Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Campus Sexual Assault

There is an open RfC on the Campus Sexual Assault page that deals, in part, with a question about original research.

The conflict is explained in more detail on the page, but the portion that is relevant to OR is this: the 2015 AAU report on campus sexual assault found that women who did not report a sexual assault incident to the police did so because they "did not think it was serious enough to report". Previous research has examined this result on past surveys, but this research did not directly examine the 2015 survey. An editor has argued that, because this past research did not directly address the 2015 AAU report, it is original research to draw a connection in the entry.

This is a long-running dispute, and a previous RfC was closed without consensus, in large part due to a lack of participation. If you have time, additional voices would be a big help. Nblund (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced comparison of New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany incident with Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks incident

Another editor, User: Veggies at New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany insists upon the inclusion of a "SEE ALSO" link to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks. There is no discussion in either article of the other one; the user simply thinks the two are fit for comparison. He argues that since the WP:SEEALSO policy allows for links to articles with only an "indirect or tangential" connection to the main article in question, there is no need for any sourced commentary justifying the link—e.g. a news article or editorial suggesting a relationship or drawing a comparison between the two.

My feeling is that while there may be situations and article topics where the addition of an unsourced connection is obviously appropriate, or at least innocuous, in other cases there are a lot of potentially unwelcome consequences which force Verifiability and NPOV to the top of the analysis.

The most obviously extreme example that I could think of would be editing the article of a political candidate with a link declaring "SEE ALSO: Hitler". Undoubtedly many politicians could be given a superficial or facially plausible comparison to Hitler (!), but at this point the user's "editorial judgment" will have begun to manufacture content in a dangerous and unacceptable way. Thus I don't think a potentially damaging claim of this sort becomes exempt from WP:V simply because of some loose wording in the policy on cross-article linking. Input desired. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If no connection has been explicitly made in existing sources, it should be kept out. It's a can be re-added if a source is found. Bickering over something like see-also is also a waste of time, so just leave any problematic links out.81.88.116.27 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on the article's talk page have become intractable and outside help is needed.

The New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany were a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (New Years) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery.

The Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks were, likewise, a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (Puerto Rican Day) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery.

Seeing the similarities between the two (both of which have been extensively cited in their respective articles using verifiable, reliable sources), I decided to place a link in the "See Also" section of the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany article. I did this in accordance with the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO since I figured that readers who'd read the article might be interested in knowing about this very similar incident which had occurred years before in the US. Apparently, User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain disagrees and has been trying to argue that there must be a verifiable citation in a reliable source which "links" the two before a "See Also" link can be added to an article. Asked where this policy can be found, he linked me to WP:V. I welcome knowledgeable input, here. -- Veggies (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument presented by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain, on the grounds that it is a false comparison. They said that linking the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks in the "see also" section would be like linking Hitler in the "see also" section for a politician. This is a straw man argument that holds no water when examined closely. First, the stated reason that linking Hitler would be problematic would be that it would seem to cast aspersions on the politician from whose page it was linked.[1] So by that logic, linking the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks on the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany page is somehow offensive to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. Clearly this is not a concern as neither event has a BLP type reputation to maintain. This argument would only make sense here if the incidents were unquestionably different in character and severity to a degree that such a comparison would be trivializing or overblowing to one or the other, and that is not the case here. As pointed out, there are significant similarities between the two, to an extent that is really undeniable. I would also point out that there is no requirement that sources provide the comparison, as mentioned above the wording of the policy is "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." and specifically allows for this type of linking. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

At this time I'm not going to address the tenuous argument that my chosen example is not perfect and that therefore we don't need sourcing for this claim. Verifiability applies to all claims on Wikipedia. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're not going to defend the point you yourself have made, don't bring them up to be resolved in WP:DR. -- Veggies (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: So you're not going to defend the only argument you put forth in defense of your position? The fact is, there is no policy that supports your position, there is no requirement for sourcing on "See also"s, and the wording specifically allows for this type of addition. Those points had nothing to do with your example (an example which was much more tenuous than my rebuttal to it, which by the way is still completely valid as you have not shown any way in which I was incorrect) so your refusal to address them would seem to indicate that you have nothing which with to argue against them other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Kerlés

The Romanian historian, Victor Spinei wrote the following sentences about the invasion which ended with the Battle of Kerlés:

"During the second half of the eleventh century, hordes of Pechenegs continued to inhabit the left bank of the Danube. In 1068, led by Osul, they launched a great attack against Transylvania and Hungary through the mountain passes across the Carpathian range. After they had crossed the Mezeș Gate and robbed the province of Nyr, they advanced to the fortress of Biharea. On their way back, they were ambushed and defeated by King Salomon (1068-1074) and his sons near Dăbâca stronghold. Whereas Simon of Keza and the Annales Posonienses ascribe the attack to the Pecehengs (Besi), the Latin-Hungarian chronicles of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries asscribe it to Cumans (Cuni). The latter may not be just and adaptation of a piece of information taken from older sources, since at the time of the raid the Cuman vanguard was already in the vicinity of the Carpahtian Mountains. One think seems to be certain, namely that the marauders of 1068 were not Uzes. A west-Russian chronographs misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romaniasn (Валахи). The unknown author of the Russian chronography then explained that Cumans were also called Половцы and Kум. Historian now agree that the marauders of 1068 were Pechenegs and those medieval authors who wrote of Cumans made a mistake, given that the ethnic name Cuni did not have a very clear meaning in the Latin-Hungarian chronicles."

— Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century (pages 117-118)

In connection with the above information, the lead and the body of the article contain the following sentences: "Medieval chronicles wrote that the invaders were (...) Cumans and Vlachs (or Romanians). Modern historians identify the invaders as Pechenegs (...)." "The invasion was misdated to 1059 in a west-Russian chronicle which identified the invaders as Cumans and Vlachs (or Romanians). Modern historians agree that the invaders of 1068 were Pechenegs (...)." Based on Spinei's cited text, Eurocentral says, the Vlachs (or Romanians) should be mentioned in the infobox as belligerents, because the "Russian chronography" refers to them. Based on the same text, I say, that modern historians do not state that the Vlachs (or Romanians) participated in the battle, consequently we should not list them among the belligerents. According to a third opinion ([2]), "the infobox should mention the belligerents as they are identified by modern scholars, not as they were identified by medieval scholars". Should we mention the Vlachs (or Romanians) among the people who participated in the battle of Kerlés in the infobox? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei mentioned the Romanians and Cumans. They should be mentioned. We may see here a continuous refusal of Borsoka against Romanian historian Spinei. There was a similar dispute involving the same editor Borsoka, discussing about Dacians from Anna Comnen "Alexiad"; Borsoka stressed that Florin Curta repeated the Moravcsic ideea that Dacians were Hungarians.(By the way, Ana Comnena stated that Dacians lived on the Northern slopes of Balkans). But Curta only mentioned the lines of Moravcsic. In the Dacian case, Borsoka stated that Curta's lines about Dacians showed Curta's own opinion. In Chirales case, Borsoka states that Spinei's lines about Romanians and Cumans are not Spinei's own opinion. We see Borsoka acting in order to mitigate the participation of Romanians in some confrontations.

We do not know the reason of this actions. By the way, this war edit on Chirales battle started 2 years ago. Now Borsoka restarted this war edit with the same subject on the same lines. Eurocentral (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, Spinei writes of the Cumans and the Vlachs (Romanians) in his book when mentioning the report of the Russian chronicle of the battle; and the article also mentions the Cumans and the Vlachs in the same context, as it is shown by the above quotes from Spinei's work and from the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that Borsoka provided reliable sources. As Borsoka says correctly, Spinei, in fact, did not state that Romanians (or Vlachs, anyway not always the same) participated in the battle, he just mentions an unidentified Russian chronicle's report which contains several factual errors (e.g. the battle misdated to 1059 there). Borsoka properly wrote this POV in "Battle" section, among others. According to modern historians (even Spinei), the invaders were Pechenegs and/or Ouzes. The different editing style between the two editors decides the dispute; Borsoka is a hard-working, reliable and neutral editor, who contributed to a number of Good and FA-articles. In contrast, Eurocentral is a problematic, nationalistic user, who does not understand the fundamental rules and objectives of the Wikipedia, and also a constant participant in edit wars, personal attacks and did not give sources to his biased, POV-claims. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We are looking to a neutral point of view. User Norden was involved in war edit against Spinei in this article and against other Romanian historians in other articles. In this case his opinion is NOT NEUTRAL. Norden also falsified the situation; here is the statement of Norden: "According to modern historians (even Spinei), the invaders were Pechenegs and/or Ouzes". It is clear Norden didn't read what Spinei wrote.

This is a clear case of manipulation in Wikipedia and Norden user actions are a bad example on how to manipulate the references of an article. Due to this manipulations, the credibility of Wikipedia starts to mitigate.

The article and the debate has 2 references visible in talk page: 1. Spinei's work and 2. Hypathian codex known as Russian chronograph. Both references cited the name of Romanians. User Borsoka provoked a false issue trying to eliminate Spinei from references. This case have to be investigated, being a manipulation Eurocentral (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Eurocentral, please try to remain civil. I have never tried to eliminate Spinei from references. On the other hand, you have been abusing his name to substantiate your own original research about the Russian chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User Borsoka, please stop your original reasearch about Spinei. Majority of historians repeat information from older sources, without any comments. This is the case of Spinei; he repeat information from Hypathian codex. It is an obvious OR your discussion about what a historian thinks. You will never enter in the mind of a human being without committing original research. Eurocentral (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 79.112.111.183 Clear original research of Borsoka(talk) 07:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you say that the fact that Spinei mentions the Russian chronicle's report of a joint raid by the Cumans and the Vlachs proves that he thinks that the raid was made by the Cumans and the Vlachs? Why do you think Spinei twice says that the raid was made by the Pechenegs (as it is shown by the above quote from Spinei's text)? Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi, welcome here... again. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I think he is not Iaaasi. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked his IP. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion Why not mention both? According to X, Y invaded. However according to Z, W invaded. This appears to be a content dispute, though not entire clear about the source, no link provided.prokaryotes (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I just read the lede and if it is such a controversial topic, then there should be references. Unclear to new readers, without references in the lede. prokaryotes (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, thank you for your comment. Would you refer to a historian who says that Vlachs participated in the battle? Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Please read the quote after the first sentence of this RfC: there is the full text from a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no inline references, just books at the end. Sorry but i don't have the time to read all these books to answer your question.prokaryotes (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, OK, I understand, you did not have the time to read the short quote and the question above (after the first sentence under this subtitle [3]), but you have thoughts on the issue based on your feelings and you wanted to share them with us. Would you mind if I delete your above remarks? Please also read what an inline citation means in our community, because each sentence in the body of the article is followed by an inline citation. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you link to the book, i need to see the source. Not sure what you mean with inline citation, since my comments are inline. Also, don't delete my comments, per talk page guideline only in rare instances allowed. prokaryotes (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not realized that you do not accept a quote provided by an other editor. If you want to cheque it, you can read it here ([4]) on pages 117 and 118. Yes, your comments are inline, but they are not followed by an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I checked the source, found a review, and according to this book review the reviewer concluded, "I do most strongly object to their justification by wholesale fabrications dressed up as scholarship." Unless there is convincing evidence from a reputable source, i think that this source does not meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. prokaryotes (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ping Eurocentral--prokaryotes (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

[[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes] if you try to discredit an historian is a bad idea. Spinei wrote an answer to her detractor. You have to find the answer to the detractor in the same way you find the accusation. Majority of articles about Romanian and Central Europe history are based on 2-3 historians and Spinei is one of them. You made a huge mistake attacking a central figure in this direction. All important historians have detractors.

