Talk:Jeffrey M. Smith

General and Specific References

• References not specific to profile, but specific to profile-linked issues? - A couple of references/citations were removed citing they were not specific to Jeffrey Smith; however, they were citations specific to the noted issue linked to Smith. In this case the removed citations were related to the Maharishi Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement and yogic flying. What's the appropriate role of citations in this type of case where someone, e.g., Smith, is part of a movement that relates to (and largely defines) his activities? The citations were included to reference and provide background on the related topics associated with the profile, but not specifically Smith himself. I can see where some of this type of information belongs on the profile page for that topic; however, are there times when such citations/reference (when they are providing details relevant to the profile/topic's activities) should remain? @Kooky2 What's the right balance here? So often profiles are critiqued for lacking references/citations. Thanks for your thoughts. CinagroErunam (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The references were general in connection with Transcendental Meditation and yogic flying which sounds like levitation (i.e. without mention of Smith) and they may apply on that page. What I didn't mention is that a huge number of links to make a single point is not advised according to WP:OVERCITE. It is a case of less is more - so maybe a single general link to make a single point could stay for the time being.

Otherwise Wikipedia will be full of unnecessary duplication and this is the major advantage of a link based Encyclopedia. So very few of the general links will be required for this article especially when it concerns an organisation or topic that has its own WP page. Whereas the links to the sites or organizations that criticise the subject directly are relevant and should be kept. I am keeping a record of text that has been removed with a view to reinserting it if it is necessary. It would be good to have other editors such as you contribute or this page will become one-sided. If you have anything controversial to add it would be best to discuss it here first as this article is very much subject to the guidelines of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV plus all the other WP rules, of course. Kooky2 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW I assume that the Maharishi Institute is the same as the Maharishi Institute of Management. Is that correct? And is yogic flying the same as levitation? Kooky2 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks @Kooky2, all good points and well noted. Yogic Flying has it's own distinction for followers of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that are not exactly levitation. The Maharishi Institute has multiple entities and subdivision, of which the Maharishi Institute of Management is just one. Historically this would be considered more a movement (some have called it a cult, others including the New Jersey Supreme Court call it a religion) than a single institution, Smith's associations include the Maharishi Institute of Management, Maharishi Institute of Vedic Science, University of World Peace, Natural Law Party, etc... CinagroErunam (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I see there has been a lot of editing - most of it seemed like improvements. I see the photo has come down due to copyright. Even if you can prove copyright, I suspect that it would never 'fly' - i.e. stay up there for long. It is effectively a highly controversial claim for a fringe theory and you would need to have someone like an expert in photographic editing and a scientist to verify or criticize the photo so as to present it in a neutral way. Kooky2 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Further to your earlier question in the content - here is the guideline:

Making necessary assumptions

see WP:MNA

When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. A brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however.

Kooky2 (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking the sources

Hi, I'm trying to clean up this article. There are many things that are in violation such as WP:SURNAME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:RS (such as the use of blogs and personal web sites as sources). Also, as mentioned above there are some coatrack issues as well. Mostly I'm going through the sources which are the backbone of any WP article per WP:V. Any input you have is appreciated. I am happy collaborate to improve the article.Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

