Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:43, 27 July 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the March Against Monsanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the March Against Monsanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Low‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge 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:Misplaced Pages 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Response

On May 16, commenting on petitions submitted to the USDA opposing applications by Monsanto and Dow to test new GM crops, Monsanto's CEO Hugh Grant stated the petitioners wanted to block others from choosing more affordable food options.

Nowhere does any source cited say this and I've asked Jytdog and others to stop adding this. Hugh Grant was not commenting on petitions submitted to the USDA, he was commenting on social media. Unless Jytdog is in personal close contact with the CEO of Monsanto, I would be curious why he and others keep altering the quotes and changing the context. Grant did not say anything about petitioners to Kaskey, and he paraphrsed it as "The advent of social media helps explain why many people in the U.S. have come to oppose genetically engineered crops in recent years". Nothing about petitioners. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding quotations

"I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled... "Companies like Kellogg's and General Mills are putting things like Fruit Loops on the market that are basically 100 percent genetically engineered ingredients," Canal told Salt Lake City Weekly. "And that's marketed to our kids."

I removed the following quote because it gives undue weight to the opinion of one person compared with the broad scientific consensus: 'I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison'(my emphasis). I have no doubt that Canal said this and genuinely believes it but putting, 'feeding my family poison' in the article, even if balanced by pro-GE quotes, gives undue weight to the extreme fringe view that GE foods are poison.

The same argument applies my general practice of replacing quotes with indirect speech. They give excessive prominence to fringe views. There is nothing at all wrong with my changes, especially as the strong opinions are correctly attributed. At least two other editors have agree with what I have done; you seem to be the only one who objects.

This page has already come under criticism for promoting fringe views and it was even proposed for deletion on that basis. Had I been around at that time, I would have opposed deletion but supported the majority view that this page must not become a promotional article for fringe science. It is fair enough to briefly give the reasons that the organisers started the movement but we are not here to support their cause. Giving their fringe views equal weight to mainstream science and the welfare of the majority of consumers is a very clear violation of WP:due.

It is also my opinion, supported by some others, that this page should not just refrain from promoting fringe science but that it is not the pace to have the GE vs anti-GE debate. We already have a page for that purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no such scientific consensus about genetically modified organisms. Evidence of consensus is scant; evidence of dissensus abounds. Appeals regarding content on this page should not invoke a fictional consensus. groupuscule (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "argument" in that page has no basis here, as it's simply your opinion and does not reflect the real-world consensus in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. The quote you removed has nothing to do with "giving undue weight to the opinion of one person compared with the broad scientific consensus." In fact, it has nothing to do with any "broad scientific consensus" at all. The quote has to do with Canal's reasoning for starting the movement. That she believes that she was feeding her family poison is her opinion and her rationale. Quoting her reasons for starting the movement does not give "undue weight to the extreme fringe view that GE foods are poison", nor could it. Furthermore, your argument for replacing quotes isn't reflected by your edits. You inaccurately replaced direct quotes to things that did not give "excessive prominence to fringe views", such as the statement from Monsanto Hawaii, the CEO of Monsanto, Canal's reason for starting the movement, a protester's reason for organizing, official statements from Monsanto, and more. None of these things "give excessive prominence to fringe views". Most of your changes are problematic as detailed in this thread and above at Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Quotes_removed, where other editors do not agree with your changes as you claim. There is quite a bit wrong with your edits, and I will now ask you for a second time to stop changing quotations. Your last series of edits introduced plagiarism when you removed the attribution and the quotes themselves. Finally, your removal of Canal's quotes isn't supported, and your stated reason for removing them ("emotive") shows that you are confused about how we use quotes. Those quotes represent her POV. We don't neutralize the POV of a person we are quoting. There are fundamental problems with your edits here. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could hear what others think. My opinion is that putting a quotation stating the extreme fringe view, that GE foods are poison, gives the view undue prominence on the page and in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier I said that at a glance your changes looked OK however it seems that with closer inspection as outlined by Viriditas it seems that in at least several instances the edits were not acceptable. And as has been said repeatedly Martin, we do not edit articles for our personal version of the "truth". For instance, if Reverand xxx says that women get raped because they don't dress properly, that's what we quote them as saying regardless of our own views. Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot to comment on here. First, about the material that was on Martin's talk page, it would have been polite to either link from here to the talk page, or ask Viriditas before copying it here, but Viriditas should know that the terms of use, right above the save edit button, allow anything one writes to be copied anywhere else.

This is not the place to have arguments about whether or not opposition to GMOs is fringe science, or whether GMOs are poison.

Overall, I think most of Martin's edits have been helpful, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we should go more in the direction of using direct quotes of Canal, because of her special role in the subject of this page. If we directly quote her, then Misplaced Pages is not taking a position about her opinions about GMOs as "poison", and it's appropriate to indicate her beliefs and motivations. We can link to other pages in lieu of refuting her here.

I do not regard Martin's edits as introducing plagiarism.

About the specific edits for which Viriditas provides links, taking them one-by-one: I don't see any problems with the one about Monsanto Hawaii's statement. About the Monsanto CEO, I already commented at #Quotes removed. About Canal, I also commented above, and I'd be inclined to bring the direct quote back. About the Los Angeles march organizer, I'm neutral between the quote and the paraphrase, and I don't see any distortion of the meaning in the paraphrase. About Monsanto's official statements, ditto. About "According to the AP", it doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism, but I'd be inclined to either restore the explicit attribution or to insert the word "reportedly" into "Some people are reportedly concerned...", with the inline cite at the end of the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this rationale for using direct quotations. Paraphrasing can be useful for efficiency's sake, but in this case (subbed in to replace a one-liner) seems mostly to muddy the waters. groupuscule (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to all quotes but I think that the article as it was looked like a debate on GE food between Canal and Monsanto. I see two problems with this, firstly this is not the place for such a debate; we have an article on the subject. More importantly though, it gives legitimacy to an extreme fringe view (that GE foods are poison) and also gives the impression that the generally accepted view is only that of Monsanto.

I would not object to one or two quotes from Canal, but only in a context that does not give them prominence or legitimacy and also makes it absolutely clear to the reader that we are giving the words of a person with an extreme fringe view. I cannot see how we can do this, which is why I thought we should remove the quotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, that's fair, and that's progress, I think. Where you say that you cannot see how to do that, I can make a suggestion, using the quote at the top of this talk thread as an example. What Canal says there is, indeed, a view reflecting a particular POV. However, a direct quote makes it clear that she, not Misplaced Pages, is saying it. The problem you describe then becomes how to put what she says in context, without us taking a POV and without having a coatrack of arguments. I would suggest something like: "Talking about her personal motivations for starting the movement, Canal said '....'". Lead into the quote like that, and make it particularly clear that this is what she said. Have hatnotes directing readers to the pages where the GMO controversies are covered in detail. Keep reporting here what Monsanto has said in its responses. (I don't know if there are responses from sources other than Monsanto, but it would be worth looking for ones that specifically address the March.) That will work. This page is about a movement started by people who have a point of view, and there's no getting around the fact that this page will tell our readers what that point of view is. Maybe somebody will read her quote, decide to believe her literally, and not read anything more. There's nothing we can do about that, and it's not Misplaced Pages's job. But anyone who reads the whole page, including the Monsanto responses, and who goes on to look at the other pages we link to, will have access to enough information to draw an informed conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I could go with something like that for one or two quotes only but I do not think we should try to balance Canal's fringe opinion with Monsanto quotes. That gives her view legitimacy and makes it look as though only Monsanto support GE food. I think we should do all we can to prevent any possible misunderstanding that Canal's view is that of WP. One problem is that putting the full quote, "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", gives too much prominence to her opinion and I cannot see how we could reduce it and still retain the sense. We could actually do better with indirect speech along the lines of, 'Canal stated that she considered GE foods to be poison'. What would you suggest? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't have a point-counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto. I simply meant that Monsanto's perspective should continue to be included on the page, not necessarily right after each quote from Canal. For the reasons that I already said, my suggestion about the Canal quote is to use the quote, but presented in the way that I said. There is no problem with her view appearing to be Misplaced Pages's view if we do it this way. In this case, I would not paraphrase. Better to encompass all that she said: the increasing anger, the small fortune, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been no "point counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto" anywhere on this page. Judging by this discussion, there is support for adding the quotes back in. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the point-counterpoint seems to be, instead, on this talk page. I didn't say that there was one on the page. I said that there need not be one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you restored the quotes? Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you not know the answer to your own question? Please feel free to restore them yourself, and know that I will support your doing so, as long as it's consistent with what I have said here.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to skip the song, dance, and dinner, and get right down to business. Please make the changes so I don't have to figure out what is consistent with what you have said. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Too bad, since if you bothered to read what I wrote in this talk section, you'd find that I agreed with you about half of the time. When you asked me to read the archives, I did. Whatever. I promise not to invite you to dinner or dancing, but I don't react well to being ordered to do something, since I'm a volunteer like everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a pattern of reading comprehension problems here. I have not ordered you to do anything. I have asked you to make your preferred changes so that I don't have to attempt to read your mind. You seem to be completely unwilling to explicitly say which quotes should go back in and which should be removed, so I've repeatedly asked you to make those changes. I don't see any problem with this statement, do you? Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry! I didn't realize that you had difficulty with reading comprehension. If I had, I would have explained it again. But in fact, I see from the edits you made to the page that you got it exactly right. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This snark goes to 11. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas' assertions of consensus

I have a few minor concerns following Viriditas' blanket reversions of my recent edits, which she or he has justified as based in talk page consensus. As I read the comments above, it seems that multiple editors have suggested that this page, as it exists, too closely resembles promotional material. I strongly agree. Viriditas has been the most frequent and vociferous opponent to these comments, but I wonder if Viriditas' opinions really equate with consensus. Observations:

1. The "March" was a march, a defined, discrete event. While the founder may hope that it turns into a true movement, and while this may eventually happen, there hasn't been enough time or evidence to establish this. The Misplaced Pages article should present what has happened, not what we hope will happen in the future.
2. Editors have objected to "grassroots" and other designations ("full time mother of two"?), which seem to be inserted to imply that the good, simple people of America have had enough and are standing up to the evil corporations. Is the continuing presence of such language encyclopedic?
3. My reading of Misplaced Pages policy is that the scientific consensus must be underlined when we present fringe topics. Anti-GMO events are truly fringe from a scientific and thus a Wikipedian perspective. This is not a slur or a reflection on numbers. Even if a majority of the American public believe that God created the world in six days or that a particular biotech is trying to surreptitiously poison unwitting Whole Foods customers, the Misplaced Pages definition of fringe is opposition to a well established and verifiable scientific consensus. The article should include a statement about the broad international consensus, and the sources for this statement do not need to address the May 25, 2013 event specifically. In contrast, the article is replete with material that is off-topic or of questionable relevance other than to promote the March organizer or suggest that her views are on an equal footing with scientific consensus. SpectraValor (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your points have been discussed extensively and at great lengths. There is nothing fringe in this article and the scientific consensus is well established with sources about the subject. Please consult this talk page or the archives for further information. I am, of course, happy to very briefly review the finer points of those discussions with you. As far as I can tell, you are attempting to restore the failed arguments of Thargor Orlando, who did not get consensus for his edits. I will chalk that up to a coincidence. As for your points:

1. Movement. This point has been discussed ad nauseum in the thread Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#US bias? Every angle of the discussion was addressed. You are now trying to reopen this argument with a straw man, defining the movement as a single discrete march. However, the sources define it as a movement based on accepted sociological definitions of organized activity that involve more than one geographical location, not more than one march. In other words, this topic is appropriately defined as a global movement per the sources and the accepted definitions in use.
2. Grassroots. You say that editors have objected to this term because of its implications, however the sources have described it as an "international grass roots movement". Grassroots in this topic area refers to ""ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership". This is covered in the above linked discussion.
3. Scientific consensus. You have attempted to re-open several discussions covered in depth at Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2, all of which concluded that 1) there is nothing "fringe" in the current version that needs attention, and 2) the scientific consensus is adequately and accurately presented in its proper context using sources about the subject. As it stands, the article currently says, "The U.S. government and scientists maintain that GMOs are safe for consumption, but those wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws" and "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming."
4. Off topic or irrelevant material. You've claimed that the current version "is replete with material that is off-topic or of questionable relevance other than to promote the March organizer or suggest that her views are on an equal footing with scientific consensus." I can see no part of this current version that reflects this view. Perhaps you will be so kind as to provide examples.

I believe that covers everything. If you are still interested in proposing your edits, simply choose one to start with and add it here below so we can discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many more people need to disagree with you on this, Viriditas. I'm surprised this is being argued again as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, there is no support for these edits, which coincidentally, restore your edits which were found to lack consensus and violate our policies. You cannot add original research to this article. End of story. We've discussed this extensively in the archives, and there was no support for your violation of policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

While I do agree with Viriditas on some of the above points, I think that the article is biased towards promoting the views of the protestors. The main mechanism for this is by becoming too much of a coatrack/vehicle for making their argument, via too much of (the sum of) repeating their talking points, spun wording, views and characterizations of things. Also via selection of wording. As one example of many, the name used in the lead to identify a portion of a law was the derogatory name/description created by the protestors. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That "name" is the one referred to the most in our best reliable sources. There is nothing promotional about it. It's the most common name for the law in relation to this topic. I cannot possibly see how not best representing our sources is an option. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with North, and I made an edit about the "Monsanto Protection Act" to not present it in Misplaced Pages's voice. I hope that at least that will be noncontroversial. Regarding scientific consensus, I agree with the changes that were made by SpectraValor in the GMO controversy section. For the lead, I agree with Viriditas about "grassroots" and "movement". For me, what's left after that are the numbers of participants, and I have already stated what I think we should do with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term "Monsanto Protection Act" is entirely inline with our sources. I am not all that concerned with your changes if the sources support them. As for the changes made by SpectraValor, we have previously discussed this when Thargor Orlando tried to add the same edits over and over and over again last month—against consensus. We cannot add original research to this or any other article which is exactly what this is—sources collected by editors that have nothing to do with this subject. The scientific POV is already well represented in this article from sources about the subject. This is very clear and has been extensively discussed. Thargor Orlando's continuous violation of our policies is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The fact that "SpectraValor" showed up out of the blue to restore these problematic edits and policy violations while subsequently having Thargor Orlando appear out of nowhere to restore them once again, shows that we've got a more serious problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obvious teamwork is obvious. It's why I quit editing ths article and will not get involved with the GMO issue on wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said to Viriditas on my talk page: No, that isn't rule (policy or guideline) so you are in error. And no, it isn't wp:or because it is wp:suitably sourced. So you are wrong on both counts. I am more concerned about a good process for such changes (vs. the huge bundle that you just dropped) than any end result, so if you could just unbundle and discuss, I think that things would go much better. Interestingly, I think that my POV is the same as yours on this, but as always, when we enter as editors we need to check such that at the door and so 50% of my "disputes" are with people who are promoting my POV. That is our duty as editors in wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You are totally confused about how original research works. Original research can be "suitably sourced", and most often is! Have you actually read the policy?