Attacking in this way we need to remake and to edit all articles about this part of Europe because Spinei is mentioned as an important source. Without reading anything from his works is like trying to censor an historian. Please be more careful in this kind of ideas. Spinei works were sustained by Florin Curta and by an important american editor in historic works. It is obvious that Borsoka tried to influence other editors to discredit historians. This way goes nowhere. Eurocentral (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

About credibility of Spinei we may find his reply to detractors: http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/17455/23573 Finally we have 2 sources in the Battle of Chirales. Both confirm the participation of Romanians. Historically there were Pechenegs and Romanians. But another editor included Ouzes ! without confirmation from known historians, and only suppositions. This is the correct direction of discussion and no in neglecting known historians. Also, some sources mentioned the Cumans. But it was to early for Cumans; they arrived a little later (according to Spinei) and there is the permanent confusion between Cumans and Pechenegs known by majority of historians. Some citations and references from Battle of Chirales have to be eliminated because contains only suppositions as in the case of Ouzes. Eurocentral (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

An important reference remain: Hypathian codex

Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241

Eurocentral (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably we will start a new debate, about credibility of historian Spinei. In this case we shall move our debate in other space. We need a third party editor but we see that the final decision is: "i think that this source does not meet Wikipedia standards for reliability".

Learning medieval history in 2-3 minutes goes to results like: "Spinei is not a reliable source". Is not enough to browse in speed 1 or 2 opinions of detractors. That means we need to erase articles based on this historian ? Certainly not. We need a referee that knows medieval history and knows historians. So, let's move to a commission of referees of Wikipedia where to discuss who is reliable. Eurocentral (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, thank you for your comment. However, I think that Spinei's work is a reliable source for WP purposes. Consequntly it can be cited. My concern is that Eurocentral tries to insert a piece of information in the infobox (the alleged participation of Romanians in the battle of Kerlés) which is not based on Spinei's cited work: Spinei does not say that Romanians participated in the battle, instead he refers to several mediaval sources and concludes that the raid was made by Pechenegs (not by Cumans, or by Cumans and Romanians). Do you think that the participation of the Romanians in the battle should be mentioned in the infobox if no reliable source (written either by Spinei or by other historians) has so far been cited to substantiate this information? Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The infobox should only contain the mainstream view, and as i understand the part about the historical view has been mentioned, so i would keep it that way.prokaryotes (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes Do you eliminate Hypathian Codex and an outstanding modern historian as references? This kind of solutions have to be balanced because there are data of Romanian history and eliminating data from Romanian side it looks like a forced unbalanced solution. The Wikipedia must be viewed as impartial and containing all points of view without censoring data. Eliminating references in Wiki means censoring. This censoring may not change the history and a lot of Wiki pages contains data from both sides, in the case of a battles, and with explications. Censoring in this case means also censoring Spinei and as you learned today, Spinei is a reliable source. So if Spinei is a reliable source it is a mistake to censor him. We addressed to you not to establish who is reliable but to answer to another question.

Now I red Spinei have to be censored. Spinei has an original work because he knew Russian and found information in old Russian chronicles. And no other historian studied the Russian cronicles. I propose to add information not only from Hungarian sources but also from discussed sources. Eurocentral (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Spinei should be cited and should not be censored. If he says that the raid was made by Pechenegs (not by Cumans, or by Cumans and Romanians), we should repeat his view. If he says that a Russian chronicle wrote that Cumans and Romanians made the raid, we should mention this information. This is what the article does: it says that Pechenegs invaded the Kingdom of Hungary, and it also refers to the Russian chronicle's report of the Cumans' and Romanians' raid. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OR on GMO articles

Previous NOR entry, at the time the related article content was changed to agreement. However, editors changed it back again to claim that there is a consensus on GMO safety.

• Current talk page discussion @Genetically modified crops. Editor Tryptofish, and AIRcorn change "agreement" back to "consensus", without talk page consensus, or providing sources for their claim. The article lede currently states, "There is general scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." - Editor David Tornheim, and me changed it back to a version which was previously agreed upon, when editor Jytdog who introduced initially the consensus part, kept it as agreement (He is topic banned from GMO's). None of the references contains the word consensus.
• Cited referenes for the claim that there exists a scientific consensus
• 1) FAO Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm (2004)
• 2) Study: Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security http://genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (2011)
• 3) European Commision: A decade of EU-funded GMO research http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (2010)
• 4) Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf (2012)
• 5) American Medical Association, Labeling of Bioengineered Foods https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf (2012) - no longer available

Why is a consensus statement problematic?

If there were a consensus it would be clear in the wast amount of scientific literature.