In my review of the articles sources (which is still in progress) I, and other editors[1], have found instances where sources were cited that did not mention, Jeffrey M. Smith, the subject of this article.[2][3][4][5] and [^ Undergraduates, pg. 50, MUM Yearbook, 1978] and this one called: Purusha Achievements. This is alarming, especially when sources are placed in support of text that is unflattering or critical of the subject. I strongly urge editors who are active on this article to read WP:BLP and WP:SYN and the discussion at ArbCom concerning the manipulation of BLP's [6] so that this can be avoided going forward. Thank you for all your efforts in making this a comprehensive, balanced and well sourced article. I look forward to working together. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Current text in the article's Criticism section reveals additional misuse of sources:
  • Other skeptics of Smith’s attacks on genetically modified crops have called his assertions "pseudoscience" and have generally discounted the transcendental meditation and yogic flying bases of his claims[23][24] due to the lack of quality research and a lack of methodological rigor in Smith's claims[25]
  • Cite #23--Sagan, Carl (1997). The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark.--No page number is given and a search of the book reveals that there is not even one mention of Jeffrey Smith or GMOs.
  • Cite #24a) Carlson, Ron, Decker, Ed, Fast Facts on False Teachings Harvest House Publishers, 2003 ISBN 0-7369-1214-2, ISBN 978-0-7369-1214-3 p. 254--No mention of Smith or GMO
  • Cite#24b) Marvizon, Juan Carlos "Meditation", Shermer, Michael (ed)The Skeptic: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience ABC-CLIO, 2002 ISBN 1-57607-653-9, ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8 p 141--No mention of Smith or GMO's
  • Cite#24c) Nanda, Meera "Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism and Vedic Science", Koertge, Noretta Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-517225-6, ISBN 978-0-19-517225-6 p 232--No mention of Smith or GMO's
  • Cite #25 says [Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. "Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence."] This cite is a scientific review of a variety of meditation practices and says nothing about Jeffery Smith or his position on GMO's.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'm going to remove the text cited above and its misleading citations from the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has responded. I have removed the text in question.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources for discussion

• This source: Graduates is a link to a PDF copy of a yearbook. On pg 40 we see the words "Jeffrey Smith" under the title "not pictured". I don't see this as a reliable source. Does anyone else?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I can't find any record of this bankruptcy here at the Iowa court site using the case number given in the citation. [7] No results here either. [8] Can anyone help with this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I am moving the text about bankruptcy here (see below). I cannot find it in Iowa state records. So right now its not verifiable and the citation is a primary source which doesn't do much to make this a notable fact. If we can find a secondary source, then I have not objections to it going back into the article. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In 2002 Smith filed Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy in Iowa Federal Court.---Public Notice filed Jeffrey M. Smith of Fairfield, IA, Case number 02-03003-rjh7,United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Iowa, June 3, 2002.</ref>quotation needed|date=December 2012]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• IA House Contested, Associated Press, November 2, 1998.-- A search of the AP archives [9] for this date does not reveal any results for Jeffrey Smith. Can anyone else find the article and provide a quote?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fringe Candidate's Gimmick: `Flying' Yogis, Associated Press, October 24, 1996. --A search of the AP archives [10] for this date does not reveal any results for Jeffrey Smith. Can anyone else find the article and provide a quote?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted sections and content

Wondering why the entire section on Smith's professional dance instruction were deleted along with the image of his yogic flying demonstration, reference to his spouse Andrea Vardi and his official website "seeds of deception"?

Other deletions, such as the sourced reference to his lack of scientific/medical credentials are worth discussing, there were included juxtaposed to his credits appearing on national health programs for balance. There was a fair amount of discussion about these details included in the article when this was up for deletion and the net result of the deletion article included significant edits, deletions and additions to the article. Shouldn't this be discussed here before making these changes given the past history of review and discussion about this article's content? CinagroErunam (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure Cinagro. As indicated above I am happy to discuss and collaborate with you and others to improve the article. Let's take your concerns one at a time:

Some of the text on dancing was supported by two unacceptable sources: a Facebook page for a group called Lindy Fairfield, and a personal web site [11] both of these are unacceptable per WP:RS The remaining dance related text is still in the article at the bottom of the Career section but I am challenging it and per WP:BLP it may need to be removed if reliable sources cannot be found. I removed the Dance Instructor section heading as it gave undue emphasis to only two sentences with questionable sourcing.

I'm not sure what happened to the yogic flying photo as I did not remove that. There may have been some concerns about its copyright status. I'm not sure.

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME I have removed the names of non-notable persons such as Smith's alleged wife.

The Seeds of Deception web site is the official web site for Smith's book and is therefore not his personal 'official' web site. As such I moved the link out of the Infobox and into the External Links section where you will find other web sites related to Smith that contain his bio etc.

His lack of medical credentials is still mentioned but I moved it from the lead to Criticism section. There is nothing in the lead that says Smith is a scientist or doctor and so it does not need to be refuted or balanced in the lead IMO but we can discuss further if you like.

