Talk:The Future of Food

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Food and drink

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Article's neutrality disputed but there is no discussion

Where is the discussion regarding the use of weasel words and other non-neutral content?

Y Issue has been dealt with, and weasel removed (or attributed). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

At the very least it should have all of the alarmist words edited out. "Disturbing facts", "Alarming Information" etc.Jvbishop 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The First paragraph is verbatim from the films website.Jvbishop 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to get rid of the worst offenders but the article could still use some work.Jvbishop 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As regards neutrality of the article, the article is describing a film. The issues of the film are controversial. But the question of neutrality needs to be about the object described, which in this case is a film. I have seen the film, and the description sums up the film. I don't believe it is controversial in terms of its description of the film. Is there something specific in the film that you think it not accurately portrayed here? Also, regarding the words "Disturbing facts", sure its ok that these words are removed. But if you have seen the film, you would note that the characterization of the information is presented through use of music as 'alarming'. So, in the voice of the film, which is what we are talking about, not the issue of biotechnology (which I have my own opinions of but that is not relevant), the film portrays the information as 'alarming' and 'disturbing'. Bgoedecke 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the article should write it so as to make it clear that characterization of the facts as "disturbing" and the information as "alarming is a characterization made by the film not by Wikipedia. Plus there is just no way to really get around the fact that the first paragraph was verbatim from the film's website. Jvbishop 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't write the article. Is it wrong that it is verbatim from the film's website? Anycase, the presentation is given in a passive voice (at least in my reading) although some of the 'facts' conjectured could be construed to be opinions. I don't mind that the adjectives disturbing or alarming are not present, as the description as it stands, from my point of view, expresses the description of the film. Do you think that 'unlabelled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly made their way onto grocery store shelves in the United States for the past decade' is an opinion or something to be sited? Or 'and highlights how international companies are gradually driving farmers off the land in many countries' is also something to be sited? Such information conclusions made from multiple sources. Tell me what you think should be changed specifically. Bgoedecke 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That the text is taken verbatim from the film's website seems to me to be a roundabout violation of WP:AUTO. I agree that the article is improved by the more passive voice that it has with the deletion of the afore mentioned words. It could use more though and I hoped that by tagging it someone else would come along and do this. I have other priorities but will get to it eventually if no one else does. As far as citing those facts I would say yes but this is due mostly to the fact that philosophically I'm a "citationist" and would argue that everything needs citation, even the accepted facts since once examined these can be found to be wrong. However as a realist I realize that the work to gather all of these citations is immense and thus let uncited facts that I feel are uncontroversial and correct slide by. So while I would like those facts to be cited I do not insist upon it. Jvbishop 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I will see if I can get to it sometime in the next month or so Bgoedecke 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a small part of the artical and the "documentary", but the irish potato famine wasn't caused by a lack of bio diversity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.4.8 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2007

-That isn't what wikipedia suggests... just look up "irish potato famine" for yourself. Secondly, it is "article" and not "artical". Third, if you have a statement to make (i.e., "it wasn't this"), then follow it up with "it was this instead". A negation without explanation is the worst possible deconstruction there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.197.144 (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2007

"It gives farmers in disagreement with the food industry a voice to express how their lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology, and shines a light on the market and political forces that are changing what we eat."

This sounds very biased... Gelsamel 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Matters have been dealt with, article has been rendered neutral and is now far better sourced. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]