• The WHO states in their official conclusion about food safety of GMOs, "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods."
• A UNEP/IAASTD report from last year (p. 34) states, "As the general public has become increasingly interested in the linkages between agricultural production systems and human health, the list of food-related health concerns has continued to grow. It includes uncertainty with regard to the effects of GMOs on human health, fear of pesticide residues on foodstuffs..."
• From the IAASTD synthesis report, "The three most discussed issues on biotechnology in the IAASTD conceredt: • Lingering doubts about the adequacy of efficacy and safety testing, or regulatory frameworks for testing GMOs [e.g., CWANA Chapter 5; ESAP Chapter 5; Global Chapter 3, 6; SSA 3]; • Suitability of GMOs for addressing the needs of most farmers while not harming others, at least within some existing IPR and liability frameworks [e.g., Global Chapter 3, 6]; • Ability of modern biotechnology to make significant contributions to the resilience of small and subsistence agricultural systems [e.g., Global Chapter 2, 6]" prokaryotes (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. The first thing that needs to be stated is that this subject has just been covered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, and discretionary sanctions apply to this discussion. I want to make clear that the edits that are in dispute are the following: [5], [6], and [7]. So all of the noise above is simply over whether we should say "scientific agreement" or "scientific consensus", as if that were a big deal. But the reason that it is in dispute is that we have POV-pushers who want to undermine the idea that GM foods are safe, so they want to water down the idea of a "consensus", even if that means that somehow, miraculously, "agreement" is better. Now it's true that there is a WHO source that calls for testing each new GM crop plant, on a case-by-case basis, in case a new problem should emerge. That isn't an upsetting of the scientific consensus, but simply an application of good science, to check whether future findings might provide exceptions to the existing scientific consensus. No editor is claiming that there is a scientific consensus against testing new GM plants, only that there is a scientific consensus that, so far, your food won't make you drop dead. And as for talk page consensus, the immediate talk page discussion is at Talk:Genetically modified crops#Scientific "consensus", and the most recent discussion of the question in general was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. To say that Aircorn and I are ignoring talk page consensus is counter-factual. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many reports (such as this) who conclude that wisdom about safety (a certain GMO case) is incomplete. Again, my point above that you can not make general statements. And then there is the fact that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogenic, which renders glyphosate depending herbicide tolerant products unhealthy to some degree (yes, this does include non GMO as well). prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Glyphosate is not a GM plant. It is a chemical. Part of the POV-pushing is centered on creating the false impression that GM plants have more toxic chemical residues on them than conventional crop plants do, so inevitably, discussion about scientific consensus about the plants subtly shifts to discussion about scientific consensus about the residues on the plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We are discussing food safety of GMOs, which according to food safety includes pesticide residues, "In considering industry to market practices, food safety considerations include the origins of food including the practices relating to food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, as well as policies on biotechnology and food" I notice that you repeatedly refer to POV-pushers, please focus on actual evidence per sources, instead of repeating terms characteristic for battleground behavior, see WP:BATTLE. This talk is about OR not about factions. prokaryotes (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to read WP:BATTLE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) To my knowledge this question has been to WP:RFC twice. The first was closed in August 2013 as "the statement being reasonable" (Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus"). I took part in that RFC. The second RFC was closed as no consensus in July 2015 (Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 10). Whether the statement was original research was discussed at length in both RFC's. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment To claim "scientific consensus" is actually a big deal according to WP rules, and i think everyone here knows that. The second RfC trumps/negates the first one, and it wasn't simply "no consensus", it was no consensus that the SC statement had support even with the 18 sources clumped together. We still don't have any strong, non-advocacy RS stating that most or all scientists agree on GMO safety, only Pew poll of AAAS scientists. From Archive 12:

A quotation from the author of the RfC might be relevant to this discussion: "[I]f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." - GrayDuck156 23 July

the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. - Jytdog 23 July

Now that no one is looking, two editors are inserting this language again. It cannot be said that editors weren't aware of the RfC and its findings, not after the ARbCom where it was mentioned ad infinitum. This appears to be pro-GMO POV pushing to me. petrarchan47คุก 02:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round as the scientific consensus language was already there. This is the first edit that I can find that changed it to scientific agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That's only because the RfC to which you are referring took place at the GMO foods page, not the GM crops article. So, only the GM foods article was amended post-RfC; no one got around to changing all the articles. There may be upwards of 12 pages that still contain the "scientific consensus on GMO safety" claim, likely because of the blowback when any change is attempted.

Here is the first time the SC statement was changed after the RfC. Here is where Jytdog 'fixed' the wording from admitting that some questions do exist, to another form of SC (which is still in need of proper sourcing).

If the RfC found no support sufficient to claim SC - including the widely discussed AAAS ref - then that RfC holds true for this claim no matter where it sits, until new sources arise support it. Have any new sources been produced? petrarchan47คุก 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OR is policy, a local consensus from a RFC or agreement of editors on an article talk page cant override policy that has community consensus. No source makes that exact claim, The AAAS source is close but problematic in that it misrepresents the WHO. AlbinoFerret 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Aircorn's description leaves out the complete history. Jytdog created the second RfC because it was clear that there was no longer a Wikipedia consensus supporting the "scientific consensus" language. In the start of the 2nd RfC Jytdog indicates the intent and purpose of the need for a 2nd RfC: "That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again." And the result of the close was indeed that there was no consensus on what to do about the disputed language. However, the closers of both RfC's advised on revising the language to gain consensus. I described that in the following post:

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.

The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here. There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:

Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:

... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new...discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food .... Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:

• Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
• Genetically modified food (Talk)
• Genetically modified crops(Talk)
• Genetically modified organism(Talk)
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
• March Against Monsanto (Talk)
• The Non-GMO Project(Talk)

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC) (post is here).

Editors discussed the language at Genetically Modified Food (no one objected to my proposal to discuss it there) and eventually the "scientific agreement" language was the result at the GM Food article. I explained all that here.