Thanks for the heads up on the deletion discussion. I'll take a look at that now and respond further. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the AfD discussion and have a few comments. First I would note that AfD discussions are to determine notability and they are not talk page discussions that decide how content should be kept/arranged in an article and as expected I don't see any indications of that in the AfD discussion. What I did notice in the discussion was a lot of comments about the weakness of the sources in the article and those presented at the discussion. These comments include:

The first several [sources] don't impress, but the CBS cite does seems to add proof to the notion that this is a recognized expert on Genetically Modified Organisms and thus a reasonable subject for encyclopedic biography.

One of the two secondary sources include an interview on The Dr. Oz Show ,which I am unfamiliar with (seems like a talk show so not great in my eyes). The Reuters source is the best, but I am not convinced that is enough to justify an article.

the article looks as if it is written to satisfy notability based on the quantity rather than the quality of links.

I note the multitude of sources listed in this discussion, but not in the article. However I would be more convinced if there were sources similar to the Reuters one, where he is the subject or a major focus of the article and it is a relatively major newspaper. I would rather have a few good ones to look a than a list seemingly copied from a search engine.

A closer look at the sources in the article reveals that they don't really establish notability as much as would be expected. Many of them deal with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi movement and its practices or reference self published or primary books. I only found two that are true secondary sources that satisfy the WP:GNG. I only looked at the ones I could access online and could not access all of the books or journals completely (although I am confident from looking at what I could access that any mention of Smith would be trivial or non-existent).

So a thorough review of the sources and text they attempt to support seems in order.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keithbob - there was an extensive discussion on the notability of this person's article and sources used in the deletion discussion which resulted in significant edits and framing of this article which you've now done a major, independent re-write on without discussion here first. That you're not impressed by "Dr Oz" (a major network television show ranked as one of the top health programs in the U.S with more than 2.5 million viewers daily) might have been answered in the talk section here before you made your changes. Similarly many of the sources used were supporting or secondary to accurately represent the facts here and present a full neutral article and were discussed in detail during the notability review last month by multiple contributors. At that time we removed some sources, added others and based on the discussion. I note that you appear to have made significant contributions to pages relating to the Maharishi movement for which Mr. Smith is affiliated and thus are familiar with the fact that many of the details that help make articles about these topics aren't always found in abundance in mainstream news articles or sources like Reuters, but are available and can be used if presented in a neutral and factual manner that adds value to the article. You've removed many of those sources/citations in this article and replaced them with "needs citation" references - when a request to add additional or bolstering citations might have been more helpful? Much collaboration went into the writing of this article that you've now dismissed. I'm sure you're editing expertise is welcomed, I'm just disappointed that so much prior discussion and work here is being ignored.CinagroErunam (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty to discuss above and I welcome such discussion and collaboration. I disagree with your characterization of the discussion at AfD and have illustrated my characterization of it above and included quotes from the participants. I also disagree with your statement: [I must be] " familiar with the fact that many of the details that help make articles about these topics aren't always found in abundance in mainstream news articles or sources like Reuters, but are available and can be used if presented in a neutral and factual manner that adds value to the article". I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how WP works and I would encourage you to read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. This article was in a deplorable state, with rampant misuse and misrepresentation of sources and per WP:BLP which says:

• We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

I have made bold changes to improve the article and bring it in line with policy. I'm sorry that this is disturbing to you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Photos and copyright violations

It appears that two of the photos that were in this article have been deleted due to copyright violations. [12] Hopefully new photos can be found in the public domain. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN

There is a discussion about the reliability of the source: Academicsreview.org. Please join the discussion here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There was only one comment at RSN about the Academicsreview.org web site as a source. The comment was:

Academics Review" is not a Reliable Source. It is the website of an advocacy group. The other source, the Chico News Review, is a reliable source because the author, Christine G.K. LaPado-Breglia, works for a reliable news-gathering organization which vets its news before it is published and (probably) corrects any mistakes. Nevertheless, the source is defective for the sentence to which it is attached before it says nothing about 'Several academics have launched campaigns to dissect and review Jeffrey Smith’s claims and criticize organizations and media outlets who characterize or present Smith as an "expert" source.' GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this reading. Its an advocacy site and there are dozens of news reports on Jeffrey Smith that contain both praise and criticism. We don't need to resort to this kind of a low quality source. Therefore I'm removing it from the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picked book reviews

