User talk:Petrarchan47

RETIRED

From USRTK Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto (11.24.15)

Full report: Seedy Business: What big food is hiding with its slick PR campaign on GMOs[1]

Following a Columbia Journalism Review article on whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests, and whether there is adequate disclosure of sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest, U.S. Right to Know reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists and columnists quote academic sources without stating that they are funded by the agrichemical giant Monsanto, which produces pesticides and GMOs. Our review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding, but without disclosing that funding.

This is a collapse of journalistic standards. When reporters quote sources about food issues such as GMOs or organic food, readers deserve to know if the sources have been funded by Monsanto or have other conflicts of interest.

The principal effect of failing to reveal these conflicts of interest is to unfairly enhance the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics, and their support of GMOs and criticism of organic food, while detracting from the credibility of consumer advocates..

Many of these journalistic failures occurred at influential news outlets: newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune; science publications such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover; magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired and The Atlantic; as well as broadcast outlets like ABC and NPR.

From Cornell Chronicle [2] New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant "to depolarize the GMO debate" (08.21.14) From Cornell Daily Sun [3] Pro-GMO Article Penned by Cornell Professor Linked to Monsanto (11.14.15)

From The Ecologist [4] Surprise - Cornell is taking the GMO safety debate to a new level! (10.19.15):

Something important just happened at Cornell's Alliance for Science, writes Steven M. Druker. Long known as a keen promoter of genetic engineering, the organization has experienced a profound change of direction. Its new director, Sarah Davidson Evanega, has opened an inclusive scientific dialogue on the safety of GMO crops. Who says it's all 'over'?

In an unexpected and commendable step, she distributed a new book that presents a well-documented case against the GE food venture to all 25 participants in the Alliance's Global Leadership Fellows Program; and she then arranged for them to attend a public lecture delivered by the book's author on September 30th [linked below]

Previously, proponents of GE crops have routinely tried to quash uncomfortable facts, and they all too often have vigorously (and unfairly) disparaged research and writings that they deem threatening in order to dissuade people from paying attention to them.

In that vein, several ardent defenders of GE foods have issued purported reviews of [the] book that so seriously misrepresent the content it's difficult to believe that they've actually read what they were commenting on.

Steven Druker discusses his book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public; lecture attended by Cornell's Alliance for Science, September 30, 2015

"Wikipedia has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable." (source)

"But perhaps even more insidious [than cases such as the WifiOne] are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile (lol) editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned." (source)

"Wikipedia is at a crossroads ... in my view there are trucks of corporate and military/intelligence owned editors barreling down on concerned unpaid editors from all directions. The 'pedia is increasingly functioning as corporate/political PR, and those in the way are targeted, just as Scientologists target "Repressive Persons." There are times I can't believe my eyes and have to walk away." (source)

-- Jus da fax

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, April 2015:

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

From Genetically modified food: Consternation, confusion, and crack-up

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

From Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies:

"(Medical) journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry."

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox medical condition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox medical condition. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have got email

Hello, Petrarchan47. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please comment on Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	It is so good to see you around Petra. Thinking back over your years as an editor really does make me marvel at how much work a volunteer is willing to put into self-less benefit for others. Wikipedia needs people like Slim, Montana, and you Petra. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP needs people like you, Atsme and Minor4th too. I'm beginning to like your girl power movement. I was resistant at first, and I don't like to be sexist, but I am beginning to see the point you've made about the benefit of female influence (especially noticeable here, where 90% are male). The problem is that women aren't likely to put up with lies, bullying and injustice indefinitely, so I can't see how - unless things change drastically around here (and there is no indication this will happen) - WP is going to be able to grow that small percentage. If I haven't already made it clear, i can't stand this place. It's seething with corruption. At a certain point, attempts to edit this site are futile at best, and the time spent no longer enjoyable, but quite the opposite. The healthier I become in my own life, the more difficult it is to justify any involvement on WP, even though as you note, there are some wonderful people here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 07:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mitsubishi Magna

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mitsubishi Magna. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Prices

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Prices. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Weeks Editor of the Week

...is Happysquirrel (talk · contribs · count · logs), a relatively new editor that works hard at improving the encyclopedia experience for all. She deserves a few messages of appreciation. Dearest Petra, I have no idea if anybody pays attention to what happens at the WER pages anymore. For years I have been challenging members of that project to Drop by his/her talk page and give him/her a pat on the back and let him/her know he/she is supported. And for years the response has been miserable. O, every now and then an editor will get nominated that has a fan club and some 5 or 6 editors will drop in to say congrats. But most of the time I have to send out specific requests to specific editors or no one but me shows up. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy giving out the awards and I enjoy the cheerful responses that I get from most awardees. But can you imagine the pleasure that we as a project would give another editor if every week 3 dozen or more editors said, "Well done. Thank you". Happysquirrel said this after only two editors thanked her:

Thank you so much everyone! This means so much to me. It's always good to know my efforts are appreciated. As someone who works mostly with new articles and new editors, I find myself often on the margins of the community, helping people inwards, but never going in completely myself. You can't imagine how great it is to have people coming out to congratulate me.