I am pinging each of the closers of the two RfCs--@I JethroBT: and @Risker:--in case they want to comment on what they meant in the above quotes. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately left it short so as not to prejudice or discourage any uninvolved person who might be willing to look into this. Because that is what we need, uninvolved editors. What RFC did Risker close? AIRcorn (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

David, I disagree with your assessment: "And the result of the close was indeed that there was no consensus on what to do about the disputed language." The RfC question was not "What do we do about the language", rather, it was "Do these sources support this claim?" The result was 'no, we don't have a consensus that this is supported', leaving the closer with the only conclusion (found in his closing statement): we cannot use "scientific consensus" re GM food safety. This means that all of the refs cited above have been through the RfC process and failed miserably for one reason or another. Unless there are new sources, IMO editors should be fixing the articles according to RS, not defending outdated, unsupported language that was overlooked by editors post-RfC and forcing us to re-argue the same points. petrarchan47คุก 23:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I look at the discussion here, everyone (including me) is an editor who has long been involved in the disputes about GMOs, and predictably, it looks like most editors are lining up according to the existing "sides". Therefore, I think that the most useful purpose of a noticeboard like this being to attract "fresh eyes", I hope that uninvolved editors may be able to offer something here. But another thing – I've been thinking very hard about the dispute here, and an idea occurred to me. Shortly, I will suggest it at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Who knows, maybe it will help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There were a number of problems with the claim that there was academic consensus. Either the sources were unreliable or they did not make that claim. The only review studies presented have said that insufficient research has been conducted to draw any conclusion. If anyone has a review study that says differently, then it would be helpful to present it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's scientific consensus, rather than academic. There are plenty of reliable sources that review the literature (thus, secondary sources) and conclude that there is no greater risk. And there are no reliable sources that conclude that there is a greater risk, although there are reliable sources that say that there still needs to be case-by-case testing. The issue you raise is whether or not it is SYNTH to take the preponderance of sources and conclude that they are in consensus. As you, TFD, well know, you and I have disagreed about the proper application of SYNTH many times before, and doubtless, we disagree again here. But thank you for providing an outside opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Per your own words it shows that the claim is WP:SYNTHESIS it matters not if you agree with it, its WP policy.

"There are plenty of reliable sources that review the literature (thus, secondary sources) and conclude that there is no greater risk."

Thats adding up the sources to come to a conclusion. What is required by WP:VER is a WP:RS that makes the claim that there is "scientific consensus" if there are so many sources, it should be easy to pull one up. AlbinoFerret 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think you have a false dilemma here, either (1) the risk is not greater -or- (2) the risk is greater. As you have acknowledged the sources indicate a need for case-by-case testing. And as TFD mentioned the review studies indicate insufficient study and knowledge from lack of long term studies. We seem to all agree that Domingo 2011 is the best (or one of the best) review articles on this subject. This Krismky article discusses eight review articles about GMO safety (including Domingo 2011). The journal for Krimsky states here its impact factor as: Impact Factor:2.194 | 5-Year Impact Factor:2.475.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment been over this before, this silly coat-racking of cites that say nothing definitive about scientific consensus is going to keep causing problems. Cite only those sources that provide undisputed support for the claim, remove the fluff. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, certainly with your background I am sure you are capable of researching the literature and forming an opinion about the general consensus. However, that is still original research and cannot replace peer-reviewed studies. I would point out that publicly known figures including Jane Goodall and David Suzuki have questioned whether there has been sufficient testing. It would also seem to violate WP:MEDRS, since we could be offering incorrect information about health claims. Since you have spent a lot of time on this, have a PhD in biochemistry and have written peer-reviewed papers, have you ever thought of writing a review study for an academic journal? Then we could incorporate your findings into the articles. TFD (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc. At one point, we had people complaining that there were too many references (up to 20 I recall) that gave a comprehensive overview on the different ways to say consensus in this topic, and now we have people picking out a few sources instead trying to claim they don't match up. This content has been through multiple RfCs, so there shouldn't be any reason to keep bringing it up as original research. Competency in the subject matter is required here, and we have multiple editors conflating specific parts of the overall consensus description in the literature as being contradictory when it is not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is remarkable that you suggest that editors who give valid policy based input are similar to climate deniers/use same tactics. I think you should retract that and read about climate denial. Or better retract teh entire comment, fringe...conflating parts...competency, are you serious?prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Many of the things listed are unfortunately behavior problems that this board isn't suitable to handle, which is why we likely won't get anywhere here (and why I mentioned them and am done on that part). That being said, and focusing on the real-world aspect, the same arguments being used to deny the GMO consensus as with climate change, vaccines, etc. is written about pretty often. It's not hard to find sources commenting on those things hand in hand and mentioning that fringe aspect of society, why they do it, etc. [8][9][10][11]. We're not writing content on that right now, but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between an article out of Wikipedia, and policy based discussions when an editor suggest that other editors use climate denier tactics. There is also a difference when someone compares his SYN/OR sources which do not refer to a consensus, and compares that with the overwhelming consensus in climate science (i.e. IPCC statement on scientific consensus). I find your argumentation here very concerning, and your comments show that you seem to lack basic will to understand these differences, besides very good arguments by various involved and uninvolved editors. prokaryotes (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial" - what utter bollocks, an association fallacy of the highest order, this is Kingofaces43 casting aspersions again in an attempt to poison the well. Claiming that those critical of GM technologies are somehow undifferentiated from those who deny climate change is nothing more than a straw man. Please note GMO arbitration decision 4.1.5 Semitransgenic _talk. 10:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a comparison with climate change denial. Review papers on climate change say there is consensus that it is real, and industry supports studies outside the academic mainstream to promote the view that consensus does not exist. Review papers on GMO say there is no consensus that it is safe, and industry supports studies outside the academic mainstream to promote the view that consensus does exist. The Searle Freedom Trust is listed first in an International Business Times article about funders of anti-climate change science.[12] It is also a major funder of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, one of whose scholars, Jon Entine, runs the pro-GMO Genetic Literacy Project. Ironically, the Genetic Literacy Project says that climate change is real and compares GMO scepticism to climate change denial. TFD (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

yes, that narrative is there, no denying it, but that's not the context in which the above concern was raised. The origination of this "tactic" of using the GMO/climate change association fallacy to negate criticism is outside the scope of this discussion unfortunately. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 1