...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research

None of the sources in question have anything to do with this subject, and even worse, the AP source that accurately represented this section was removed! This is not acceptable. We don't remove reliable secondary sources about a subject and replace them with off-topic, editor-chosen sources that are about a different subject! I am simply flabbergasted that an editor of your standing doesn't know this. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish that what you are implying (a degree-of-relevancy requirement for content) were true, but it isn't. Your construction was pretty creative (those three dots represent half the policy, not shortening of a sentence). The first part was putting forth a sourcing requirement for material and so does not establish a relevancy requirement for material. The second was referring to a juxtoposition of material to create a statement that was not in either of the sources. In any event, I'm in agreement with getting /keeping GMO debate material out of the article. The problem is that too much of the talking points of the anti-GMO has been put in via the mechanisms described above. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? There was nothing "creative" about this quote from policy and both are applicable. The sources were not related to the topic of this article and were being used out of context. It is not allowed, end of discussion. You're not going to wiggle out of this one. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

At some point, Viritidas, you're going to have to stop with the veiled attacks on other editors. Nothing in the talk history pushes against the point of the fringe guideline which you continually violate here, and it's hard for me, who has been engaged on this page for months now, to "come out of nowhere." If you can't justify your edits within guideline and policy, they're going to be removed. It's that simple. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on their "team", but I pretty much agree with Thargor and North. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Above, we are told that the issues about scientific consensus were settled at Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2. I've gone back and looked for where there was supposedly an editorial consensus that the sources involved original research by editors. What I could find was Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2#Report on sources for "broad scientific consensus". That doesn't even come close to representing either an editorial consensus or a demonstration of original research, except to the extent that the so-called "report" disputing the scientific consensus appears to be OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

About: , I also recently fixed some format errors, and the most recent revert of the scientific consensus material added the errors back: . I'm quite willing to fix errors of that sort, but it seems to me that if someone is going to do a big reversion, they could be careful enough to fix any errors that they, themselves, have re-introduced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Question to those reverting the language back: why is it so important to keep bringing back the word "American" in the first sentence (referring to where Monsanto is)? After all, the rest of the sentence gives the specific location. Is it just easier to hit the revert link? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It might sound strange to US but not everybody in this world knows where this location supposed to be. We're writing for an international audience, remember? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's not a big enough deal for me to really care about, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me to click on the link to the city. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying "teams" I think that my real-world POV on this matches that of Viriditas, (I don't like GMO's) but we check that at the door when put on our wp editor hat. The article should not be a soapbox for promoting the anit-GMO view. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I better clarify that I was alluding to what petrarchan47tc said about "obvious teamwork". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about a minority view but about the march and is simply just not the place to argue for or against GMO's, (besides the points made directly in response to the march of course.)TMCk (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the format fixing, much appreciated! I agree with you that we should not be coat-racking here, but I also want to make sure that what we do say here is NPOV. And, as much as mistrust of GMOs is very much mainstream in culture and politics, the scientific consensus really is pretty overwhelming. Therefore, I think that we need to get back to the main question at hand. I went back and read the archived discussions. I don't see an established consensus for the wording on the page, and I don't see a explanation of why the language that you reverted is original research. The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. You are right that one of them had been malformatted, resulting in a cite error message, but they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There's also the continued concern of fringe viewpoints being introduced which is a constant problem, if you check the archives here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the archives, and you've repeatedly made this false claim without any evidence whatsover. So, again, I will ask you, what fringe viewpoints are being introduced that are problematic? None, you say? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The ones about the lack of safety of GMO foods in particular, although the weight of the fringe viewpoint regarding media coverage continues to be a problem as well. I'm more concerned with the science on this specific issue of fringe viewpoints. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See! You can't quote a single word, phrase, or sentence from this article because there isn't anything fringe in it! You've been asked over and over again, and all you do is cite your opinion, not the article. Either you don't understand what you read or you just can't support your claims. Perhaps both. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the article does not talk about GM foods being unsafe? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, you are very confused about how we write articles on Misplaced Pages. The article talks about the protests, and the protesters who believe GM foods are unsafe. That's all verifiable, and it's what we write about. There is nothing fringe here at all and I'm getting the feeling that you don't know what "fringe" means. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt you two having fun about what the archives did or didn't say, but I'd like to get back to what the archives definitely did not say: a consensus against the content introduced by SpectraValor, or an explanation of why that content involved original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I just answered both of these questions in my initial reply to this thread. Is there a reason you are asking me to repeat myself? Look for the bold wording up above. It is very CLEAR. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I really did read that, and I'm pretty sure that I understood it. But I subsequently raised concerns about the reasoning. In the interests of clarity, I'll reproduce what I previously said, here:

"I went back and read the archived discussions. I don't see an established consensus for the wording on the page, and I don't see a explanation of why the language that you reverted is original research. The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. You are right that one of them had been malformatted, resulting in a cite error message, but they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture."

In the day or so since I wrote that, I think that the section on the GMO controversy has improved a lot, so some of what I had been concerned about is now outdated. And in fact, I don't see a need for the "fringe" template that has been put back at the top of the page, and I would agree with removing it. However, I still do not see why we could not add back the sources that SpectraValor had added, but which were reverted. They could go at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section, after "... and a scientific consensus is emerging that genetically-modified food is safe." In this case, I'm not even talking about changing anything in the main text, just adding sources. Is there an OR problem with doing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It was repeatedly explained why SpectraValor's edits (which, if you believe in "coincidences", was a reversion to a similar version originally added by Thargor last month) cannot be added. Per our policies on using sources and avoiding original research, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". And, "even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." Is it making sense now? It isn't allowed. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal, which is entirely consistent with and indeed demanded by Misplaced Pages policy on scientifically fringe topics. SpectraValor (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you support violating our policy on no original research, but you cannot create a local consensus that overrides our site-wide policy. Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Recently, an editor removed the following information from the article as "tangential":

Two days before the group held the May 25 protest, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

I fail to see how this information is "tangential". The entire protest movement is based on the lack of labeling laws, and the rejection of this amendment was one of the things protesters were upset about it. I admit that this can be rewritten and expanded, but based on the sources, I cannot see any good reason for its removal. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. Three days before the protests there was a full moon. So? While the Senate may have done something, how did that impact the protests? What does the source say about the Senate's action upon the protests? Did the protestors say something about this? (Yes, I repeat myself, repeat myself, repeat myself.) Until the connection is made -- independently by WP:RS -- the info is tangential. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The connection was made independently by RS. You removed them. Not to worry, however, there are many more that make the connection as well. I think this was just a mistake on your part, however, I do see it as an opportunity to improve and expand the text. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The material I removed simply says "Two days before the group held the May 25 protest, the ] rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.<ref name="RT-eve"/>" This implies a connection between the rejected amendment and the protests. You've got to add something from the RS like "and the protestors carried signs denouncing the Senate rejection...." that actually makes a connection between the Senate action and the protests. The removal was not a mistake on my part. It was taking out improper WP:SYN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The source you removed is titled, "On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill", and explicitly makes the connection between the two events. This refers to amendment 965 of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954; 113th Congress) proposing the labeling of GMOs. Multiple news sources make the connection, and even Bernie Sanders himself, the man who proposed the labeling bill, makes the connection in interviews with the media and on his own website. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As Upton made the observation and connection between the Senate action & the march, the RT reference is back in the article at that point. It serves to support what Upton said. – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the end result of these edits is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

More soapboxing removed.

I have removed some excessive anti-Monsanto quotes from the article as these give undue weight to a minority opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not they don't, and you've been previously corrected in your erroneous beliefs about these quotes and how we use quotes in three separate discussions:

• Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#Quotes_removed
• Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#Quote_wars
• Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Regarding_quotations

As far as I can tell, this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. We've already had this discussion, yet you are not duplicating the same discussion twice on the same page and reopening it as a different discussion. There isn't a single policy or guideline that supports your continual removal of these quotes. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet there isn't a policy that supports your recent additions of fringe theories and beliefs, and yet you keep adding them in even though, time and time again, you've been told why this is a problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you repeating falsehoods again. There has never been any addition of fringe theories to this article nor does our guideline on WP:FRINGE have any bearing on this discussion. Furthermore, the policy at work here is WP:V. You don't get to remove what you personally disagree with here. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I am troubled that a single editor continues to disrupt good faith attempts to bring this article in line with policy. Cherry picking quotes from small community and tabloid newspapers should not be necessary to write a Misplaced Pages article on an "international grassroots movement." Ironically, even these same questionably reliable sources, read in full, call many of the single editors' conclusions into question. SpectraValor (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. This article is entirely 100% inline with policy, policies that neither your nor Thargor appear to understand, as you have both been repeatedly adding original research against our policy. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on how the article should be written

In my opinion the article should include:

Reasons for the march

We should include, in encyclopedic language, the reasons that the march took place, clearly and fully giving the marchers' reasons forobjecting to: GE food, Monsanto, some US legislation, and corporate power - once only.

Response from mainstream science

A quick summary of the mainstream scientific view on GM foods.

Response from Monsanto

Again, in encyclopedic language, a summary of Monsanto's response to the march - once

Details of the actual march

Numbers, countries etc, clearly separating the organisers' claims from independent data.

Future plans

Brief indication of the marchers' plans for future events.

The article already does these things, and in cases where you claim it does not, we find that either we cannot do it because of strict policies regarding original research or a lack of information. Essentially, your entire argument for changing this article is a straw man. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not, in my opinion have:

'Quote wars'. Detailed discussion of any of the subjects discussed, we have articles on those. Unenecyclopedic or inflammatory language. Promotional statements for the marchers or Monsanto. Anything and everything on the subject just because there is a sources somewhere for it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are the one who is engaging in "quote wars" here, disrupting both the article and talk page with your obsessive deletions based on no policy or guideline, only your own opinion. Further, your above layout contradicts virtually every discussion we've had on this subject, including the overwhelming consensus that we should not have a point-counterpoint layout. You continue to make unsupported claim after unsupported claim about this article. When asked to provide evidence supporting your claims, you refuse. The quotes you removed were neither excessive nor "anti-Monsanto", and the POV of a source is not a criteria we use for removal. There is no indication anywhere that we are using anything less than encyclopedic language, but you'll keep saying that because it's a nebulous term you don't have to define or describe, and it gives you a fake "reason" to keep making disruptive edits. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentence about who is promoting labeling laws and why / Agent Orange

This one sentence is not a huge deal, but I think emblematic on recognizing and dealing with what has been happening here. The statement as it was 2 days ago was

but those wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws."

This is an unsourced statement that everybody promoting labeling laws is from a sole group with a sole motive. Further, even the the particular source used gave several different groups promoting the labeling laws from which the one group was cherry-picked for inclusion, and also to construct the false/unsourced statement that that all promoters were from that one group. I made a tiny change (added "opposing or") which was a no-brainer partial fix, changing it to:

but those opposing or wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws.

Viriditas reverted the change. I then went through the source article and changed it to include the groups referred to in the article:

Due to these concerns, some consumers wishing to avoid GMO products, some organic food companies (and) some consumer groups and consumers wary of processed foods have advocated for mandatory labeling laws.

My changes was only a partial fix, as it still left intact the incorrect unsourced statement of a single motivation. A few other "sky is blue" other additional motivations are to require the stigma and expense of labeling as a way to oppose GMO by those who do so for other reasons, or by/for organic food companies to gain an advantage. This is not to support putting those in, it is to say that the statement of a sole motivation is both implausible and unsourced.

Viriditas then removed "some organic food companies" from the list of proponents. This removed info is straight from the source cited to support that statement.

With so much work attempting an only-partial no-brainer fix, and with Viriditas similarly modifying / dominating the article in other areas (23 of the last 25 edits) this is getting pretty depressing. This includes, Viriditas, who deleted a bunch of GMO research results as not being germane enough, just adding that Monsanto made Agent Orange during the Vietnam war! (which I reverted) This is getting depressing. I didn't / don't intend to spend much time trying to help with this article and am about to be chased away by this situation.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is this some kind of sick joke? Your edit wasn't even written in English and consisted of a straight copy and paste from the AP source, which is plagiarism. Here is the content you added, which of course, makes no sense in English:

some organic food companies some consumer groups and consumers wary of processed foods

What does the AP source say?

The Food and Drug Administration does not require genetically modified foods to carry a label, but organic food companies and some consumer groups have intensified their push for labels, arguing that the modified seeds are floating from field to field and contaminating traditional crops. The groups have been bolstered by a growing network of consumers who are wary of processed and modified foods.

I then followed up your edit by by fixing it and paraphrasing it. I'm sorry, North8000, but if you can't be bothered to write articles and must resort to copying and pasting from sources, then you shouldn't be editing. It is that simple. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The source named several groups promoting the labeling law, and did not ascribe an overall motive. I summarized the groups (there was no "copy and paste"). I suppose that the specific that you didn't like was that it specifically mentioned organic food companies as proponents of the law, something which you removed. And the extreme OR / wp:ver violation which remains is ascribing a single motive to all proponents of the law. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased

I'm not sure why the HR 933 section exists, it seems like an odd thing to have its own subsection. Furthermore the paragraph only presents the opinion of one "Dave Murphy", who appears to be an activist. Doesn't this violate WP:SOAPBOX? And why does HR 933 need its own section when it already has a bullet point? Also shouldn't the "HR 933" in the bullet point be linked to the Farmer Assurance Provision? I just don't see how posting Murphy's opinions on the matter helps the article's balance. Sure, it's the opinion held by many of the protestors, but they seem to have opinions just as if not more detailed on the other bullet points - why were those not expanded too? Firemylasers (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are good questions. I'd like to hear from any of the editors who support the material where, in the sources, it is indicated that what it says in that section is sourced to material that is about the March per se, rather than about the GMO debate in general. Was Murphy speaking as a spokesperson for the March, or as a prominent participant in it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unclear why you removed this section, so I've added it back. Are you saying the sources don't support it? That's strange, the sources appear to support it in spades. Can you please be more specific about your reasoning for removing it other than entertaining an SPA account who will shortly be CU'ed? Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is actually my original Misplaced Pages account, I do have another account but it is inactive and has no contributions to any pages. This is by no means a "Single Purpose Account". In fact, this account was registered over a year ago. Firemylasers (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You waited a year to make your first edit? If I was to assume bad faith, I would call that a "sleeper account". What made you wait a year to make your first edit to a contentious article talk page? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was uninterested at first in editing articles, so I left the account alone. Firemylasers (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "Firemylasers", and welcome to Misplaced Pages. I'm glad you decided to create an account and somehow found your way here on your very fist edit. The HR 933 section exists because each concern has enough content to expand out into its own section. This expansion began with the HR 933 section, which is entirely sourced to material about the source and not the GMO debate in general. Again, welcome to Misplaced Pages, and congratulations on finding this talk page on your very first edit! Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for HR 933 to have expanded information when said information is not relevant to the overall purpose of this article, is a single opinion piece, and has no counterbalance. Furthermore I'm interested in hearing your reasoning as to why just one of the five listed concerns on this article has it's own little subsection but none of the others has one? Also, isn't neutrality supposed to be the main focus of Misplaced Pages articles? I don't see why WP:FRINGE theories should even be given that much attention in the first place, given how claim #1 goes against the scientific consensus, claim #2 is a conspiracy theory, claim #3 has no substantial evidence behind it, claim #4 goes against the scientific consensus, and claim #5 seems to be a misinterpretation of HR 933's purpose. To be clear, I am not contesting listing the stated concerns of the group, I am contesting your attempt to promote WP:FRINGE theories in this article. Firemylasers (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have answered all of these questions already, so I'm curious why you are asking them again. This behavior seems somewhat "familiar". Again, welcome to Misplaced Pages. I am so glad you chose this talk page for your first ever edits. Here are the answers once again to your questions in bullet form. Let me know if you have any further questions:

• The information is sourced to RT, Fox Business Network, and The Huffington Post. Many other sources are available to add or to reference. It is not a single opinion piece as you claim, and the sources indicate its relevance. Have you bothered to look at the sources?
• All five concerns should be expanded into subsections. This is only the first.
• For a new user you sure seem to know a lot about the names of our policies and guidelines! Could you point out the exact wording of our WP:NPOV policy you claim this violates? Please do the same for the WP:FRINGE guideline.
• The concerns about HR 933 are not a "fringe" theory.
• The other concerns raised by the protesters and supported by WP:V also do not fall under any "fringe" guidelines.
• The statement that protesters had "conncerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health" does not go "against" any "scientific consensus". As Misplaced Pages editors, we cite reliable sources for claims made by claimants. These claims are reflected by the preponderance of sources. Even if these concerns did go against some kind of consensus, we would still cite them as they are the foundation of the topic and attributed to the protesters.
• The "allegations of a conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration" is not a conspiracy theory in any way, and there are literally hundreds of reliable sources about the revolving door in Washington indicating that it is a valid concern. Nevertheless, regardless of its validity, the concern is well supported by the sources. Your claim that concerns about the revolving door in Washington is a "conspiracy" is demonstrably false.
• Whether there is evidence for "concerns about supposed economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply" is not relevant. It is still a valid concern cited by the protesters and easy to verify. As an aside, there is evidence, particularly legal evidence cited in patent litigation cases. IIRC, Dan Ravicher and the Public Patent Foundation documented this evidence in their case against Monsanto.
• Regarding "concerns about GMOs and the declining bee population", this is supported by the sources. Whether it is "true" or not, has no bearing on including these concerns.
• I've already addressed the "concerns about legislation like Section 735 of HR 933". I do not see how this stated concern misinterprets its purpose.
• Finally, you say you are not contesting listing the concerns, you say you are contesting an "attempt to promote fringe theories". However, I do not see the promotion of any fringe theories in this article at all. As a new user, you may not be aware of how WP:FRINGE is used or applied. As I already requested, please quote the part of that guideline that you claim this article violates.

I hope that addresses your concerns. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware as to what you are referring to as familiar. I reviewed the page archives and did not notice satisfactory resolution of the ongoing concerns over this article's neutrality and the fringe claims supported by it.

• The HR 933 source is an activist's claims, not a factual documenting of facts. It is biased, not neutral, and seems out of place. The quote "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment" in particular seems rather out of place in a section that is supposably on HR 933, and the statement "Murphy also took politicians to task" also seems to be worded oddly (shouldn't it be phrased "Murphy criticized politicians"?). To be clear here I am referring to what is currently reference number twenty-three. This opinion piece's quotes are used for most of the text in this HR 933 subsection.
• Again, why do we need to expand into WP:FRINGE and give Murphy a soapbox when we could simply list the concerns the activists stated? I don't see how this in any way makes sense.
• Furthermore, why are the other sections being expanded? For the same reasons as this one (see above), I don't see why we should go into detail on WP:FRINGE claims in an article about a single event.
• For WP:NPOV, I believe that quoting a single activist isn't considered neutral at all in this context. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but aren't even concern sections supposed to be fairly neutral, not a soapbox for activists? At the very least shouldn't the HR 933 section contain a summary of the concerns stated by the protestors? As it stands now it's hardly informative, with the exception of the first sentence.
• Are you disputing the fact that there is a broad scientific consensus, supported by the vast majority of reputable scientific organizations, that genetically engineered foods are safe? This is definitely a fringe claim, and while listing it as a concern isn't fringe, giving it a subsection in a similar fashion to HR 933 definitely is.
• The revolving door is exactly what I'm commenting on. The claim of conflict of interest is made in the absence of evidence. Many ex-industry experts work for the government, and vice versa. Nobody has ever demonstrated an actual conflict of interest. Again, my comment applies to the claim as a whole, I am simply saying that such a view is indeed fringe.
• Assuming you are referring to the OSGATA case, you should take another look at the case before making those claims. The case in fact established quite clearly that the claims made by the farmers were false.
• The claims relating to GMOs and bees are demonstrably false, a fact which can be quite easily proven with a review of the literature. This meta-analysis of twenty-five studies proves this point quite clearly:
• As for WP:FRINGE, most claims fall under , and some fall under .

To sum up my concerns... I think that the HR 933 subsection is currently a soapbox, I think that subsections for each of the claims clashes with what this article should be covering, and I think that based on what HR 933 looks like right now, any further subsections will be even worse. I am also interested in knowing why you have acted so hostile towards every attempt to change the article from what you appear to think is correct. Firemylasers (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Virtually every point you've made up above has been repeated dozens of times in our discussions and addressed dozens of times. You also refused to specifically address my points, instead pointing me to links which you assure me address my points. That's not acceptable. For this reason, I am now going to ask you to choose one and only point from the above and address only that one point. When that one point is addressed we can then move on to the next one. Otherwise, this is devolving into trivial objections which is diverting our attention away from improving this article. Again, if you disagree with one thing in this article from your above list, we will address it, one at a time. You are free to take any one of these things from the above list and start a sub thread below about only that one thing. This way, we can address that one thing and move on to the next one. We are not hear to Wikilawyer over policies and guidelines, and for someone who just arrived here after keeping their account dormant for a year, I have to say this is beginning to look quite tiresome. So, only one thing will be discussed here at a time. I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Firemylasers, it would be easier if you would pick one issue and discuss only that one issue. Then, we can move on to other issues. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many issues to address though, and the ones I've been attempting to discuss are mostly related. Firemylasers (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Except, in order to have a productive discussion that addresses all of the issues in a comprehensive manner, it is important and necessary to discuss only one issue at a time. I specifically made this request, and you explicitly rejected it. Are you interested in actually resolving these issues? You didn't answer my questions nor did you specifically address them in your response. This is precisely why I said we must address them one at a time. Now, please choose the most important point you wish to make from the above and raise it below. Just one point. When that point is resolved, we will move on to the next one. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you may wish to remember that you do not own the article, the talk page, or Misplaced Pages guidelines on consensus and sources. Demanding that everyone else follow your rules is unlikely to encourage others to tolerate your behavior, which I observe is of exactly the sort that often leads to topic bans or worse. Speaking for myself only, I wouldn't want to lose your valuable point of view on this article, so please review and adjust your behavior ASAP. Best wishes, SpectraValor (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, new user "Firemylasers" did not respond directly to this discussion, and instead of sticking to the topic he chose ("HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased") he branched out into many different topics making it impossible to resolve his initial concerns. Best practice on Misplaced Pages is to to address one topic, resolve it, and move on. This has nothing to do with "ownership" at all, this has to do with how we use talk pages. The user himself started this thread to talk specifically about HR 933, yet when his points were directly addressed by myself, he partly abandoned that subject and began talking about other subjects. Sorry, but we can't use the discussion page constructively in that kind of atmosphere. Asking an editor to stick to their chosen topic of the thread appears to be reasonable, not out of the ordinary as you are making it out to be here. 00:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 00:28, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

HR 933 source

The HR 933 source is an activist's claims, not a factual documenting of facts. It is biased, not neutral, and seems out of place. The quote "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment" in particular seems rather out of place in a section that is supposably on HR 933, and the statement "Murphy also took politicians to task" also seems to be worded oddly (shouldn't it be phrased "Murphy criticized politicians"?). To be clear here I am referring to what is currently reference number twenty-three. This opinion piece's quotes are used for most of the text in this HR 933 subsection.

I'm sorry, but you need to be specific. What source is what activist's claims? Please use names the next time you participate in this discussion. I will assume you are referring to Murphy. How is a quote about a response to HR 933 out of place in a section about HR 933? The section in question establishes the following facts supported by reliable sources:

• Protesters are critical of Monsanto's influence on the United States Government.
• Protesters criticized HR 933 as an example of this influence.
• One critic, Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, called the controversy over HR 933 a touchstone on this issue.
• Murphy called the March Against Monsanto an important protest to address the issue of HR 933.
• Murphy further criticized what contributed to HR 933, namely the relationship of Monsanto and the revolving door in Washington.

So, what is the problem with these facts and how they are used in this article? Note, the word "facts" here does not mean they are true, it means we can verify that sources said these things in reliable sources. I believe I have adequately addressed your concerns with how we represent "facts" and the issue with relevance you have raised. We can, of course, further break this down by looking at the actual sources, which is what I recommend. Additionally, we have secondary sources establishing that Murphy is a recognized critic on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is exactly what you would oppose if editors with a different perceived POV were to use the same technique: you're conducting synthesis. SpectraValor (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is no semblance of "synthesis" here at all, and if there were, you would be able to specifically point to it. The fact that you can't, and the fact that the cited sources above and in the current article specifically discuss this content in the terms of the topic of the March Against Monsanto, shows demonstrably that the sources are used appropriately and in line with policy. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for merge?

I am totally unclear why this change was made by Tryptofish. I hope he will take me by the hand and walk me through it. Previously, the section said the following:

Section 735 of H.R. 933, formally known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013, two months before the March Against Monsanto. Called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by critics, Boston magazine reported that the bill "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". Protesters critical of Monsanto's influence on the United States Government, argued that the bill allows Monsanto to ignore court rulings and permits planting of GE crops even if they are shown to be unsafe. On the day of the protests, WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida, reported that protesters were "asking for a repeal of certain provisions in the recent bill nicknamed the 'Monsanto Protection Act' that could allow seeds deemed unsafe to be planted, despite legal action."

Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, called the controversy over H.R. 933 "the turning point in the debate on political lobbying and genetic engineering in the U.S." and he described the March Against Monsanto as "one of the most pressing issues of our time". According to Murphy, "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment". Murphy also took politicians to task, saying that "elected officials at the highest levels have become accomplices to the ultimate corruption in the writing of our nation's laws."

Now, for some unknown reason, the section was merged into a bullet point (terrible practice and highly discouraged) that reads:

Concerns about legislation like Section 735 of HR 933, formally known as the Farmer Assurance Provision but called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by critics, which prevents the U.S. court system from intervening to stop the sale of GMOs. Boston Magazine reported that the bill "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". On the day of the protests, WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida, reported that protesters were calling for the bill's repeal. Protesters argued that the legislation allows Monsanto to ignore court rulings and permits planting of genetically engineered crops even if they are shown to be unsafe. Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, called the controversy over H.R. 933 "the turning point in the debate on political lobbying and genetic engineering in the U.S." and, calling the March Against Monsanto "inspiring", he described the "march to stop Monsanto" as "one of the most pressing issues of our time".

I am at a loss understanding these changes. First of all, why was this concern demoted from a section? All of the concerns have enough material for their own sections. Second of all, why was the background material about Obama signing the bill removed? This appears in multiple sources about the bill and the march and is an important part of the narrative. In the two months between the time Obama signed the bill and the time that the march ocurred, the protests gained steam. According to the sources, the protesters were very upset about the president signing this bill. Again, why was this removed? Third of all, why was Murphy's criticism of politicians removed? Murphy is recognized by the mainstream media as one of the primary critics of Monsanto's relationship with the government, and appears in sources about the march. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The comments at #HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased, above, drew my attention to the issue. Other editors had deleted even more of the section, and I thought at the time that I was actually adding material back. For example, I tried to restore material that you had added (Boston Magazine and the Tampa TV station), and I was actually adding back material about Murphy. So, why did I change it from a section to a bullet point? It was because of the discussion above. It's not as simple as any possible MOS concerns about "terrible practice and highly discouraged". (The bullet point format was here before I came to this page. But I'd be OK with changing all the bullet points into paragraph(s).) We also have to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. We already have a page about the Farmer Assurance Provision, so that's the main page for all the issues about it. What about the Obama signing timeline? That's a valid point that hadn't occurred to me. I'd be in favor of putting it back, but it should probably be in the background section instead, because it's a time sequence before the March. Now about Murphy. I went back and read the source carefully before making those changes. The page previously said that Murphy had written that the March Against Monsanto was "one of the most pressing issues of our time." Actually, that's not what he said in the source, and the sentence was WP:SYNTH. He wrote on the occasion of the March, and discussed the March among other protests. That sentence was about protests against Monsanto and GMOs generally, not limited to the March. So I corrected it, and added that he specifically called the March itself "inspiring". We can't go beyond what he actually said. The part that I left out was: "According to Murphy, "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment". Murphy also took politicians to task, saying that "elected officials at the highest levels have become accomplices to the ultimate corruption in the writing of our nation's laws." That wasn't about the March. It was a coatrack about the broader issues. If Canal or someone who organized the March had said it, I'd favor including it. But it was too much to include every anti-Monsanto argument that has ever been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You say it seemed biased, but I don't see any bias. The sources showed the timeline of the president signing the bill, the protesters getting more upset and demonstrating against his signing, and the protesters noting their anger at the march. Since you agree to allow for the Obama narrative to be added back, I suppose I can plan on that. The page previously said that Murphy described the March Against Monsanto as "one of the most pressing issues of our time". You deny that he was referring to the March Against Monsanto, and you claim that he was referring to some "other protests" and that this was synthesis. I'm sorry, but that kind of interpretation is just absurd.

The entire article by Murphy is focused on and about the March Against Monsanto, and it was written several days after the March occurred, and the theme of the entire article is composed around...the March Against Monsanto! The header shows that it is tagged under the topic of the "March Against Monsanto", not any other protest. The introductory statement, "The march to stop Monsanto is one of the most pressing issues of our time" refers directly and explicitly to the March Against Monsanto. Since this is the entire theme of the piece, it is full of connecting, thematic statements linking the March Against Monsanto, and Murphy checks off each and every one of the protest points listed on the March Against Monsanto website. He connects this theme with phrases like "millions of outraged citizens" and specifically notes that "this weekend, thousands of people across the world are gathering in towns and cities" and "this weekend, thousands of everyday citizens joined together in more than 400 cities across the globe at an inspiring March Against Monsanto". The only march he is talking about is the March Against Monsanto. For you to actually argue that he is referring to some other march is demonstrably false. There is no other march under discussion. And there is no "synthesis" of any kind. In this piece, Murphy is speaking for the entire movement and reading off their list of concerns. It really doesn't get any more clear than this.

As for the critique by Murphy, a widely published critic of Monsanto published in mainstream sources about this subject, he proceeds to explain why the March Against Monsanto is so important in the context of HR 933, and his criticism of elected officials nicely encapsulates the criticism by the protesters. For some reason that I do not understand, you say this is a coatrack of "broader" issues. But there are no broader issues under discussion. This is the exact criticism voiced by the protesters in the context of the bill, justifying the reason for the March Against Monsanto. When Murphy says Monsanto represents "the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment" and when he says that "elected officials at the highest levels have become accomplices to the ultimate corruption in the writing of our nation's laws," he is repeating the concerns made by the March Against Monsanto movement.