Why are we featuring quotes from non-notable book reviewers and known anti GM sources. Even if there are none from mainstream review sources we should not be using the Milk Weed, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, Alternative Medicine Review and CCPA Monitor as the only depictions of what are essentially controversial books. AIRcorn (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• This article now appears to be a marketing piece for Jeffrey Smith, removing the balance, replacing "criticism" sections with "reception", moving his professional teaching career as a dance instructor to a simple notation under personal life, inflating his credentials (apparently granting him an MBA) and deleting other referenced details about his credentials. This is all painting a wholly fluffed-up and inaccurate picture which appears to be done by those interested in promoting Mr. Smith and his campaign against GMOs. Some of the principal editors making these changes appear to also have strong interests in editing other articles for people and topics associated with the Maharishi movement making the changes here suspect with regard to bias. CinagroErunam (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with these types of articles. Keith is definitely willing to discuss changes so the best thing is to bring any disputed edits here. It is not helpful to characterise editors motives though, and will ultimately lead to a lot of drama and miss the real point, which is making this article encyclopaedic. For what its worth I spend some of my time here editing articles on Genetic Engineering and would guess my POV is different than Keiths, but in the end as long as we are reasonable an acceptable article can sometimes emerge. This is not a high priority article for me (I only noticed it because it turned purple on another article during the deletion discussion - a Wikied feature and I have only just come back now), but will try and keep an eye on it and contribute where I can. AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions are appreciated and welcomed Aircorn and thank you for assuming good faith per WP:AGF as is standard on WP. I look forward to working together.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the book reviews. If others are available let's add them. I have no objections. I add content as I find it. I don't cherry pick. I am fine leaving them out for now but should other reviews be added I may bring the matter up for discussion and request re-inclusion of those sources. The criticism section has been renamed Reception per WP:CRITICISM and in the interests of neutrality. I have added both praise as well as criticism [13] to the section as Smith has received both. This is the process by which a neutral WP article gets created. Like most WP articles it is a work in progress. I have already located at least a dozen additional sources and will be adding info from them as time allows. I look forward to working together to expand and improve the article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have had a big go at the article, finished for now so you can edit away without fear of conflicts. Mainly I just moved things around to improve the flow and combined similar themes together in paragraphs. Put in a few introductory sentences at the start to help the flow too and condensed a few things too as there was some repetition. I also altered some of the wording and removed some of the attribution (this might be a little controversial, but I don't think we need "Smith says his name is Smith"exaggerated example to make a point in every sentence). Moved the criticism/reception section into the "Consumer advocate" section as I think that is the best way to handle this. Also changed the name of the section to remove author (his books are still consumer advocacy so didn't think it should be a problem). I probably made other changes too. Feel free to improve, revert or comment on any. AIRcorn (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for accusing you of cherry picking, it was just the impression I got from the way that they were presented. Part of the problem is that there are not many reviews available, maybe due to the books being self published. Also groups that support his ideas are always going to give favourable reviews. For example if I self published a book on the virtues of homeopathy most serious reviewers would probably ignore it, but the Wagga Wagga Society for alternative medicine in hospitals might decide to review it in their annual newsletter (again an exageration). If we do include these reviews I think we would have to put in the Academics Reviews view for balance (not as the website but as the views of biologist[14]). There are these [15][16], but they are just as bad as the favourable ones. Personally I would not have anything, the article is about Smith not his books anyway. Maybe if we can find a review from a source that normally reviews a wide range of books or from an unquestionably reliable source (thinking a journal) we can add a short sentence or two. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edits and re-organization of the article are excellent. I found a few very minor things to clean up but otherwise we are good. A very nice improvement and I've said so on your talk page. Also thank you for the apology it is graciously accepted and thank you for pointing out the other reviews which we/you are also excluding so this makes things fair :-) Also, I am sometimes a sticker for staying on topic in an article and I like your comment that this article is about the person, not about his books. So its fine with me if we leave book reviews out altogether. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the latest round of edits are a significant improvement. Thank you both for your time and input. My apologies if any of my input came off as less than constructive.CinagroErunam (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors complain all the time about how broken everything is around here. I don't think this place is broken at all and this is evidence that people with different views can work together to improve an article. AIRcorn (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to all.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Off topic