In my opinion the strongest source for the scientific consensus currently linked to in the article is a statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2012. T me this appears strong enough to support scientific consensus on its own. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant paragraph from AAAS (I underlined the key sentence)

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breed-ing technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

Why not simply quote the AAAS? prokaryotes (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The only problem is that the AAAS source only lists 4 groups, not even mentioning scientific agreement or consensus, even worse it misstates the WHO that GMO's have to be guaged on a case by case basis, a red flag for reliability. It also does not list any other sources it relies on, second flag. Try again. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It mentions four very important science groups then says "and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence". Saying the AAAS is unreliable is a big call. How does it misstate the WHO? I don't see evaluating on a case-by-case basis as contradictory to saying current GM food is as safe as conventional. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Four groups does not "scientific consensus" make. clear and simple. If the claim was "The AAAS board of directors said four organizations ..............." even listing the WHO ect out, it would be one thing, but the problems with the source, and using it to back a "scientific consensus" statement is problematic. Still OR/synthesis. AlbinoFerret 21:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

After it mentions the four groups it says and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence so four groups plus "every other respected organization that has examined the evidence" is as strong a statement of consensus as I have seen. AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a very extraordinary, to claim all other respected organizations. Perhaps you would like to read WP:EXTRAORDINARY. AlbinoFerret 08:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't keep moving the goalposts. First you say it doesn't mention enough oranisations and now it mentions too many. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here are the reasons AAAS was not considered acceptable for a safety consensus statement:

The AAAS source is not a review/not MEDRS; the only review of GM food to date and its impact on human health is Domingo 2011, which is still missing from WP pages (it says that half of independent studies find "serious cause for concern").

• AAAS at RS/N

From RfC re Safety Consensus statement:

• not peer-reviewed
• includes a false representation of the WHO's position
• contrasts GM food with "conventional plant breeding techniques", not "conventional food"
• "The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US." - Tsavage
• "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." - groupuscule
• "The AAAS public position paper, which seems to be the source most cited as support for the consensus statement, was written to argue against GM labeling, published as news on their web site, and seems obviously aimed at legislators, media reporters, and the general public, as a group, non-technical readers. It's essentially a form of press release." - Tsavage
• Does not represent the AAAS scientists. petrarchan47คุก 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Since that time, new information has come from FOIA documents that should make us question the AAAS as RS:

"Buried in the emails is proof positive of active collusion between the agribusiness and chemical industries, numerous and often prominent academics, PR companies, and key administrators of land grant universities for the purpose of promoting GMOs and pesticides. In particular, nowhere does the Times note that one of the chief colluders was none other than the President of the [AAAS]". per ISN. petrarchan47คุก 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if quoting other wikipedians is much proof of anything except that this subject has divided contributors (we argue about dashes so I am not sure that is notable in itself). The environmental health news source is easily countered by the pew research centre, which found that "88% of AAAS scientists say GM foods are generally safe". Independent science news is hardly a reliable source. Also how do you think conventional food came about if not through conventional plant breeding techniques. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Because multiple editors have replied to me along similar lines, I'm going to make a single post here, instead of trying to reply to each one of you individually. To those who have claimed that I am ignoring the NOR policy, no that's really not true. At its core, what we have here are two competing theories of what the SYNTH part of NOR really means. Neither one is entirely wrong, and I'm not sure how editors who disagree about it can come to consensus.
  • Theory 1: WP:SYNTH is a bright-line rule, not unlike WP:3RR. We have to be rigidly careful not to have editors including original research. If, for example, we are to say that there is "scientific consensus", then there must be a reliable secondary source that says explicitly that there is scientific consensus. The source must actually use that exact phrase, "scientific consensus". Absent a reliable source that says that, we must not use that phrase here.
  • Theory 2: WP:SYNTH is important, but it is a rule that requires editorial judgment and a certain amount of common sense. Editors constantly make valid decisions that a group of sources constitute "the preponderance of reliable sources". We do not consider it to be SYNTH when editors decide that a group of sources constitute "the preponderance" (and indeed, Wikipedia would come grinding to a halt if we did). Even though there is editorial judgment, it is not original research. And when there is such a preponderance, it is not SYNTH to note that each of these sources is saying the same thing. When these sources are examinations of the scientific literature, such an observation can legitimately be expressed as saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that there is a "scientific consensus". Editorial judgment is not like a computer that must follow a strict algorithm.
• As I said, there are valid arguments in favor of each of these theories. Obviously, I see it more as the second, whereas other editors here see it more as the first. To a large extent, the dispute here really isn't about OR. It's about NPOV. Some editors are selecting a view of SYNTH based upon their view of what constitutes NPOV. In my opinion, sources such as AAAS speak for the scientific community as a whole, in ways that Jane Goodall and David Suzuki do not, especially since neither of them is an expert on agricultural science. That's where we are now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is part of the WP:OR page, a core policy you can disagree with it all you want, but you cant ignore it or put your own spin on it, or form a local consensus to override it. There are policies that need to be followed, and picking and choosing when they apply because it fits a specific view is a horrible idea. Even if the claim is right, you still cant use synthesis. Just like you cant add it without a source and violate RS or VER. AlbinoFerret 21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You can shout the word "core" all you want, but the fact remains that what I said is that both "theories" of that policy are good-faith interpretations of what it means, not a violation of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

no, one is policy, the second is spin to ignore the policy. What part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." do you think backs up your spin? AlbinoFerret 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not spin. If you think that SYNTH is a bright-line rule like 3RR, then we disagree. If you think that this can reduce to a computer algorithm, then we disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, when we're arguing policy interpretation, we should always observe one bit of policy advice: Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another (WP:NOR). Why? Because looking for the intersections, not the exclusions, seems to yield more logical, balanced, sensible-sounding results.