For some strange reason, you claim this is not about the March, but a coatrack. Well the evidence shows that you are wrong. The movement is on record (on their website and in multiple publications) claiming that the reason they march is to protect the food supply, support local farmers, spread awareness about the danger of GMOs, promote organic solutions, expose cronyism between big business and the government, and to bring accountability to those responsible for the corruption. That's the words of the movement. They are not a coatrack, and they are not broader issues. They are the issues.

I am certainly open to compromise regarding the quotes, so I don't see this as a major dispute, but I am concerned that each and every time I create a section to expand this material, someone like yourself interferes and removes the section for no reason. Again, I am in the process of expanding this topic. That means each bullet point will become a separate section and the bullets themselves will be merged into an introductory paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"You say it seemed biased": At first, I didn't understand why you said that, but then I saw that the blue link I used to link to the earlier discussion includes that word. The belief that it was biased is that of the editor who created that section header. I don't see bias as being a major issue in this case. When I said that my attention was drawn to the issue by that earlier discussion, I meant the discussion itself, not the section header. Yes, I agree with you that the Obama timeline is something that the page should cover, and I simply had not thought about that until you pointed it out to me, but please remember that I think the best place to add it back is in the background section.

"Murphy is speaking for the entire movement": My reading of the source was that he was indeed writing about the entire movement of people who have criticisms of Monsanto and GMOs, and not just the March itself. You make it very clear that you read the source as Murphy writing only about the March. Part of what bothers me about the "he described the March Against Monsanto as 'one of the most pressing issues of our time'" construction is that it takes his wording from within a sentence that, in my reading, is talking about a broader movement, and in a somewhat promotional way makes the role of the March more central than what Murphy actually says in the source, so I tried to correct that. We've both commented at length about it, and we clearly see it in opposite ways, so let's see what other editors think about it.

"This is the exact criticism voiced by the protesters in the context of the bill." Perhaps we should source those criticisms more directly to the protesters themselves. Can we get that from news accounts of the protest? The problem with those passages, at least as they were presented on the page, was that it was a person writing an individual opinion piece and not, apparently, speaking in any kind of spokesperson role (cf Canal), talking in general about the controversy. It sounded like a commentary after the protest, not part of the protest. And we still do have main pages on the legislation and the controversies about it, so I do think WP:Summary style properly applies.

"...someone like yourself interferes and removes the section for no reason": Please explain what you mean by someone like me. In what way are other editors like me, or I like other editors? Myself, I have provided clear reasons for my edits; just see what I wrote here. You can certainly disagree with reasons, but that doesn't mean that the reasons didn't exist. Remember, I said that I actually thought that I was adding back material that you had originally contributed and other editors had deleted.

At this point, I hope that other editors besides Viriditas and me will read the Murphy source, , and offer additional views about what the source does and does not say, in order that the two of us don't just get into an impasse. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Someone like yourself" means "any user who edits this article". The Obama content belongs in a section about the bill, not in another section. As for the quote, I can't see how it could be a coatrack when it directly addresses the primary concerns voiced by the movement. And I'm surprised you are still maintaining the strange position that the "march" Murphy refers to is a different march than the March Against Monsanto when it is the only march under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Any user who edits this article": If you feel that everyone else except you who edits this article "interferes" and "removes for no reason", well, I can agree with you that sometimes other editors are just being clueless, but I have trouble believing that it's everyone, or that it includes me. Maybe what you call "interference" is just the normal editing process, and not everyone has the same opinions as you. As for the rest of what you said, you disagree with me and I disagree with you, and neither one of us has a consensus until we hear from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth and tell me how I feel. You seem to be more interested in speculating about my psychological frame of mind than addressing my point about your strange "coatrack" claims. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting you directly. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR version for other editors

The source we are discussing is: . Please take a look at it. And please offer advice about the two versions of text for the page, quoted above (or maybe an alternative third approach). Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is someone calling this a source?!?! It is a rant by one of the participants.

And the shortened version is much better and much less biased. As an example, for me the previous version failed the "bogus badly biased" test when it was a soapbox for a description of the law via. it's effect on an implausible hand-crafted hypothetical situation instead of a straightforward description. North8000 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure, but you (and possibly others) appear to be using the word "bias" in a way that we don't use it on Misplaced Pages. The "bias" of Murphy isn't under discussion here or anywhere else, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Therefore, your argument for a "shortened" version isn't persuasive. As I have already said, I'm working on expanding this section, not shortening it, because we have a wealth of material to discuss. Again, I "get" the fact that you and others are ideologically opposed to the existence of this article. But please, don't come here to argue for deleting material based on IDONTLIKEIT arguments. When we attribute a quote, we aren't dealing with "bias", we are dealing with issues of relevancy, significance, and timeliness, all if which this source meets and exceeds. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

North can answer better than I could, but it sounded to me like he thinks the writing about it, on Misplaced Pages, came across to him as biased (him, not me). And I also can't speak for him about being "ideologically opposed to the existence of this article", but that's certainly not my motivation in any of this. If there were an AfD today, I'd be arguing for keep, because the subject clearly is notable and encyclopedic, but I'm arguing here for what I believe makes for the best quality page on the subject. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I have bad intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, North believes the source isn't reliable. We need to cross that bridge first. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a few follow-up questions to North or to anyone else who might be able to resolve the impasse between Viriditas and myself.

1. Setting "shortening" aside for the moment, are the extra sentences quoting from Murphy in the longer version due weight for this particular page?
2. And, in the language about what Murphy said about the March itself, which of the two versions is more accurate with respect to the source material? --Tryptofish (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution: "as" --> "as raising"_"as_raising"-TL;DR_version_for_other_editors-2013-07-26T21:29:00.000Z">

I got an idea. Viriditas would like to say, in part:

"and he described the March Against Monsanto as "one of the most pressing issues of our time"."

I wanted to change that part to:

"and, calling the March Against Monsanto "inspiring", he described the "march to stop Monsanto" as "one of the most pressing issues of our time"."

But my idea, instead is to write:

"and he described the March Against Monsanto as raising "one of the most pressing issues of our time"."

First of all, that's more linguistically correct. The March is a march, a protest, or a movement, but it isn't an "issue". And there's no WP:SYNTH in writing that he said that it raised such an issue, as opposed to singling it out from amongst all the related protests within the broad movement. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)_"as_raising""> _"as_raising"">

Seems like a trivial objection to me. I'm not really concerned with minor changes like that, and we've got much bigger disputes to deal with here. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it ends up being a rather trivial change from the language for which you advocated, and more of a change from the language that I previously advocated. Given that I'm fine with it, instead of what I was advocating before, at least it's one specific thing where you and I may have found wording to which both of us can agree. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The HR 933 signing timeline

Above, one of the things Viriditas and I discussed was content about President Obama signing this legislation. Viriditas pointed out that this sequence of events played a significant role in motivating the March, and I was persuaded by that argument and agreed with him. I suggested putting it back on the page, as part of the background to the March. Viriditas said: "Since you agree to allow for the Obama narrative to be added back, I suppose I can plan on that" and "The Obama content belongs in a section about the bill, not in another section."

I'm thinking about ways to avoid having more editorial conflicts after the page protection is lifted, so I want to make a recommendation. The background section of the page currently has a section about California Proposition 37. I recommend expanding that section to be either "California Proposition 37 and HR 933" or "Legislation" or some variation of those titles. I'm saying this because I think it can avoid the concerns of other editors that a standalone section on HR 933 (about which we already have a main page, covering the controversies about it) would be WP:COATRACK, whereas placing it, accurately, as one of the factors that gave rise to the March would be self-explanatory. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because the Obama information concerns HR 933, which is one of the primary concerns voiced by the protesters. And these concerns are entirely separate on the timeline from prop 37. There is absolutely no coatrack here, and I've already addressed this point, so imagine my surprise to find you repeating it yet again. The section directly addresses the primary concerns voiced by the movement. It is not tangential, anciallary, or about a different subject. The movement is on record claiming that the reason they march is to "expose cronyism between big business and the government, and to bring accountability to those responsible for the corruption" in the context of HR 933. This is clear and easy to understand and the sources support it. There is nothing "coatrack"-like about covering the Farmer Assurance Provision in its own section. I should also add, that I am very flexible when it comes to alternate layouts and structures that improve the coverage of the topic. It sounds like you have a nascent idea for this structure, and I may be more open to it if you could discuss it further and if you can show me that it is an improvement. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we need more input from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section

Above, Viriditas criticized me for combining the material about Dave Murphy's commentary into the last bullet point of the Concerns section of the page. (Currently, that section is formatted entirely as a bullet list.) Viriditas described bullet points as "terrible practice and highly discouraged", and I said that I would have no objection to changing the format into regular paragraphs. Viriditas then said: "I am concerned that each and every time I create a section to expand this material, someone like yourself interferes and removes the section for no reason. Again, I am in the process of expanding this topic. That means each bullet point will become a separate section and the bullets themselves will be merged into an introductory paragraph."

Well, again, I am thinking about how we can try to avoid further editorial conflicts after the page protection is lifted. My advice is to avoid making the expanded concerns what several editors here have considered to be a WP:QUOTEFARM. Therefore, consistent with previous talk at #Regarding quotations and near the bottom of #Removec RFC on Genetically Modified Organisms, I suggest using a reasonable number of direct quotes from the organizers or official spokespersons of the March, but avoiding quoting people who were simply commenting about the March and the associated issues. I also think we should, wherever possible, source the "concerns" to reports about the March in the news media, rather than to commentators. There appear to be news reports along the lines of protesters said that they were concerned about..., etc. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Concerns" section and fringe-ness

1) Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health 2) Allegations of a conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 3) Losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply 4) Concerns about GMOs and the declining bee population 5) Concerns about legislation like Section 735 of HR 933,

Of these 5 concerns, 1) and 4) are "concerns" about matters that science has a clear consensus on (GM food is as safe as conventional; GMOs are not involved in bee collapse). 2) and 5) are easy to show conflict of interest on. 3) is based on economic ignorance, the way it is stated, and lacks any "softener" like "concerns" or "allegations". The description of 5) is not an accurate description of the law.

The section is led with " According to the group, the protests were held to address supposed health and safety issues, perceived conflicts of interest, and agricultural, environmental, and legislative concerns. These include"

With the framework of that paragraph, I ~think~ it is OK for there to be FRINGE stuff, like 1) and 4), especially since they are not being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice (with footnotes, etc, as if they were valid concerns). Like I said, I think 2) and 5) are OK, but the description of 5) is not OK because it is a) not accurate, and b) stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. It would be OK if it were greatly truncated and just said "concerns about legislation like the "Monsanto Protection Act". And 3) needs "concerns about supposed" or something.

I am making those 2 changes - -shortening 5) and added words in front of 3). Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just quick extra note -- outside of adhering to WP:FRINGE with regard to science (and as I wrote above I ~think~ we are OK, with all the framing that has been done), going into depth and backing up the protesters' arguments with reliable sources is not what Misplaced Pages is for. We just name their concerns. Neutrally.Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and when covering an "international grassroots movement," we should be able to do better than a Colorado tabloid or a politically slanted Russian online "news" source or a Falun Gong organ from someone's basement for sources. SpectraValor (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources are entirely fine and adequate, and not a single one has questioned its standing as an "international grassroots movement". Furthermore, all of these things have been repeated in multiple sources and you have no basis for removing or changing them. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good argument. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing fringe about any of these statements, and this has been previously discussed extensively in previous discussions now found in the archives. These concerns are all adequately sourced to reliable sources about the subject. There is nothing whatsoever in our WP:FRINGE guideline that addresses these concerns in any way shape or form, and it appears you are misusing this guideline. What we are dealing with here is WP:V, a policy that trumps your misinterpretation of a guideline. Jytdog, you didn't come here to discuss your proposed changes, you came here to say "I am making those changes" and argued it's your way or the highway. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. All five concerns are solidly sourced and verifiable. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And unless the scientific reality is addressed on those claims, the article violates the fringe theories guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The concerns of the protesters are cited by the reliable sources. What part of the "scientific reality" do you claim has not been addressed? Be specific. Viriditas (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of maintenance tags

I've removed both the "fringe" and the "undue" tag as they appear to be placed for no reason whatsoever. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have readded them due to discussion above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What discussion? Do you even know what a "discussion" is? You added the tags for absolutely no reason. Stop doing that. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion occurs when various contributors carefully consider the issues. A discussion is not a single editor making demands of every other editor and making up rules as she or he goes along. I don't see that any consensus has emerged for removal of the tags, and I for one will oppose the removal until that happens. Viriditas is in danger of violating the spirit of ] if this continues, and I am losing patience with this kind of editing. SpectraValor (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion has occurred, many times now, and each time Thargor receieved no consensus for his addition of tags. This discussion from June shows that to be true. The fact is, Thargor does not care about consensus, and he never has. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ReasonTV

I temporarily removed the ReasonTV source as it was used poorly in the article in a way that removed paraphrasing and added back in closely copied and worded content from AP. According to our article on Reason, "ReasonTV is a website affiliated with Reason magazine that produces short-form documentaries and video editorials." Further, according to the site itself, the video editorial was funded by the Reason Foundation, a "right-libertarian research organization that...produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values."

The Reason Foundation, along with Monsanto, is allegedly a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose advisers have been directly employed by the Reason Foundation. This would mean that ALEC was receiving money from Monsanto while employees of the Reason Foundation were acting as advisers and directors for ALEC. According to our article on ALEC, journalist John Nichols says that "legislation authored by ALEC has as a goal, 'the advancement of an agenda that seems to be dictated at almost every turn by multinational corporations." So, it does not appear to be a stretch to say that ReasonTV is not a neutral source.

Several problems with this. First of all, when we use a source like this, we have to use it carefully. Second of all, the link to the ReasonTV is a video editorial, and the opinion cited is commentary. The only attribution we have is to Sharif Matar, the writer, director, and editor of the video. The content in question is merely an editorial blurb for the video, not actual content we can use. The blurb reads:

Despite a growing consensus from major scientific organizations that there is no harm associated with GMOs, those that turned out remained firm in their belief that genetically engineered food is dangerous and rejected contrary views as "lies" or simply the product of scientists bought off by the industry.

Please note how this editorial contrasts with the more neutral AP source:

The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.

Which is, more or less, what our article says. The AP source also remains neutral in their coverage of the protesters. An example:

Across the country in Orlando, about 800 people gathered with signs, pamphlets and speeches in front of City Hall. Maryann Wilson of Clermont, Fla., said she learned about Monsanto and genetically modified food by watching documentaries on YouTube..."Scientists are saying that because they create their own seeds, they are harming the bees," Wilson told the Orlando Sentinel. "That is about as personal as it gets for me."