I recommend that this content (below) be removed, as it is off topic (ie its about IRT not about Smith) see WP:COATRACK

• Kaiser Permanente's Northwest Fall 2012 newsletter recommended the Institute for Responsible Technology's Non-GMO Shopping Guide iPhone App, 'ShopNoGMO'. [17] "Willamette Live", accessed Dec 23, 2012 </ref>

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources

On Feb 5th user: Mastcell made a series of edits that completely changed the article and in that process more than a 15 11 sources were deleted. Here is a [partial] list:

• CBS NEWS
• CBS NEWS (April 27, 2012) New GMO crops proposed, consumers want labeling Genetically modified crops resistant to 2,4-D spur debate, calls for labeling CBS News, accessed Dec 19, 2012
• CBS NEWS
• USA TODAY
• NY TIMES
• KANSAS CITY STAR
• NEW STRAITS TIMES
• THE ILLINOIS STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
• PACIFIC SUN
• THE READING EAGLE
• NEW SCIENTIST
• DAILY IOWAN
• COMMISSIONER OF ELECTIONS name="JC Auditor">Slockett, Tom (November 3, 1998). "November 3, 1998 General Election". Johnson County Auditor Commissioner of Elections and Voter Registration. Retrieved Dec 16, 2012.
• IOWA STATE EDUC ARCHIVES Unknown author (Feb 2002) Ballroom Dance Announcement Iowa State Education archives, accessed 12/14/12

• Comments anyone? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: your math appears to be wrong. Just at a quick overview I see that some of those sources are duplicates (CBS), some mention Smith only in passing (NYTimes), and some are still in the article (Johnson County and Iowa State). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Verno, thanks for pointing out the two cites above that are still in the article and the dup CBS cite. I've stricken them from the list above. The two remaining CBS citations are unique and I've clarified that by adding additional URL's for your easy reference above. So we have 11 reliable sources that were removed and the "math is right". Now regarding your other comment, is there something in WP:RS that says that if an editor determines that a source only gives a "passing mention" of the topic that the source becomes invalid and should be removed from the article? I'm unaware of such a policy but I'm always open to learning.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2 remaining CBS news sources could actually be combined into one source which has both the text and the video. Nitpicking aside, no, there's nothing that says the source becomes invalid. It's all a question of what it was being used to support and WP:DUE weight to the variety of sources and possible redundancy -- there's generally no need to cite three sources which all say the same thing/support the same fact, for example, although exceptions are certainly possible.

I haven't read through the before and after versions of the article in enough depth to see what the sources were being used to support, so I'm afraid I can't really go into further detail about whether the removal of sources was good/bad/other at this point. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was crammed with sources which mention Smith only in the most trivial or passing way. Stuffing an article with these sorts of sources is a common (and, in this case, successful) tactic to get it past an AfD, but it's a pretty poor way to write an actual encyclopedia article.

Many of these sources attest only to the fact that Smith is an activist who opposes genetically modified food - a fact which no one seriously disputes and which requires, at most, one source. Some of the others are primary sources of the sort which are explicitly discouraged or forbidden in biographical articles (per WP:BLP). Some are essentially unverifiable or did not support the claims for which they were cited. Some are sourced simply to indicate that Smith was interviewed once by a specific publication - a fact which might be appropriate for a promotional press kit but which has dubious significance in a neutral encyclopedia article.