You say a little common sense SYNTH doesn't really violate WP:NOR, when we're simply summarizing several sources, and that seems to satisfy WP:V, because we do have the sources. But what about WP:NPOV? If we, for example, establish "scientific consensus" as a summary, that automatically relegates all other views to a FRINGE, or at least an oddball outlier, position: "after careful deliberation, EVERYONE agrees, except..." So we should be careful that general agreement really does exist, or risk (seriously) violating NPOV by relegating otherwise valid, well-supported minority views to the crackpot bin.

Which helps explain the need for an explicit source stating consensus, per WP:V's little helper, WP:RS/AC: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Which is the useful but long way around to saying, as a matter of course, we should just literally observe WP:SYNTH. --Tsavage (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that the real policy issue here is NPOV, not NOR. And SYNTH can be wielded as a weapon to push a POV. I don't agree with the idea that, if we say "scientific consensus", any dissent is automatically fringe. The RS passage that you quote speaks of "all or most scientists", not "all scientists". In fact, the lead sentence of scientific consensus notes that unanimity is not required, and I wouldn't think that it means that the dissenters from consensus are only crackpots; some can be mainstream scientists who dissent. There is scientific consensus that evolution is real. But there are scientists who dissent about the time course over which natural selection occurs, and they are not fringe. It comes down to the details, which is why the revisions of the sentence that are going on matter. We have plenty of sourcing to indicate that most scientists see existing GM foods as no less risky than conventional foods. If editors disagree with that, then I think they need to provide a source to indicate that such scientists are anything less than a large majority – just literally. This is what is wrong when editors argue that the existence of ongoing debate means that there isn't a scientific consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question (ec) To those who are familiar with Discretionary Sanctions, because this entire suite is under DS, and because we have two editors who have ignored the results of an RfC they were both well aware of, shouldn't this go to a noticeboard dealing with behavior rather than OR? We should not have to re-argue the RfC. The AAAS source, for example, was discussed for months, and it was determined that because it was an advocacy statement in support of GM foods labeling (and because it was the SINGLE source that contained the exact wording desired), the AAAS statement, along with the others mentioned at the top of this thread, were NOT sufficient to claim consensus. Nothing has changed, and ignoring the results of the RfC, (re)adding language that has no support in RS, is clearly disruptive and not good faith. petrarchan47คุก 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The place to go for that is WP:AE. If we go there, I expect to point out that the RfC was closed as "no consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I expect to point out that you are well aware the closer told us to reword it as there was no consensus that the sources support the claim - and you know this.

([I]f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." - GrayDuck156 23 July

the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. - Jytdog 23 July

Perhaps Jytdog can help you understand, or you could review the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you did not mean that to sound condescending. Those quotes are found at Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 12, in a post-RfC discussion, and were not part of the RfC close. Here is a link to the actual RfC close, for editors who are unfamiliar with it: [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The question of the RfC was "Do these sources support this claim". RockMagnetist said, "I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording." No one in the commounity disagreed with this idea, and the wording was indeed changed. It cannot be said that this wording is somehow acceptable at the GM Crops article but not GM Foods. I wonder if Rock Magnetist could weigh in here? petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Coincidentally there is an article about recent discussions on the food safety consensus, we discuss here, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source. OK folks, I've done some searching and (thanks to a citation in the Krimsky critique) I have found a reliable source from 2014 that says there is a "scientific consensus", in those exact words. It's a review article, reviewing the literature about GM food crops, with a particular view to summarizing both support and scientific concerns about GMOs, thus, a secondary source. It is in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, thus, a reliable source. All of the authors hold academic appointments or government research appointments in Europe, and appear to be unaffiliated with biotech companies, so no apparent author "COI". Here is a link: [14]. And here is a verbatim quote from the abstract: "We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE." On the one hand, there is still a debate (no kidding!), at least partly attributable to communication problems, but nonetheless there is a matured scientific consensus that no significant hazards have been detected so far. No SYNTH, no matter how one defines SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Issues with his new study

The abstract mentions how the consensus has grown. What does this mean? Has it grown from 1 to 2 %?

And the abstract states "not directly detected", but indirectly it could, and it has been found that glyphosate is indirectly a health problem.

The abstract acknowledges that there is still a debate.

Paywalled

Contradicts the WHO statement

Unclear how the mentioned consensus can be interpreted in regards to our article content prokaryotes (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The abstract does not say, "there is a matured scientific consensus that no significant hazards have been detected so far." It says, "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. (my emphasis)." There is a difference. Cf global warming, evolution or smoking: no review paper would say "the debate is still intense." IOW it draws the same conclusions as the other review studies you have been arguing against.

prokaryotes, being behind a paywall is not an obstacle, but someone has to read the report, it is probably available through a library. I imagine indirect refers to fertilizer, but it could also refer to the types of food produced. Most of what is currently produced should be avoided even if it is not GMO.

TFD (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to reply to these concerns. Starting with the paywall issue, I had already said the same thing as TFD did at the article talk page [15], but Prokaryotes repeated it here anyway. About how much "consensus has grown", a plain reading of the source is that it is talking about a "matured" consensus. It does not even make sense to talk about a 2% consensus, because that would not be a consensus at all, so why would the authors even write about a consensus that had yet to develop, and yet call it "matured"?