So right away, we see that some editors contributing to this article do not understand the difference between a neutral news source and an editorial blurb from the libertarian ReasonTV, a news source indirectly connected to Monsanto through ALEC. While I have no doubt that we can use this somewhere in our article, the way it is currently being misused to state an editorial opinion as fact is not the way to go. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Reason.TV is a highly reliable extension of Reason (magazine). It is as reliable as anything else here, and asserts the scientific consensus as well as relates it to the March. That's what the source uses it for, it's reliable, and it's added back in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

IDHT much? I just explained to you that it is a not a neutral news source like the AP source in use but a video editorial. In other words, it is an opinion piece that you misused by failing to attribute it correctly and citing it as a fact. It's also tarred by a possible COI as outlined Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a neutral source, merely a reliable one. Which it is. Russia Today and The Grist aren't "neutral" either, you just dislike the fact that there's reliable sourcing that asserts the scientific facts against the fringe viewpoints you continue to add to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, I just finished explaining the problems with this source and how you used it. If you don't understand this problem, then simply say so, but we don't cite editorials as fact, we attribute. Since we already have a neutral reading of the background from the AP, why are you trying to insert an editorial here? And, I'm not convinced this is a reliable source. You should take it to the RS noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "neutral reading" does not include the scientific consensus language, and you were complaining about original research, so I found you a source that contrasts the fringe viewpoints of the March with the scientific consensus. Don't fight me, thank me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted that source, and replaced it with better ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and he'll probably remove them again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, you are being dishonest. On your talk page you have admitted that you did not cite ReasonTV's video editorial. You cited a blurb about their editorial video written by its creator. That is not a source, nor is it even reliable! That's like citing an advertisement. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure it is. It's published by a reliable source with editorial standards and controls. It's the textbook definition of such, and is no more or less biased than any number of sources being used in this article for various claims. It's quite basic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is questionable whether or not it is reliable, so I recommend you take your concerns to the reliable source noticeboard to get an outside opinion. The source itself is an editorial published by the Reason Foundation who appears to have a conflict of interest with stories about Monsanto based on the fact that advisers and directors from the Reason Foundation were working with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which was receiving funding from Monsanto. Based on this evidence, I would argue that its reliability is in question. And as an opinion piece, it needs to be used very carefully, and certainly not in the context of any scientific claims. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it (ironic) doesn't make it questionable. If you have an issue with the source, feel free to raise it at the RSN. I'm confident that it's a perfectly good source, much like many of the other ideological sources already in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted that source, and replaced it with better ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues

Rather than getting better, this article has been pushed deeper into being a soapbox / coatrack / trojan horse for the anti-GMO side of the GMO debate. This needs fixing. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My thought would be for a neutral or semi-neutral person (maybe Tryptofish who I often disagree with and always immensely respect) to blaze through this and cut the whole thing down to coverage of the article topic. Also so that the amount of anti-GMO talking points / material that still ended up in there would be balanced by coverage of the pro-GMO material. And consensus would give them enough support to prevent a mass undoing of their work or that process, although it could still be edited. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, although I'm not claiming any special status here, of course. I have just gone through the page as a whole. I'm also going to leave a message at Viriditas' user talk (now reverted --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)). Here is what I have done, for now:

1. I (and another editor just before me) have reverted a significant portion of Viriditas's most recent edits. However, I have not reverted all of them, and I actually restored some of the edits that Viriditas had made.
2. I agree with Viriditas that there is nothing helpful about the fringe and undue tags, and I have removed them. Of course, anyone concerned about fringe or undue issues can discuss that here in talk. Please "use your words" instead of placing tags.
3. I agree with Viriditas about adding the further reading entry.
4. I agree with Viriditas about adding sourcing to the concerns section, from Boston Magazine and the Tampa TV station.
5. I agree with Jytdog about the better wording about scientific consensus. I altered his wording about the possible economic losses by farmers. I disagree with his complete removal of what Dave Murphy said, because some of it was specifically about the March. What I've left from Murphy is an accurate representation of what Murphy actually said and did not say, but I've left out things he said that were not directly related to the March.
6. I've made some fixes to the lead language about the number of cities.
7. About the scientific consensus, I've left the Reason source, pending discussion, but I've also added most of the recently-deleted sources from mainstream scientific reliable sources, because they speak directly to that scientific consensus. I've read the talk archives. I've read, over and over again, Viriditas' angry shouts that the sources violate WP:NOR. I know what WP:NOR says. But nobody has provided a logical explanation of why citing those sources violates WP:NOR, and I'm pretty convinced that no such explanation really exists.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I've deleted the Reason source. There are concerns about it, and we don't need it, with the other more-scientific ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with North8000. This article has become a soapbox for the anti GM debate. It is about a march not GM food. I have tried editing but it has all been reverted. THis is becoming a serious problem on WP, wher pressure groups turn articles into soapboxes. I have given my view on how this article should be organised above but this has been largely ignored. WP is in danger of losing its authority if this continues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, it's not worth getting all worked up about. I'm not upset. And I don't think this is the apocalypse for Misplaced Pages. This is just a run-of-the-mill POV dispute. And I even think that Viriditas is correct about some of the issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not just this article. Many now see WP as a promotional tool for opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true. They always have, and they always will, I suspect. The best one can do is just edit for NPOV as best as one can. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I support and thank you for your work here. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I don understand your latest edits. It looks like you ignored the discussion on this page entirely and just added and changed content for no reason. I suggest you take your proposed additions to the OR noticeboard as I believe they run afoul of our policy. Further, you left in wording that plagiarizes two different sources after I already explained the problem. Viriditas (talk)}

No, I read the discussion on this page very carefully, not ignoring it at all, although I can certainly make mistakes. I had reasons for everything I did, and in fact, I provided, just above, a point-by-point explanation of them. I'm familiar with the OR policy, and I have a track record of making constructive edits. I'm pretty sure that I didn't leave in any plagiarized content, but if there's a mistake we can correct it. I do hope that you'll take to heart what I tried to say (reverted by you) on your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Viriditas, I think that the beginning of this section discusses the process. In a few cases there might a few word sequence from a a source which cites that source which you are calling "plagiarizing" and saying that the remedy is to knock out that material. If one accepts your "stretching it" interpretation, the remedy would be to put quote marks around it. If you indicate which you feel have that problem such would be an easy solution. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

About possible plagiarizing, please see also User talk:Tryptofish#Re: March Against Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be confused. The current version removed the paraphrasing and restored Thargor's plagiarizing of both AP and the editorial by Reason. Is this making sense? Furthermore, please show how the sources you added are both relevant to this topic, reliable, and accurately reflect the content cited. The AP source already did this, but the sources you added do not. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets not keep changing subjects. Which current material are you saying is a plagiarism? North8000 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation you're levying. What's your evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I can make of this. The possible plagiarism discussed on my talk page is fixed in the current version by (1) putting it in quotation marks, and (2) saying in the text (not just the inline citation) that it is from the AP. I've deleted the Reason source, and the language leading into where it had been is a composite of several editors' revisions, the most recent being Jytdog, so I don't see how anything plagiarized from the Reason source could still be on the page. Finally, I've already explained about the sources supporting the scientific consensus section. I explained it once, and, when you (Viriditas) subsequently expressed concerns about it, I copied and pasted what I had previously written once again. If you look above at #Viriditas' assertions of consensus, and find the outdent symbol near the end of that thread, you will see what I said there. Viriditas responded to what I said there by repeating that policy does not allow using sources that are not really about the supported content, out of context, to advance a point that the sources do not make, but I had already explained why the sources are entirely reliable, directly related to the content, directly support it, and not out-of-context, and I had already explained why arguments to the contrary appear to be incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please show me how these sources are directly related to the topic of the "March Against Monsanto". They are not and they don't belong here. Further, I have serious doubts that the sources are reliable and support what you are trying to say. Please cite the content per request according to the principles of WP:V. I've actually previously addressed this last month and I showed that these sources were being misused and were in violation of OR. We write about the topic from sources about the topic, and those on-topic sources already cover the response from the scientific community. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought I already did, but I'll try to do it in more detail. Because of the complex threading of this discussion, I'll make a space for it in #Issues about the science sourcing, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And you've made it impossible for me to respond. I'll have to figure out a way to respond directly to that new thread. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Impossible? Really? All you have to do is to comment there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The fringe tags and the undue weight tags are there because the issues are under discussion and they are flags to readers that the article is in a problematic state. Viriditas believes they're unhelpful because he keeps adding fringe material to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And I keep removing fringe material, or at least making sure that it is presented according to WP:FRINGE, but I agree with Viriditas that the tags have become unhelpful. That's why I removed them. How about you look at what the page says now, and explain here in talk what is fringe or undue now? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There has never at any time been any consensus for Thargor's repeated tagging and this has been discussed extensively in the archives. For only one example; see Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_2#Survey Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, the discussion linked above shows you have never had any support for your tag warring. Never. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect yet again. Please stop warring over tags, fix the article instead or leave it to those of us who want to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the way I read it, too: consensus mostly against the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where that consensus is outside of those who are adding the fringe, poorly-weighted viewpoints to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, in its current form, I'm fine with losing the fringe tag, but if you have your stuff removed, I'm putting it back. The undue weight tag still belongs in the media section, as we're still giving far too much weight to a demonstrably false position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, Holy King of IDHT, you've been repeatedly corrected on this point for over a month. Whether you consider an opinion is true or false is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's entirely relevant. You clearly don't understand the policies or guidelines of this project at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand them quite well and I use them everyday. However, you have invented a new policy that exists only in your head and we can't use it. Nowhere do we have any policy or guidleine that instructs us to remove attributed opinions because we personally feel the person might be wrong. That's something you made up. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Thargor. Let's hope that doesn't become necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked at RFPP that the page be full protected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That could be seen as a convenient and sneaky way of keeping the article locked to your disputed version of the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad too. You did see the part where I restored some of your edits that were reverted by other editors, didn't you? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you made so many accusations about plagiarism, but now won't answer the question. So, again, which material in the article do you consider to be plagiarism? North8000 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This continuing conversation means that the issues have not been resolved satisfactorily, and multiple editors now including me have wanted to keep the tags. I respect what Trypto has to say on this, but I oppose tag removal for now. SpectraValor (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You aren't required to "oppose" its removal, you have to argue for adding it. You've got the burden backwards. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, but what I really hope for is a stop to the constant reverting. Please let me suggest that, if you look at the page at this time, rather than at some of the talk page discussions where editors continue to argue about things that are no longer on the page, you will find that the fringe and undue issues really aren't a problem right now. But, that said, by all means let's discuss whatever needs to be discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like at least one editor is bumping up against WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues about the science sourcing

Above, Viriditas has asked me for a more complete justification of the sources following the scientific consensus statement in the background section about the GMO controversy. I'll try to address each question specifically.

Viriditas asked:

1. "Please show me how these sources are directly related to the topic of the "March Against Monsanto". They are not and they don't belong here."
2. "Further, I have serious doubts that the sources are reliable and support what you are trying to say."

With respect to the first question, I have previously commented on that multiple times. Once again, I will copy-and-paste something that I said, repeatedly, before in this talk:

"The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. ...they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as may be in politics and culture."

Again: if the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. And I've made it clear why.

With respect to the second question, let's look at the sources one-by-one:

1. Editorial statement from the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
2. Report from a council of the American Medical Association, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
3. Information from the World Health Organization, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
4. Report from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, saying in part that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
5. An "other sources" combined list of six peer-reviewed papers from the scientific literature, all compliant with WP:MEDMOS, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.

These are all sources that comply both with WP:RS and WP:MEDMOS. The content that they are cited to support is: "and the scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." It seems to me that WP:BURDEN is amply satisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this is why I introduced the Reason.TV link, as it directly notes the consensus of science in the context of the March. Reason being a reliable publication, this shouldn't be a problem, although I prefer your way (obviously, since I had initially put it in the article similarly some time ago). Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you cited a blurb about a ReasonTV video editorial, not the source itself, and the blurb was written by the editor. It does not note any consensus, it offers an opinion about the consensus. Note, this is entirely different than the neutral wording used by the Associated Press. I have no objections to using this video editorial somewhere in the article, and I've opened a separate thread to discuss it. However, you misused the source, which is why it was removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I support including this essential information. SpectraValor (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you may want to participate in the thread about ReasonTV and not keep duplicating discussions. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, what you, in turn, may want to do is to respond to my detailed reply to you in the opening of this sub-thread. I think that I have responded to everything about these sources that you asked me to respond to. If you do not rebut what I have said, then I think the consensus will be that my analysis is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed your points, several times in fact, in previous discussions. I will certainly address them again when I have free time, but your "analysis" violates are most basic OR policy on topical and relevant material about the subject. Your sources have nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. And, we already had a good secondary source from the AP that did, so your addition did not improve this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have time to make personal attacks all over this talk page, then you have time to explain why you think that I was wrong when I said, over and over again, "if the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can't use off topic sources. That's enshrined in our OR policy. And you failed to quote the material from the sources I asked per V. So, I'm still waiting on your response. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see now that you want an actual verbatim quote, per WP:BURDEN. Let me start with one from the first source on the list. (If we need to, we can go through each of them one-by-one, but I have a feeling that would just be a waste of time.) The first source says: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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.”" OK, that's what the source said. The material we are trying to source is: "and the scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." I think that meets WP:BURDEN. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Saw this from the 3rr message board. This is definitely a fringe theory. I see no problem with the fringe theory tag. All scientific evidence shows that these foods are safe. Arzel (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is no "fringe" theory under discussion in this thread. We are discussing the use and misuse of sources. Please read the discussion before you respond to it. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I (Tryptofish) argue that:

"If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as may be in politics and culture."

Viriditas argues instead:

"Nonsense. You can't use off topic sources. That's enshrined in our OR policy."