I'd prefer if we focused less on a simple head count of sources and more on how the sources actually contribute to a serious encyclopedic biography. What specific encyclopedic material from these sources have we lost? How would you use these sources to write content in our article? MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I'm glad we are in discussion. The prior version of the article had been recently agreed upon by three editors (one of which was me) after significant talk page discussion (see threads above) and so it was a bit unsettling to see a mass revision of the article that included the removal of so many mainstream sources. My first thought was to revert back to the consensus version but was concerned that that would only create more drama. Instead I chose to lay out the situation on the talk page and I am happy to begin a dialogue so we can continue to develop the article together. Some of the text that was removed I have already replaced using additional sources but I'll go through the ones listed above and see what needs to be added back in and we can discuss as needed. I look forward to working together. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Resume tag

An editor placed a resume tag on the Consumer Advocate section citing trivial info like appearances at conventions etc. I have raised the Resume tag to the top of the article as there is also potentially trivia in all sections such as:

1. At a political event, Smith said the Natural Law Party supported the use of the Transcendental Meditation technique and yogic flying, on a voluntary basis, in education, rehabilitation and health care
2. Smith also spoke with CBS News at New York's 2012 Green Festivals concerning the "proliferation of genetically modified organisms" in the U.S. food supply
3. Smith is a professional dance instructor and taught a dance workshop at University of Iowa as "Swingsmith" in 2002. He is one of the founding directors of a Fairfield, Iowa dance troupe called Swingphoria
4. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the director of the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America
5. participated in a TM-Sidhi program yogic flying demonstration in Des Moines, Iowa
6. His activities are reported to be "funded by speaking fees, book sales and donations."

I'd be happy to discuss the potential removal of information such as the above if anyone is interested. I tried to get some outside input at BLPN but no one responded. Any ideas? or comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kbob I've added numbers to make it easy to refer to content. I hope that's OK.

- I think we can say Smith is a dance instructor in a personal life section. The rest of 3) is trivia in my mind.

- 1 and 2 seem to be trivia.

- 4 seems OK. If these are small organizations and the source indicates that we can add that information that so as to not make these positions appear to be more important than they are.

- 5 is trivia

- 6 not sure about this. It might be OK.

What we have to watch out for is that content added does not deliberately imply anything about Smith, a kind of OR, that is not in the sources, and in general that the reason for the article, Smith's notability, is the focus of the article. (olive (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC))

Good suggestion. I've numbered the items in my prior comment. I appreciate your input and I have my own perspective on each item but l'd like to see what others have to say first before I wax prophetic :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a once-through by Kbob's request without having read these comments yet and ended up making very similar edits. If Jeff made a comment or attended an event, I found that to be trivia, but his life as a dance instructor appears to be a substantial part of his story. I don't think it belongs under personal life, because he did it professionally. CorporateM (Talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that dance instructor is a professional aspect of Jeffrey's life so would be misplaced under personal life.(olive (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC))

I think the recent changes are, for the most part, improvements and the article no longer reads like a resume. It's probably as close to an actual encyclopedic biography as we can get, given the paucity of independent, reliable sources available. I will say that as the "Reception" section is practically the only part which makes use of reliable third-party sources, I've re-expanded it with a bit more detail. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Material from Forbes and New Yorker

I've restored this material from Forbes and the New Yorker. This material is relevant and appropriately sourced, and is presented carefully with appropriate in-text attribution of opinions. In fact, this is practically the only appropriately sourced material in the article - the rest of the sourcing is pretty dubious and borderline - so it's sort of ludicrous to remove it. MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The material "from Forbes" is not published by Forbes - it is a Forbes contributor blog, and it is of no more material reliability than a random personal blog. Basically anyone can get a blog at Forbes.com now, and the material is not vetted by any external fact-checker or editorial controls. We also ought to note, based on published reliable sources, that the writer of that statement is a paid public relations consultant with links to Monsanto and the anti-regulatory, never-met-an-industry-it-didn't-trust American Enterprise Institute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything you say about the Forbes article applies to Mother Jones one. Whats more it is denied by Entine in that article. Why not just link to his article so anyone interested can find out more without us second guessing. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, false. Mother Jones is an indisputable reliable source because it is vetted by fact-checkers and goes through an editing process. A Forbes.com contributor blog goes through neither of those. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An opinion piece is an opinion piece, plus it does not support the information you are using it to source in this article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Work to improve the article

