct but it does not mean that we must state the, invariably exaggerated, claims of organisers as fact in WP. We need independent reliable sources. In the body of the article we could possible say something like, 'The organisers claimed ...' but to put such figure without is source, in the lead is misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It already says that, using the lowest numbers available (CTV) with the highest according to organizers (AP). Feel free to find the wording you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As written, the presentation of those numbers looked odd to me too. Would it help to attribute the low-end and high-end numbers more clearly? Something like: "On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000 (according to CTV^cite) to 2 million (according to the organizers^cite) supporters participated in marches and rallies". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)