The content that we are talking about sourcing is: "and the scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." I think Viriditas and I are at an impasse about that, so it probably comes down to what other editors think is the correct argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really come down to what other editors think, as policy demands we balance out fringe theories with the real-world evidence. We don't have a choice here, and Viriditas is arguing that there are no fringe theories in the article because he actually believes the claims being made by March proponents. The evidence doesn't support it, however, thus the "impasse." No policy requires us to take fringe theories as legitimate arguments. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I care what other editors think, anyway, so please let me ask you: Do you agree with me that, merely because the sources are not about the March, it is not OR to cite those sources about the GMO background? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not OR, no, because we're asserting the scientific consensus of a claim made. We have sources that assert the scientific consensus in the context of the March if that helps head off the OR concerns, but the information about the consensus must be included in some form. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

On the question a couple dozen lines up. Viriditas is essentially making a claim that a non-existent policy exists. Which is that a source can't be used to support some material in an article (or be used in an article) unless the source discusses the topic of the article, and that such a use is "OR". This is not in policy or guidelines (and would be ludicrous) and so the foundation of their argument is faulty and thus so is their argument. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On the "scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." I think that the sentence needs a tweak to avoid being an overreach. I doubt that there is such a statement about ALL GMO foods, including the one just invented in a lab yesterday or the ones yet-to be created. I assume that the sources refer to the ones that are approved or in use. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and that last point is such an excellent one that I'm facepalming for not realizing it sooner! We should, instead, use the near-consensus language from Genetically modified food controversies. But I think the sourcing is OK for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the (probably bogus) criticisms of the sourcing, the last few comments in this discussion make it entirely clear that SpectraValor's edit here: was within consensus and was constructive, and it should not have been reverted. I've restored it, with a few minor tweaks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Media Coverage

One of several reasons I would oppose removal of the tags for now is the section "Media Coverage." Coverage in the media should be self-evident for any notable topic and obvious from the reliable sources. Instead of conveying useful knowledge, the section has become a hatrack for extreme opinions voiced by commentators, not objective journalists. This section has no purpose but soapboxing and should be removed entirely. SpectraValor (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me also say that, no, contrary to the disappointing accusations here, I am one editor of this page who has never received a penny from a biotechnology company. Nor am I a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of any other editor of this page. SpectraValor (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I previously suggested shortening the section, and I want to see if we can find a middle ground in which that becomes the approach that we take. Unfortunately, editors seem to be divided between those who want the section to be full-length, and editors who want it completely removed. Perhaps we could do something like keeping the opening part, about where it was covered, and then have just a sentence or two devoted to the view that the media ignored it, sourced to each of the sources we have now, but without going into extended quotes from each of those commentators. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We had a perfectly good situation earlier where we mapped out some of the coverage, and added "some commentators claimed that the media ignored the coverage" with links to a few of the op-eds. I'm still in favor of that as a middle ground, as opposed to removing the entire section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I wouldn't oppose the suggested shortening rather than complete removal. We should be judicious about the sources used for the op-eds to try to give balance without resorting to having to quote alternative weeklies. Another good addition might be the New York Times article about the march, which concentrated on the economic realities behind opposition to GMOs. SpectraValor (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm not deep enough in here to debate sentence by sentence. So I support a middle of the road highly respected editor like Tryptofish blazing through and getting this thing to the middle without spending a zillion hours on it. I think that Viriditas is at the extreme end of the spectrum here and can't be appeased. Stuff that multiple others oppose we should sat aside for now and more forward in the other areas. 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 00:07, July 24, 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This is the fourth time this thread has been reopened. We have discussed this three previous times:

• Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 3#Media reception
• Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2#Fringe tag
• Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1#Media coverage section

You don't like the answers you get, so you keep reopening the same discussion over and over again until you get the answer you like. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Please review those older discussions and find any unresolved points that you feel need to be addressed, otherwise this is borderline disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

North, I'm respected? Nobody is going to blaze through anything, because the page is full-protected, and that is as it should be. Viriditas, there are 4 editors here in this talk thread so far who support a middle-ground approach that keeps the information about the lack of media coverage, but in a shortened form. You are the single editor so far who opposes any shortening of the media coverage section, so I think the burden is on you to justify having all the quotes at full length, or to just accept the current consensus. I've read the three archive links you provided, and there is, I think, a consensus to remove the undue tag, so I agree with you about that. But there wasn't any consensus against shortening the section. In fact, I took part in the latest of those three discussions, advocated the shortening there, and there was no consensus against it, just a degeneration of the discussion into a tit-for-tat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that I do not support shortening this or any other section. I'm actively involved with expanding and improving this subject, and if anyone wants to do the research alongside me and help, that's great, but nobody here appears willing to do anything but remove material. Sorry, but I think this topic can be expanded to twice, maybe three times its current size and I intend to do that. I don't see how "shortening" this article helps us write a better article, nor do I see any rationale for shortening it. Perhaps you will now explain why this section needs shortening. When you are done, I will reply showing you why it needs to be expanded. You say there are "four editors" here, but I don't really see them doing anything to improve this topic, only disrupting it, over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of those four, and if you say that I'm being disruptive, then you are in violation of WP:NPA. And, actually, those other three editors have done a perfectly good job of explaining the reasons for shortening the quotes. It looks to me like consensus is against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You added in content that has nothing to do with this subject after previous discussions confirmed this wasn't acceptable. Is it disruptive to add OR and to repeatedly shoehorn in off topic material? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall adding any content about media coverage. But I'm in favor of simplifying this section, and I'm in favor of removing the undue tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be productive to get specific about the content. Here is what is on the page now:

1. The first paragraph is about the news sources that did cover the March. I'm in favor of retaining that, and it sounds to me like no one in this discussion section so far disagrees.
2. The second paragraph reports the views of J. Kojo Livingston of The Louisiana Weekly.
3. The third paragraph reports the views of Thom Hartmann.
4. The fourth paragraph reports the views of Joseph Bachman of the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

The question here is how much, if at all, to condense paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. Those paragraphs all deal with views about the mainstream news media being cozy with Monsanto and other business interests, and therefore choosing to underplay their coverage. There is zero sourcing that such a choice has actually been made by the news media, either in the form of the news media stating their reasons for the amount of coverage or in the form of an exposé of their decision-making. Therefore, some editors have been concerned that it is UNDUE to devote three paragraphs to the speculation, although those editors have stated here that they are now willing to retain some of that material as a compromise.

I recommend keeping all three sources, and naming all three commentators by name in the main text. But I don't think that we need all three sets of quotations at a paragraph apiece. We could agree on a summary statement in Misplaced Pages's voice, summarizing the three views, and state that these three commentators have expressed that view. I think that would be enough, and it doesn't underplay or hide anything deserving of due weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I'm seeing the section, it's 25% actual media coverage, and 75% false claims about the media ignoring the march. For balance of truth and verifiability, those numbers should probably be reversed. I don't care how we get there, but I cannot support the section as it's currently constructed, nor can we per policy regarding verifiability or NPOV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

SpectraValor tried to make this edit: , but it was reverted. I think that the edit was consistent with most of the discussion here and was overall an improvement, but maybe the summary of the commentators' comments should be a little fuller. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Is an RFC needed?

I wasn't following this page in the last few days, but now I notice that it has been page-protected for three days due to edit warring over a content dispute. Should a article content Request for Comments be posted to get outside opinions on the content dispute before the page protection expires? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As always, the more eyes the better, but this article is not lacking for input from previously-uninvolved people. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "more eyes" determined that Thargor's repeated tagging of this article went against consensus. However, that has not stopped him from repeatedly adding the tag against consensus. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding things to the article that violate policy, and we won't need to have tags on the article that point out those issues. Yelling loudly doesn't help your case, nor does edit warring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never added anything that violated any policy, nor can you provide a diff showing that I have. Stop making shit up. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your continued introduction of material that promotes the fringe viewpoints of GM food while removing information that deals with the actual scientific consensus. Not to mention the continual accusations that many of us are being paid to edit here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Total and complete nonsense. You can't provide any diffs to support what you are saying because you're making it up as usual. I've introduced material that the preponderance of our reliable sources note as important and I've added more pro-GMO, pro-Science material to this article than you and everyone else combined. You're so entrenched in your erroneous POV and confused by how articles get written that you don't know actually know what we're doing here. I've been writing from both sides of the aisle at all times, but you obviously don't know how to do that. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your editing history at this article speaks for itself. I'm not going to get into a contest with you over who's better or worse. If you keep editing outside of policy, whether it be through revert warring or continued personal attacks, I'm confident it will be dealt with appropriately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you cite a single diff showing a problematic edit? Is it because you are making things up again? Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop the subtle personal attacks and try to work the content issues rather than continuing to focus on the fact that two editors do not like each other. This issue is not ready to go to the ArbCom, but, if it does, the typical ruling by the ArbCom will be some form of topic-ban for certain editors or some form of discretionary sanctions. If you want to continue editing this article, do it politely. By the way, "stop making shit up" is very uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what is and is not a personal attack is completely backwards. Making an accusation over and over again while refusing to support that accusation is a personal attack. Telling someone to "put up or shut up" is not. I hope you are clear on his now. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert, I guess it depends on what question the RfC would ask. I'm the person who went to WP:RFPP to obtain the page protection, and I did it about edit warring. Most of the edit warring has been over adding and reverting two tags about fringe and undue. Personally, I think that, although more eyes are, indeed, always good, the real problem here is editors who are telling one another to "stop making shit up" instead of working towards consensus. WP:RFC/U, maybe? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more issues to this article than simply the tags. It's difficult to build consensus, however, when editors decide that their opposition is funded by outside groups. It's no wonder that we can't come to a conclusion when such bad faith is in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The accusations of bad faith are not new. I first came to this page when it was new, and an IP editor had added a poorly formatted table identifying cities in which the marches were held, and another editor deleted the table as unencyclopedic, and the IP editor went to the Help Desk complaining that the deleting editor must have owned stock in Monsanto. The problem appears to be a combination of content disputes (the tags, for instance) and conduct disputes (the uncivil edits). There are various stages of dispute resolution to be attempted. The least drastic would appear to be formal content Requests for Comments to bring in previously uninvolved editors to address the content issues. That would be less drastic than trying to sanction the uncivil editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The current RFC is untenable and it is not uncivil to demand evidence for an accusation. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your analysis. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what's uncivil is calling your fellow editors "ALEC funded" or implying they're paid shills. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Removec RFC on Genetically Modified Organisms

How much attention should be given in this article to concerns about the safety of Genetically Modified Organisms, a product of Monsanto and a concern of the protesters?

At least in the United States, the mainstream scientific view is that these organisms are safe and that concerns about their safety is fringe science. To what extent should these concerns (by the protesters) be mentioned in order to maintain neutral point of view?

Minimal to none. Advancement of fringe theories does no one any good, and ironically if not for these kinds of seeds it would make growing enough food very difficult. Arzel (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment -- this RfC is confusingly worded. As far as I can tell, the question is not if we need to present the views of the protestors (they're concerned about the safety of genetically modified food) but if FRINGE applies and we also need to include the mainstream scientific view (that genetically modified foods currently on the market are not any more dangerous than conventional food). a13ean (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this unauthorized, inaccurate, and non-neutral RFC that appears designed to contribute to the continued disruption of this topic. Nowhere, and I repeat, nowhere are concerns about the health of safety of GMOs considered "fringe", nor can any single reliable source be found supporting this statement. In fact, we find quite the opposite, namely, many scientists and peer reviewed articles calling for these concerns to be studied and investigated due to a lack of data on the subject. Now, if we want to have a reality-based RFC based on an actual problem that needs to be addressed here and not something that Robert invented, then we need to decide, by consensus, on the wording. The fact remains, we write about what our best sources say, and that's exactly what his article does. Now, please, no more fake RFCs about issues that don't exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended Viriditas, but no reputable scientist still entertains the notion of a "debate" over the health effect of genetically engineered foods. Over the past two decades a very clear consensus has emerged, supported by quite literally hundreds of safety assessments from a wide variety of sources. I find your anti-science stance on this issue quite disappointing. Claims that genetically modified foods are dangerous to human health are the very definition of fringe claims. Your opinion does not trump the mountains of established evidence and statements from organizations ranging from the The National Academy of Science to the European Commission. I am extremely disappointed that you are attempting to censor this RFC because of your fringe views, although I do agree to some extent that this RFC may not be entirely needed at this time. Firemylasers (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not anti-science here or anywhere else, I do not have any "fringe views", and I have not attempted to "censor" anything. User:Robert McClenon, who I have literally never seen before, just showed up to start this RFC about something that is not under discussion. If there's going to be an RFC on anything, it should relate to what the active editors are doing and what they are concerned about. Concerns about food safety are not considered fringe anywhere in the world. That's a flat out lie. Protesters maintain that there are no significant long-term safety studies on human health risks from GMOS, current safety testing fails to assess harm, there is a risk of toxin exposure, and there is a risk of allergic reaction. And, according to protesters, when you don't have labeling laws, people don't know what they are eating so they can't report any problems related to GMOs or avoid them. No "problems" have been reported because there are no labeling laws. According to the claims by protesters, GMOs are not rigorously tested anywhere, there's no approval process except for an entirely voluntary process controlled by Monsanto who tests their own products. Additionally, concerns about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops remain valid and under debate. Concerns about the safety risks of GMOs (or anything else for that matter) are not "fringe" nor are they considered fringe by any reputable source. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"I am not anti-science" - yet you are making anti-science claims.

"I do not have any fringe views" - but your views are the definition of fringe.

I agree to a certain extent about the RFC, but I think that comments on the degree of information that should be included can be helpful.

"Concerns about food safety are not considered fringe anywhere in the world" - incorrect, concerns about food that has been extensively proven to be safe are indeed considered fringe. This is a scientific issue, not an opinion issue, and your claims clash with the evidence.

"Protesters maintain that there are no significant long-term safety studies on human health risks from GMOS" - Protesters seem to be unaware that:

• No actual need for long term studies has ever been demonstrated.
• A handful of long term studies on animals were conducted and found nothing useful.
• Actual human tesing is impractical due to ethical and logistical issues, and has never been performed on any other food production method before.
• And for that matter, no other food production method has had any safety testing performed on it.

"current safety testing fails to assess harm" - The opinions of protestors do not trump the opinions of both major organizations nor the incredible amount of evidence in existence on this subject.

"there is a risk of toxin exposure" - Such claims are not supported by the evidence.

"and there is a risk of allergic reaction" - As with the toxins claim, this claim is not supported by the evidence.

"when you don't have labeling laws, people don't know what they are eating so they can't report any problems related to GMOs or avoid them" - This claim ignores how any "problems" should be easy to reproduce, and given how these particular crops have never been shown to be a health hazard, this is by no means a non-fringe opinion/claim.

"GMOs are not rigorously tested anywhere" - One would wonder what their definition of "rigorously tested" is, and I certainly wonder why this absurd claim is considered credible.

"there's no approval process except for an entirely voluntary process controlled by Monsanto who tests their own products" - This is a severe and intentionally blinded misrepresentation of the current regulatory structure in the US. How is this not a fringe claim?

"Additionally, concerns about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops remain valid and under debate" - There is no reputable evidence behind this claim.

"Concerns about the safety risks of GMOs (or anything else for that matter)" - Ah, so claims that vaccines cause autism are not fringe? Global warming denialism is not fringe? Evolution denialism is not fringe? You seem to be operating off of an entirely different definition than what WP:FRINGE defines.

"nor are they considered fringe by any reputable source" - You seem to have a completely different definition of "reputable source" than what WP:FRINGE#Reliable_sources has. Firemylasers (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources like science reporter Natasha Gilbert, writing for the journal Nature in May 2013 says, "It can be hard to see where scientific evidence ends and dogma and speculation begins...critics question their environmental, social and economic impacts. Researchers, farmers, activists and GM seed companies all stridently promote their views, but the scientific data are often inconclusive or contradictory." Are you now going to claim that the journal Nature is "fringe" too? All of the concerns about GMOs have been made in reliable sources, including scientific journals. In 2012, François Houllier, president of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, called for more "risk–benefit analyses of GM crops" and "more interdisciplinary studies of GM foods, especially on health impacts in animals and humans", yet you say these studies are not needed and it is a "fringe" opinion? Michael Antoniou also called for "the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies" and "when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient." Yet this is a "fringe" opinion? And, the concern about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops, a concern you dismiss with "no reputable evidence behind this claim", actually has solid reputable evidence published in Environmental Sciences Europe, showing that "the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied...The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future." The sweet, delicious irony here, is that it isn't the claims of the protesters that are "fringe", but actually the claims made by Monsanto. Contrary to what they claim, studies show that GMO crops do not increase yields or reduce pesticide use and there are no long-term health studies showing they are safe. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Are you now going to claim that the journal Nature is "fringe" too?" - I think you're completely misinterpreting what Natasha is saying. Have you taken a look at the literature recently?

"François Houllier, president of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, called for more "risk–benefit analyses of GM crops" and "more interdisciplinary studies of GM foods, especially on health impacts in animals and humans"," - Thank you for showing me that let's see, a single person decided that more studies would be beneficial? Great. Now show me how this invalidates the evidence or scientific consensus. Or how it even says anything more than "more studies are always useful". Also note that Houllier has been highly critical of advocacy-driven studies from activists such as Seralini, and that these comments were made in response to Seralini's antics in 2012.