We veteran editors waste so much time arguing. I know getting any membership to do something positive can be like herding cats. Sending good wishes takes ONE minute. Editor retention happens one editor at a time. I don't think Editor Happysquirrel will be leaving soon. This message, abbreviated, is at the EotW talk page and the Project talk page. I place it here in hopes that your stalkers will respond. Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Stack Overflow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stack Overflow. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:1 metre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

Be well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.137 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't love it more. Thank you. petrarchan47 คุ ก 08:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Schulze method

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schulze method. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety based on the five proposals made at the GMO crops talk page here which you have either commented on or made your own proposal. The Wordsmith and Laser brain have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk)

Petrar may have retired but I have not. I'll take a look. Jus da fax 06:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JusDa! If you're here, I'm here. But I no longer remember how to ping. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan47 This is how. Glad to see you. Hope you will stay. I'm working with some fantastic editors from the Women in Red Project. No arguing. Pure collaboration. Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Am here at irregular intervals, and sometimes don't do much but read and wiki gnome. Just read your reply regarding the proposed GMO Rfc. Good stuff! Jus da fax 00:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Just read the proposed Rfc, from the link above. On the talk page, I'm suggesting we discuss scrapping it. Jus da fax 01:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JusDa, I agree this RfC is ill conceived. No one has yet explained to me why It is acceptable to write a summary of content that doesn't exist in the Pedia. It is a PR statement, and nothing more. If there was a scientific consensus about the safety of GMO foods (a ridiculous concept on its face, given that there have been no long-term human studies, and that the only studies we are allowed to hear about are funded by the mega corporations that profit from GM products), it would have been written up and found comfy home here without years of controversy. WP should be repeating, not creating, factual information. If there was a safety consensus, there would be no reason for the EU to spend millions of Euros on a Seralini-based full-blown cancer study, but they did. There is no consensus, there is almost nothing but controversy surrounding GMOs. Why would serious editors consider ignoring all of these facts and continue to move forward with this? I can't take Wikipedia seriously, and i have a feeling i am not alone. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on Jimmy Wales' page backing up David's concerns. Jus da fax 13:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm very proud of you!

		The Mother Nature Barnstar
		I want to thank you for saving my Planet. I consider resisting the cult of GMO's to be among the most significant cultural expressions of our time. *Mother Nature* *Talk* 11:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Area of a disk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Area of a disk. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions at GMO RFC

Consider this your only warning: Aspersions toward other participants are not appropriate anywhere in or around the GMO RFC. You may comment on the rules or working of the RFC, or make a proposal; you may comment on the proposals when the RFC opens. No one is interested in your opinion of other editors. If you make any other such comments on the RFC or related pages, I will apply discretionary sanctions to you as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'd call bullying by an admin. Way over the top. Jus da fax 23:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first "warning" I've ever received at WP. I think the content of our articles takes a back seat to hand slapping, and that is really a shame for this encyclopedia.

KingofAces is being treated like a King, and always has been. I have shown that he used a paper that spoke to only a couple of studies, and extrapolated from it a rebuttal to ALL GMO safety studies to date (over 22). That is a heinous abuse of this website, and it is beyond unconsciounable that no one has stopped his participation in that topic area based on this, considering the topic is under DS. I am astounded by the complete breakdown of reason here at WP, and by the ability of some editors to simply walk all over this site, regardless of the damage it causes. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog in this fight at all, I just happen to have this page on my watchlist, but I went to look at the comments referenced here at the top of this section and I see no "aspersions" of any kind whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now King is egging on admin Laser Brain to sanction Petrarchan47 with no notice here regarding that. Jus da fax 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this some friendly support for an extremely qualified-to-voice-an-opinion editor. Count me as one who is interested in Petrarchan47's opinion of other editors. It provides me insight as to who I should be wary of in MY Wikipedia travels. Buster Seven Talk 06:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Buster. "No one is interested in your opinions of other editors" is an astonishingly threatening and abusive comment from an admin, and to be blunt, calls into question their fitness to have the extra buttons. Jus da fax 06:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there "egging on", but King is literally telling untruths about me and the situation. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there are a number of interesting issues in play. Given the magnitude of the comments and actions taken, it appears other eyes will be required to sort the matters out. Jus da fax 07:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarchan, I'm going to keep this brief since I'm overall avoiding interacting with you due to the aspersions issues you've been warned about, but have you read Panchin in its entirety? I ask this because it is currently paywalled, and it dawned on me that there's the possibility you haven't had a chance read it all yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered chilling out a bit? People are going to wonder why you are dedicating your life to volunteering at WP as essentially a single purpose account (pesticides, pharma, GMOs), and how on earth you can still hold down a job as a scientist if you are so active here. The Panchin source has been discussed at eh proper talk page, and you were shown by everyone that you had misrepresented it by claiming that both Domingo 2011 and the 22 peer-reviewed studies he covered, as well as Krimsky 2015 who looked at the same studies and more, had been debunked. Anyone who understands the seriousness if this spin-doctoring, and abuse of the Pedia, will also understand why I don't have a lot of respect for you as an editor, and do not believe you are here because you love encyclopedias, the idea of neutrality, and the free sharing of all knowledge. What I have observed is that you are here to control information, and I have seen you bully people that I love for a number of years now. There is no reason for us to converse, King. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, there is a lot of WP:BAIT being offered in the past 24 hours, in multiple venues. I'm mulling options. Jus da fax 02:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]