Now it's really past time that we need to deconstruct the claims about the WHO source, that it contradicts the source here. Here is a link to that source: [16]. It is divided into multiple sections. There are two sections that are relevant to the question of whether scientists view GM foods as safe or not: 8 ("Are GM foods safe?") and 12 ("Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?"). Prokaryotes and the editors who agree with him have focused on Section 8, paragraph 1, which reads:

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

Unquestionably, that does indeed support the idea that WHO is advocating for case-by-case evaluation, and please note that I, personally, have consistently supported having our content reflect that. And it does indeed make it clear that, without case-by-case testing, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions about safety. But – there is a second paragraph in this section, that some editors appear to overlook:

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

Woops! That sure puts the first paragraph into a different context! The sentence in the first paragraph thus cannot be saying that it is impossible to make a general statement on the safety of all GM foods currently available, because the authors go on to make exactly that general statement. The call for testing, and the caution against general statements, are being made with respect to new GM plants, as they come out, not with respect to those already in the food chain. And in section 12, here is the entire text:

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. The food safety assessment is usually based on Codex documents.

That's about as strong as statement as one can get about GM products currently available. So why are we talking about contradictions between the WHO source and the other source?

Then there's the point about "direct" versus "indirect". That's about the possibility of chemical residues that remain on the plants, as opposed to the plants themselves, chemicals such as glyphosate. Please note: the WHO source just said those things about the foods as they have been eaten ("as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population"), residues or not.

Now the issue that I agree is the biggest one here, about there still being debate. When the source says "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops", that's the same thing as the WHO source. So what do they mean about "however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE."? After the debate-is-intense phrase, another sentence comes, and it explains why the authors consider the debate to exist. I imagine one could find reviews about climate change where one could cherry-pick a sentence out of context that says "the debate is intense". But I will also say that this source does indeed point out that there are dissenting scientific studies, so clearly, the source does not contend that there is a unanimous scientific consensus. (Then again, there are scientists who dissent about evolution, but there is still a consensus about that.) The authors say that they are describing "the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide." They are not saying that a scientific consensus has yet to mature. It is actually original research, or more precisely a misrepresentation of the source, to say that the authors are concluding that a scientific consensus does not yet exist. For purposes of demonstrating that there is a reliable source for the existence of a "scientific consensus", this is it. That does not mean that our pages should omit all the caveats that go along with that, and I am in favor of making those caveats clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, thanks to an editor who has access to the full text of the source I have presented here, the following comes from the second paragraph of the Conclusions section of the review:

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

That, more so than the passage I quoted earlier from the Abstract, is a clear statement that there is a mature scientific consensus that no health problems have to date been found in GM crop food. There is no original research in saying that there is a scientific consensus about this. The source says it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this quote is simple, its not about GM foods for consumption. prokaryotes (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 2

I want to turn the questions here around. Originally, this discussion was opened over these edits: [17], [18], and [19]. The question here is about whether to say "general scientific agreement" or "general scientific consensus". That's what this has been all about.

So I want to ask whether it is a violation of NOR to say "general scientific agreement". What is the source for saying "general scientific agreement"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO, they're the same, one just sounds a little milder, less like a decree, both need explicit support. What is different is the entire rewording of the sentence, that brings the meaning more in line with what there does seem to be wider agreement on, that GM methods don't on their own introduce extra risk than non-GM methods, that GM is not an inherently unsafe tool, it's what you use it for that matters. It's a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" finding that ON ITS OWN does not speak directly to the safety of specific products on the market.

The previous sentence leaned much further toward saying (or strongly implying) that there is broad scientific consensus that GM food is categorically as safe as non-GM food, and no sources really say that. --Tsavage (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a sensible and thoughtful reply. And I agree with you about the rewording being an improvement. What concerns me about this entire NORN discussion, however, is that several editors seem to be hell-bent on discrediting the "consensus" wording while seeming to actually be in favor of the "agreement" wording. I'm all in favor of what you called "explicit support", but there comes a point where objections to the plain meaning of the source material become unreasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not why know why we cannot just say what the abstract says rather than reading into it that there is a consensus. Indeed there are scientists who do not accept global warming or evolution. The difference is that they do not present those views in academic writing because those views cannot be defended with the known evidence. A better comparison would be with aspartame, where sufficient testing has been completed so that no "intense debate" exists. Also one needs to read the actual article to determine what exactly is meant by the matured scientific consensus or the intense debate. BTW while Suzuki is not an agricultural scientist, he is a geneticist and was a professor who conducted research and wrote textbooks and articles. TFD (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

NOR and coordinates

I need coordinates for a small street that is not named on any online mapping service. I know the town, but I don't know which of the unmarked (on a map) streets in the town is the one I want. There is a Wikipedian in the town who knows where the street is. Would it violate NOR if they provided coordinates and I used them in an article? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That town has been visited by Google street view. Have you tried visiting that way and looking at street signs? Zero^talk 12:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thanks for the reply. Not all of the town has been visited. I have a suspicion where the street is, but that area wasn't visited. In any case, I don't see much difference between getting coordinates that way and getting them by actually being there. If one is acceptable, the other should be, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference is the ease of verifiability. Of course we do have a general principle that ease of access to a source is not relevant, but that rule was intended for things like uncommon books or paywalls and at some extreme point common-sense takes precedence. Personally I would accept this one if (1) there is no serious BLP issue relying on it, (2) the editor is one in good standing and there is no reason to suspect a COI, (3) there is no controversy about the claim. Zero^talk 00:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I think conditions 2 and 3 are met. As for 1, perhaps you'd care to check out the details, here (permalink). The location in question is the area of one of two crime scenes, the hundred-block of the street, which has been widely reported in the news. We're already showing the coordinates of the other crime scene, which is no more important to the story or the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Housing in the United Kingdom

The article Housing in the United Kingdom is heavily referenced but may be selective in relation to the sources quoted. I have concerns that it is a synthesis of material leading to a particular conclusion, but would be grateful for input from others.Tomintoul (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)