"Michael Antoniou also called for "the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies" and "when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient." Yet this is a "fringe" opinion?" - Michael Antoniou is affiliated with Seralini and CRIIGEN, he is not a reliable nor reputable source, especially with how CRIIGEN is funded and how CRIIGEN has a long history of producing flawed studies.

"And, the concern about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops, a concern you dismiss with "no reputable evidence behind this claim", actually has solid reputable evidence published in Environmental Sciences Europe, showing that "the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied...The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."" - First of all your claim was about health effects, something that Benbrook's paper never attempted to address. Secondly, Benbrook made up statistics to fit his paper. There's a reason it was published in that journal. Not sure what I'm talking about? Read the following links, which address the issues in his two (almost identical) papers in depth:

After you've finished digesting that, read this excellent and very informational post on the subject of weed resistance:

"The sweet, delicious irony here, is that it isn't the claims of the protesters that are "fringe", but actually the claims made by Monsanto." - I think that the irony is that you appear to be incapable of separating good science from bad science.

And on the subject of herbicide use:

"Contrary to what they claim, studies show that GMO crops do not increase yields" - Intrinsic vs overall yields, are you still caught up on that point?

At any rate, here's a good example of yield increases in Bt cotton:

You also seem to have ignored how yield benefits from Bt and RR crops aren't direct and never have been. Put a RR and conventional crop side by side in a weed-free field and you'll see similar yields. Put them side-by-side in a infested field and see which one fares better with the same amount of herbicide use. Hint: It won't be the conventional one. The whole point of Bt and RR is to reduce pressure on the plant from insects (Bt) and weeds (RR when combined with herbicide), not to directly influence yields.

"or reduce pesticide use" - herbicide example: insecticide example:

"and there are no long-term health studies showing they are safe" - False, see below:

Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

At any rate, I leave you with this informative image: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firemylasers (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your wild eyed opinion that any scientist who criticizes Monsanto or GMOs can't be trusted is nonsense. Your claim that I have misunderstood the Nature article is false because I quoted it. Your claim that the Nature article is outdated is false because it is dated May 2013. Your claim that any scientist critical of GMOs or Monsanto shouldn't be trusted is anti-science. Science is a skeptical enterprise. Your so-called "long term study" is nothing but a literature review, which is subject to the same kind of bias found in a meta-analysis, namely the cherry picking of studies which prove the author's point. Further, the study you cited notes many problems with GM soybean research and plays around the concept of what is statistically significant harm. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please also all bear in mind that we already have articles on the subject of GM food and their safety. This article is about 'The March against Monsanto'. Its content should be restricted to that topic. This is not the place to rehearse pro and anti GM views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We should minimize making this a WP:COATRACK for the general GMO debate, but we need to explain the motivations of the marchers, and to put those motivations in context per WP:FRINGE, so a brief summary per WP:Summary Style is appropriate. The underlying issues are being discussed productively at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, we should explain the motivations of the marchers but briefly and in our own encyclopedic language rather than as a series of adversarial quotations. That is exactly what I have suggested above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Back at #Regarding quotations, I had tried to draw a distinction concerning quotes from the people who actually were behind the March, as it is the subject of the page, and I made suggestions about how to avoid making it sound like Misplaced Pages was expressing an opinion about the truth or falsehood of what the quotes claim. I thought that you said that you could work with that. Do you still think we can find a reasonable middle ground about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that we could find some middle ground here. My objection is to editors using WP as a soapbox for their personal opinions, which can be done by careful selection and display of material from reliable sources. The two principles that I believe are relevant here are 'encyclopedic language and style', and 'constraining the content of this article to the march and its background'. Anyone who does not understand what I mean by 'encyclopedic language and style' should go to a library and read some articles from Britannica or Chambers encyclopedias. Alternatively they might look at some of our FAs like Microsoft.

I agree that we must state the background of the march and the motivations of the marchers but but we should not enter into any kind of pro/anti GE food argument here; the reader should be referred to the relevant articles. Do you agree with these general principles? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I do agree and I think that you stated that very well (just so long as we are not precluding a reasonable number of direct quotes from the participants in the March). I think that it's very important right now for editors from a variety of perspectives to try to find a middle ground. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to the lead section

At 00:39, 23 July 2013‎ SpectraValor made a change to the lead section with the edit summary, "This was a largely American and almost exclusively Western march on May 25, 2013". SpectraValor changed the lead section from

supporters participated in marches and rallies that, according to the organizers, took place in 436 cities around the world.

to

supporters participated in marches and rallies that took place in between 330 and 436 cities around the world, mostly in the United States.

To support his changes, SpectraValor cited a news report in The Post and Courier about the march in Charleston, South Carolina. The article says, "The march in Charleston was among 330 going on this weekend in 44 nations. Of those, about 250 marches were held concurrently in the U.S." Other sources in the article have reported that there were 436 cities in 52 countries. In any event, we do not have confirmation that 250 actual marches were held in the United States, nor do we have any source that actually says most of the protests took place in the United States. I will admit that it is likely that the majority of the marches took place in the U.S., but in controversial articles we need to go closely with what the sources say, not with what editors want them to say. The fact that the numbers used by this source differs greatly from other sources makes it even more important that we refrain from unsourced interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of this change in the lead. It is pretty clear that "most" is supported by the text in the article, and it's not synthesis or an unsourced claim (you actually just provided the source, so you shouldn't call it unsourced) that a majority of the marches occurred in the United States. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The summary here overlooks the fact that I subsequently edited that language, to help clarify the issues raised here, so it probably is more helpful to discuss what is on the page now, instead of trying to make a case against an earlier edit that is no longer in effect. Please look at the page now, and see what the footnotes to the sentence now say. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't love that option, to be honest, but I don't feel terribly strongly about it, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Facebook message

For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism...Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world's food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

There is no reason that this initial Facebook message from Canal's group was removed from this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support restoring that material, so long as it is made clear that these are the views of Canal et al. and there is no issue of it sounding like it's in Misplaced Pages's voice. The reason that I support the material is that this page should make clear what motivated the subject of the page. I've lost track of when the edit was made that deleted it, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I Oppose this message being in the article in that form as it gives undue weight to and unjustified and unverified personal opinion on Monsanto. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask you to consider something that you and I have discussed about other quotes. As I said above, it's essential that we distinguish what is and what isn't in Misplaced Pages's voice. But as long as we make it unambiguous that these are the opinions of the people who said it, and the people who said it are directly responsible for the subject of this page, then Misplaced Pages isn't endorsing those statements as accurate (only as accurately quoted). We have links to the main pages about GMOs, so readers can go there. And if some reader is so naive that they just read the Facebook quote and never read anything else, well, WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course we need to distinguish between WP's voice and the words of individuals but we can do that perfectly well without using quotes. For example, 'X claimed that Monsanto had been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism...'. The problem with quotes like this is that they "stand out" from the rest of the text and thus give fringe views undue prominence. This is particularly so when the have strong (and unsupported) phrases like, 'political favoritism' and, 'monopoly over the world's food supply' in them. The words used by the speakers are intentionally emotive and unencyclopedic and repeating them without comment gives them improper authority. You do not see quotes like this in printed encyclopedias, only in the press. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• This material is appropriate as long as it's clearly attributed and presented as a direct quote. a13ean (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoration of this quotation. Editors who are more focused on protecting Monsanto than adhering to Wiki policy when editing this article need to really step back. Hopefully more Admin eyeballs will be drawn to this talk page and some self-correcting will occur as a result. The topic is the protest group, started by Canal and driven largely through Facebook posts. Ergo, OF COURSE this text should be included. petrarchan47tc 19:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose restoration except to the extent that this quote in social media is notable and verified by a reliable source. That is, if the New York Times has repeated it, then sure, put it in. Anybody can put anything on Facebook. How do we verify it was from someone? Should it be included in an encyclopedia? That's why we rely on, gee, reliable sources, and don't do original research with primary sources. Is it "protecting Monsanto" to suggest we should use secondary sources instead of cramming whatever fits our POV into an article? SpectraValor (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Clean-Up Tags

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The page March Against Monsanto is currently under page-protection due to edit warring over addition and removal of tags for fringe science and undue weight and name calling. This Request for Comments is being used to draw additional editor comments and arrive at consensus.

• Remove the fringe and undue tags. I'm involved in these discussions, but I think that the tags are WP:POINTy, and I would prefer that the issues giving rise to the tags be resolved through talk page discussion during the time of page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Tryptofish. The issues are under discussion and the tags serve only to create drama and derail productive discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the tags when the issue is solved. The tags are there for readers and editors to let them know that the article runs afoul of policy and guideline. Removing the tags implies the issues are solved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Not sure if I would have chosen the exact same tags for an article that has been turned into a coatrack/soapbox/ trojan horse for the talking points of one side of the GMO debate. But it should have 1-2 top level tags until the significant problems are fixed. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There is a genuine debate here, I see no use in making it appear otherwise. That's why tags exist. Anaxial (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Remove Fringe tags I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the 'undue' tags, so won't comment on that. But this article is about a protest against Monsanto and GMOs. We have links to the GMO controversy article, we don't need to use this page to drive the point home about GMO safety, other articles on the Wiki have this well covered. This article is about the protesters and their beliefs, whether those beliefs are ridiculous (fringe) is entirely beside the point. I think editors who are hot for GMOs have been confused about the purpose of this article since its inception. It is not another place to discuss GMOs in a scientific sense. It is clear to the reader from the start that this is NOT a science-based article. The reader understands they are getting the views and the story behind a protest group. Does the Occupy Movement need huge caveats and tags to explain that no, the banking industry is not against you, they are indeed saving the world? No. It might be a good article to review when looking at this one, to help determine whether we've veered off the tracks here or not. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that, if the Occupy page actually stated that the banks are out to get you, we should have the real information next to it to ensure that the legitimate, verifiable viewpoint is put forward. That the page here actively promotes fringe viewpoints (against guideline and policy), a simple point as to what the scientific consensus states is appropriate. You seem to want to remove the tags simply because the fringe beliefs are "beside the point?" That's the entire problem with the article currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I would appreciate if you could point me to the guideline which covers a situation such as this. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:FRINGE, specifically " theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." No one, to my knowledge, is looking to remove any claims, just present the proper context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • ADMIN ASSISTANCE PLEASE I am asking for a link to guidelines for this specific situation: an article whose subject is "against" something. Since this article is about people who question GMO safety, that idea shouldn't need a tag - it is essentially the topic, or a main one, of this article. Wiki must have dealt with similar situations in the past - I'd like to see the conclusions that were made. petrarchan47tc 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
          • If the article is not demonstrating the scientific consensus regarding those claims, then it needs the tag. When we solve that problem, we no longer need the tags. This isn't hard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Which claims? The article demonstrates the scientific consensus adequately without the original research by using sources about the march. Health concerns about GMOs are in the journals all the time. The World Health Organization says that GMOs could potentially lead to allergic reactions, gene transfer in humans, and crossbreeding with plants. Most scientists agree that better studies and tighter regulatory mechanisms are needed. Calling for more science is not fringe. In June alone, plant scientist Margaret Smith of Cornell University called for improved studies. And in July, Zheng Fengtian of Renmin University said, "More research needs to be conducted on GM organisms before putting such products on the market. With more attention from the public and media, greater policy control will be seen." And furthermore, there is no consensus in the marketplace. In the UK, for example, most consumers and half of all farmers are against growing GM foods. Barclay's latest YouGov poll conducted in June in the UK, showed that "only 21% of consumers are willing to support GM food" while "43% of consumers were completely against the idea of the government promoting GM technology and 67% would prefer to buy 'conventional' food." The numbers are similar in the United States and elsewhere. None of this is "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
        • FGS, this article is not about a mainstream idea! Repeated claims that it is doesn't make it so.TMCk (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is it more important for Misplaced Pages to accurately convey the positions of "March Against Monsanto" or to downplay and qualify these positions lest a reader take them seriously? March Against Monsanto is not a "fringe" movement with "fringe" ideas (and this discussion is not settled on Misplaced Pages). But even if it were, we should not censor articulations of its core principles. We should feature them, so that readers understand what "March Against Monsanto" is really about. We don't censor the article on Nazism, nor does anyone suggest countless qualifiers to caution the reader against Nazi theories of Jewish inferiority. Also see Heaven's Gate (religious group), Million Man March, Arab Spring, Society for Cutting Up Men, and an enormous variety of other articles about protest movements. How would we have covered the Galileo affair according to the principles we use now? The flock of editors demanding that we describe GMO science of all things as uncontroversial doth protest too much, wethinks. groupuscule (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• The subject is not fringe in the context of politics, society, and culture. The concerns expressed by the protesters are shared widely, especially in Europe, but other places too. However, the science is fringe. But I agree that we really don't need the tags simply because the page explains why the protest believes what it believes. And we clearly do need to describe what the protesters believe, because this is a page about the protest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we quoting science in this article? What science are you referring to? If it isn't in this article, we don't need to discuss it here. petrarchan47tc 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at length, but according to WP:Summary style. Please see: March Against Monsanto#GMO controversy and the discussion above at #Issues about the science sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• We shouldn't need the tags at all, but until the article conforms to our policies and guidelines, I don't see a choice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• This article is about a mainstream idea: genetically modified food. The article topic, protests against that mainstream idea, thus needs to conform to our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This article is still about a protest march. The "mainstream" article is Genetically modified food to which we link to.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And that does not mean that this article can promote fringe viewpoints simply because it's not the main article in a topic. As noted in WP:FRINGE, "Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories." The context of the fringe points of view in this article must, per guideline and policy, have the proper context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not promoting any "fringe" viewpoints, and you've been repeatedly asked to point to them. Your answer to each request has been the sound of crickets chirping loudly. If you can't provide the diff, then your argument gets tossed off a cliff. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that, of your hundreds of small edits to this article, I'm not willing to go through them line by line to find the anti-scientific information you're adding without the proper scientific context. I've been clear about what you're doing, I'm not building a case against you right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Note, this is one of many of your responses admitting that you cannot provide evidence for your claims about my edits. You've done this over and over and over again. Usually, when an editor says something they can't back up, we can attribute it to ignorance or a mistake. However, when they keep doing it, over and over again, we can safely conclude that they are lying. Do you agree? I've never added a single "anti-scientific" contribution to this article. The diffs show I've added more pro-GMO content than you or any other editor combined. Your confusion about how NPOV works and how we write for the enemy is clear. However, that doesn't give you the right to repeatedly make false claims. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, let's talk about mainstream ideas, such as the labeling of GMO products in 50 different countries except for the United States, where special interests work night and day to lobby the individual states and Washington to oppose the will of the American people, the vast majority of which support the labeling of GMOs. So, you have it completely backwards. The protest movement is mainstream and the position of special interests fighting against this movement is "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The scientific consensus is clear on this issue. This is not the place to fight that battle, the sources are clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I did not mention a word about science, I discussed politics, one of the primary complaints made by the protesters. Furthermore, the most current, reliable sources indicate that the "scientific consensus" is not clear at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The source does not mention safety. Bravo, successfull twist of a source successful, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly does mention safety, and it doesn't need to use the word "safety" to do it. You must have missed the part about the movement of transgenes into Mexican maize and the use of more glyphosate and herbicides to fight resistant weeds. The article also links to Waltz's "GM crops: Battlefield" which was published in Nature in 2009, which, according to cell biologist David Schubert at the Salk Institute, shows that "People who look into safety issues and pollination and contamination issues get seriously harassed", and have their academic careers threatened. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Certain editors deny the current scientific consensus about safety (see above). They are using this article to have quotes attacking the safety of GM Foods without having the scientific rebuttals in. They've also edit warred to include the most credulous estimates of the actual numbers involved in the march (a source which did an analysis said 200,000, the organisers said 2 million and so people edit warred 2million in). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is no reason to accept or deny any science - this article is not about the science at all, and has linked to articles that do cover the science. This article is about a bunch of wackos who question the addition of Roundup into into seeds, among other things. Big deal. Why does it cause such drama to allow these folks to think what they think? We aren't promoting their view in wiki's voice, or in the voice of All things True and Scientific. Also, the ridiculous 200,000 quotation comes from ONE local news station and it was published whilst the event was ongoing, meaning they couldn't have done a fair count. All other sources say 2 million or roughly so. But, we have allowed you and the rest to use the 200,000 quotation at every mention of this event on wiki. I complained a little when I was taken to court for a bogus 3RR, but no one seemed to pay any attention. There is an obvious attempt to downplay MAM for some reason, the reason doesn't matter to me, it's that Misplaced Pages is being abused; out primary tenant here is NPOV and relaying untwisted facts. petrarchan47tc 00:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that Petrarchan47 is actually referring to people who question the introduction of Roundup resistance to seeds, not Roundup to seeds. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The 2 million figure has been questioned by several sources, the original source for it always leads back to the event organizers, and it's almost certainly inaccurate. Firemylasers (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, there is one thing that I agree with your on and that is that this article in not about science, it is about a protest movement. We should accurately describe the movement, including its motives, here. The problem is that the article went beyond that. Rather then just describing, in encyclopedic language, the motives of the marchers it effectively promoted those motives by having prominent and emotive quotes and wording that subtly promoted the anti-GM view. I changed much of that and I think the article is much better now, although some want to change it back;

We still have: "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled. Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced healthy food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children.