Acceptable references to have the word Bestseller in the article

To keep folks happy, I thought to have some of the references and sources that indicate that Jeffrey M. Smith is a bestselling author. Since some folk here may not be happy with him being referred to a bestselling author, it would be an idea to put the rejected and acceptable links and refences here as I have put them. If you'd like to add to them then that would be great. Also might be a good way to learn about what is and isn't a bestselling author. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible acceptable links and references

• The book features an Introduction by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream and president of the group Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. The Foreword was written by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the bestseller Seeds of Deception. Referenced from site:' World-Wire - Title: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Dr. Samuel Epstein's 20 Year Fight Against Biotech, Cancer-Causing Milk - Link: [18]

• The introduction to What's in Your Milk? by Ben Cohen, cofounder of the Ben & Jeffy's Ice Cream, with Foreword by Jeffrey M. Smith, aucthor of the bestseller Seeds of Deception. - Referenced from: Criminal Indifference of the FDA to Cancer Prevention By Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. - Title: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. Page 134 - Link: [19]

• Jeffrey M. Smith is a leading spokesperson on the dangers of GMOs, and the author of the two bestselling books, Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette. He has briefred world leaders, and is an international speaker and popular guest on TV shows. Referenced from: Queen of the Sun: What are the Bees Telling Us? edited by Taggart Siegel, Jon Betz - Title: ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Page 143 - Link: [20]

• * The Impact of Healthy Food on Learning and Behaviour at a Wisconsin School Featuring Jeffrey M Smith, author of the international best seller "Seeds of Deception" ... - Referenced from Noseweek, Issues 63-74 Chaucer Publications, 2005 - South Africa - Title: ? - Link: [21]

• Jeffrey M.Smith is the director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. He is the author of the international bestseller Seeds of Deception (www. seedsofdeception.com). - Referenced from: The Ecologist, Volume 37, Issues 6-10 - Title: 'With the ability to activate millions, religions are the sleeping giants in the GM debate' - Link: [22]

• Now, a booklet published by bestselling author, filmmaker and director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (www.ResponsibleTechnology.org) Jeffrey M. Smith is claiming a link between foods containing GMO’s and the rise in autism over the past two decades. - Referenced from: Autism Daily Newscast November 17, 2014 - Title: Are GMO’s Causing Autism? by Laurel Joss - Link: [23]

References / Sources deemed unacceptable, Refer to edit Revision as of 16:40, 11 December 2014

• The presentation, which was organized locally by Going Green Tampa, featured Dr. Carlos Garcia and prominent consumer advocate Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the worldwide bestseller Seeds of Deception. - Referenced from: Tampa Daily Loaf Fri, Jan 17, 2014 - Title: Genetically modified mosquito plans draw opposition Posted By Terrence Smith - Link: [24]

• Now Jeffrey M. Smith's best-selling book is paired with a new DVD and CD set that shows how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) put our health and environment at risk - Referenced from: Chelesea Green Publishing - Title: The GMO Trilogy and Seeds of Deception - Link: [25]

Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey M. Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811214405/http://www.mum.edu/pdf_yearbooks/1985-86.pdf to http://www.mum.edu/pdf_yearbooks/1985-86.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Gmo foods

I just watched an episode of beyond belief. With jeffery smith. I have crohns disease and I swear all the food I ate has destroyed my body. And now I have a permanent iliostomy. But I'm still sick so I stopped eating 7 days ago. I need help. More info jeffery smith please. Eve Geary 2600:387:F:E31:0:0:0:2 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Education?

The article says Smith has a bachelor's degree for SUNY Binghamton and an MBA from Maharishi University of Management. Neither source given supports these claims. In fact, one of the sources notes his bachelor's is unverified, and his MBA is dubious since he was actually in the Purusha program. The cited yearbook from MUM does not list him under MBA graduates. I think the article should reflect these uncertainties unless someone can find a reliable source for his education. (I have not yet.) What do others think? Michaplot (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)