My complaint about this is that using a direct quotation gives "undue prominence" to the distinctly fringe view that GM food is poison. Also the statement, in WP's voice, that Canal was 'concerned about the health of her children' gives authority to her undue concern that her children's health would be harmed by eating GM foods. I would not want to remove her motives, just state them in a different way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you and I keep re-discussing this same issue. As I've said before, I don't think that it's WP:UNDUE to present what the main organizer of the subject of this page says about what she thinks, in her own words, so long as we distinguish her views from what we say in Misplaced Pages's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose disruptive perma-tags. The editors tag teaming over these tags have never, ever been able to answer the question, "for what exact reason have you added these tags?" They cannot answer this simple question for one simple reason—there is no reason. The tags are added as a badge of shame intended to hold this article hostage to their POV. In other words, these edit warriors are saying, "I will hold this article hostage until you do as I say." That's not acceptable. Nowhere does this article violate the guideline on WP:FRINGE science, nor does it violate any known Misplaced Pages policy for that matter. This article is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say about the topic, which means significant content that is verifiable and found in multiple reliable sources about the subject, not what Misplaced Pages editors believe or want those sources to say. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We have, you just refuse to accept the answers. When the problems are fixed, the tags come down. This isn't hard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of RFC

A previous RFC was applied to this page, and was removed by another editor who referred to it as an unauthorized RFC. I see nothing in the dispute resolution policy that authorizes the removal of a so-called "unauthorized" RFC. I have tried to treat the disputes here as content disputes to be resolved by requesting consensus. If my efforts are frustrated by removal of the RFC, this will be a user conduct dispute. If anyone dislikes the wording of the RFC, they can use this talk page to address how they would prefer to see the issue addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this should probably be referred to a WP:RFC/USER. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was poorly phrased, but the unilateral removal was inappropriate. a13ean (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, Robert, that editors who are working on the article might be better at drafting RfCs. I know we had a huge issue at BP when you swept in after having no involvement there at all, and made a very poorly worded RfC which caused all 'voters' to be called back to explain their answers. I'm not sure if RfC's are your 'thing', but I would recommend working on articles to get a better idea of the issues, and when you feel compelled to start another RfC, the wording will come from a place of understanding and help solve, rather than cause problems. petrarchan47tc 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Since everyone on this page was busy with name-calling and reverting rather than trying to resolve the dispute, a content RFC was the least unpleasant way to try to resolve the issues, rather than having to focus on the user conduct issues that were interfering with resolving the content dispute. As the section below notes, user conduct is now being observed also. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware

WP:ANI#Eyes needed at Talk:March Against Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue that was identified has to do with the uncivil comments and personal attacks and with editors who think that the fact that they are on the right side justifies their saying in an uncivil way that their "enemies" are on the wrong side. Tryptofish has asked administrators to pay attention to this page. Any editor who still thinks that rightness justifies incivility should not be surprised if they are blocked without warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Those comments were neither uncivil nor personal attacks, and you appear to be disrupting this talk page by filing biased, off topic RFC's based on your personal opinion and not on the consensus of participants nor on any of the active issues. Your continuing participation here does not seem to be helping things. Previously, you tried to have this article deleted which didn't work. Now, you are trying to accuse people of uncivility and personal attacks while filing biased RFCs that have no bearing on the discussion here. Based on your record here, it would be best if you recuse yourself from acting as a neutral arbiter in any way on this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually Robert, I would hope that there would be warnings before resorting to a block. I said specifically at ANI that I'm not looking to get anyone blocked, just to put a stop to the kinds of postings that get in the way of consensus, and I'll leave it to others to form an opinion as to whether there was any of that here in this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, since my wiki-style is to be blunt with people but to avoid trying to get them in trouble, I'm going to avoid using wiki-offense words here. At this article you stand out from the crowd by miles in terms of the amount of writing with nastiness towards other editors and the degree of that nastiness, and a large amount of aggressive editing of the article in ways that are controversial.

In particular, regrading content, in various ways (NPOV,fringe etc.) many have expressed that this article has become too much of a soapbox for the talking points of one side of the GMO debate, and IMO even in the face of that (before locking) you had been doing edits that pushed it even deeper into that problematic territory.

Why don't you just dial all of that back a couple of notches? North8000 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This time I agree completely with North8000, an editor with whom I have had disagreements in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has reason to be frustrated by what's going on here. Unproven smear words like "fringe" and "anti-scientific" are far more inappropriate than Viriditas's attempts to clearly describe the views of "March Against Monsanto" at the page about "March Against Monsanto". groupuscule (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. While those wouldn't be my words to describe those viewpoints, their use is not nastiness against other editors and extremely aggressive / dominating contentious editing which is what this particular mini-thread is about. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To the extent that I was the person who started this discussion thread, I think that I'm entitled to express my personal opinion that editors on both "sides" should try to achieve consensus, instead of hampering it. I'm not aiming it at just one person. Now, that said, I've noticed a very conspicuous asymmetry. To the best of my imperfect ability, I've tried to find middle ground since I came upon this page. My positions about content have been about 50-50 between the two "sides". Groupuscule and I disagree about what they said just above, but Groupuscule also sent me a thank notification for one of the talk comments I made the other day. Now when I disagree with the editors who might be described as leaning "pro-Monsanto", some of them kind of keep arguing and ignore what I said, but nobody so far has said anything nasty or mean-spirited to me. On the other hand, there's a ton of pixels here where I've interacted with that one editor, and they overreach when I agree with them and consistently accuse me of either stupidity or bad will when I disagree. Look, it's fine to care about the political issues underlying this subject, but WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, something else stands out to me. And I'm very much talking about all editors on this talk page, and not any single individual. It's real easy to get editors to talk at great length about what they think about bad user conduct, as in this thread. And it's real easy to get editors to argue at length about an edit that offends them but that has not been on the page for some time, due to subsequent edits improving the situation. But I'm finding it very difficult to get multiple editors to sit down, read the source material, and answer questions about the right way to word text, the right way to summarize source material, and similar concrete content questions. There are plenty of opportunities to do so, above on this talk page. Pretty soon, the page protection is going to be lifted, so it has some significance to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Having real discussions is much more productive than firing volleys.North8000 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, please bear in mid though that sources are not everything. Everything that we write must be supported by sources but we must not write everything that is supported by sources. We are writing an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. (In fact, I think North may remember that I helped write the part of WP:V that says that!) As I said, I'm interested in "the right way to word text, the right way to summarize source material, and similar concrete content questions." What you are talking about goes to part of that, but we also must not, for example, inaccurately represent those sources that we do choose to cite. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like it was yesterday! Quite a time! North8000 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So, who wants to change what?

I removed some of the anti-GM propaganda from this article shortly before the page protection I and think that it is not too bad now although I would still like to address some of the anti-GM quotes and generally tone things down a bit on both sides. Does anyone think more needs to be done? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is one statement that is overreaching in a pro-GMO way, and that the article is otherwise too much of a coatrack/soaxbox for the anti-GMO talking points. Of course the trojan horse is "we're just covering what the anti-GMO people are saying, and this article by its title is just about the protestor's point of view". So I think that the amount of repetition of the anti-GMO talking points needs to get reduced. The media section should also get reduced or eliminated. It's just a few cherry-picked all saying that "this event wasn't covered enough". Putting someone's negative characterization/ talking points against the Tea Party Movement into this article is also off topic. So there's no "media coverage" in the media coverage section, just commentators saying that the media didn't cover it enough, including repeating the implausible 2,000,000 claim as fact. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My issues are basically the two issues that I've discussed above: 1: Too much coatracking providing a lot of perspective on fringe viewpoints that do not contain information regarding the scientific consensus in violation of WP:FRINGE and 2: the media coverage section which gives undue weight to a verifiably incorrect viewpoint regarding the media coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you both about the alleged media conspiracy but could you give some specific examples of what you consider to be coatracking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My biggest issue is with the sections of background and concerns, both with the duplicative effects and the lack of corresponding scientific consensus information to offset the fringe beliefs about safety, bees, and so forth. The background section, as it stands today, is okay. I do not hold any expectation that the edit will remain in place when protection expires. The concerns section is still an issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem as a sum total one. About 50% of the article consists of the talking points of the anti-GMO side (spread into almost every article section) of the GMO debate slipped in under various methods. And about 5% of the article is the talking points of the opposite side. I think that that "50%" needs to get reduced to 20% and the "5%" increased to 10%. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no need to give much of the mainstream view, this actually gives the marchers claims legitimacy. It is more important to state the motivations of the marchers in the light of the mainstream view as is done on Flat Earth Society for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, this is about the March, and the concerns of those involved is relevant. The issue of weight isn't so important in that specific regard because the article should be weighted heavily toward the events and concerns of the marchers. This does not allow us, however, to violate our fringe policies guideline by pretending that the concerns cited (when appropriate) are valid. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We state the marchers concerns but in language that makes it clear that these claims are not generally supported by mainstream science. This is not the place for debate on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)\

For the record, I'm not calling for debate, simply that the science be stated correctly when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And just where has the science been stated incorrectly? Nowhere, of course. Yet you keep making these ridiculous arguments based on zero evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1. For me, the biggest thing, in terms of what is on the page as of the time of page protection is to simplify the Media coverage section, per the discussion above, at #Media Coverage. There are also some unresolved questions in this talk, that really ought to be worked out before any revert wars break out:
2. #Issues about the science sourcing
3. #TL;DR version for other editors (includes #Possible solution: "as" --> "as raising")
4. #The HR 933 signing timeline
5. #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section
6. #Unsourced changes to the lead section
7. #Removal of Facebook message

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why there are issues of science sourcing. There should be no science in the article. We state the motives for the marchers in the light of the mainstream science view of the subject. No science sources are required. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the link to that discussion, you will see the text on the page that this is talking about. (Somehow, I have a feeling that you would object if we presented the protester's views without also including that half-sentence!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Our guidelines demand it, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, maybe we need to distinguish between legitimate concerns about GE crops as presented in Genetically modified food controversies and the outrageous claims made by the marchers. The problem is that the marchers have made statements along the lines that GE foods are 'poison' and that there is worldwide media conspiracy against them. These claims need to be stated in the article but in the same way that the Flat Earth Society's claims are in that article; in a way that it is clear to the reader that these views are extreme fringe. There is then no need to present the mainstream view.

I do not think the legitimate concerns about GE food have any place here. The marchers can lay no claim to them and they are discussed much more thoroughly elsewhere in WP. There are legitimate concerns about GE food but that is not what the march or this article is about. The marchers made ridiculously exaggerated claims and in doing so shot themselves squarely in the foot. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we may be misunderstanding one another because we are talking about two different things. What I am talking about is a sentence in the background section that reads as follows: "The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods, and there is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food." I'm referring to the sources at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's my input on some of Tryptofish's points and a few more.

• Science sourcing: As Martin said, sources are not required. I think what some editors are not understanding is that on fringe topics (and "fringe" is not a slur, it's just a description of how a minority or majority view relates to scientific consensus), the mainstream scientific view should always be given prominently, in the lead, even if mainstream scientists don't call out that particular fringe group or topic by name. That's how an encyclopedia works. On the flip side, you do not go out of your way as some have done in this article to mention everything that you see as supporting the fringe position. Even though scientific sources aren't needed to describe the scientific position, it wouldn't hurt to include them, like AMA and WHO.
• Facebook message and the like: The protesters views should be described, as covered by reliable sources, not weekly tabloids or commentators or by comments on Facebook and not in the sense of I found this guy who I think has similar opinions and he said this.
• Reliable sources should be used to show the issues at stake as specifically related to the May event including the traditional biotech companies' financial interests, the insurgent organic industry's financial interests especially in Europe and North America, and the food security issues in lower income regions. According to respected sources like the New York Times, the issue isn't just Big Biotech versus concerned consumers. There are real or perceived financial and health interests all around.
• The media coverage section should be removed (my opinion) or at least edited to remove commentary. It's unencyclopedic and silly.
• The March should be presented mostly as an event (reality) not a movement (organizer's wishes and possible future development).
• Size. It really doesn't matter how big the march was or whether it was ignored or over-emphasized, it just matters what the reliable sources said about it. These things should get a sentence or two, no more. SpectraValor (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

One more. The section about Canal is way out of balance and too long because of repetition and unnecessary detail. For example, there is repeated reference to Canal's childrens' health, but nothing about how the availability of what Canal calls (but is described in the article as matter of fact) "fresh" food has affected her children. Canal's opinions should be presented concisely and as opinions. What is poison, what is affordable, what is fresh, these are Canal's opinions. SpectraValor (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we may be misunderstanding one another because we are talking about two different things. What I am talking about is a sentence in the background section that reads as follows: "The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods, and there is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food." I'm referring to the sources at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But thanks for your input about my other points. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make any sense. That section has been extensively discussed here on this talk page and in the archives and I don't see how your edits have improved it. It is neither out of balance or too long, no do I have any idea what policy or guideline you base this opinion on. We write articles based on what the sources say, not on what Wikipedians think. Please make a case for your changes, first. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But I did, and others did, again and again. Viriditas seems to think that as long as there's a single dissenting opinion, that single opinion defines consensus and justifies reversion of everything other editors do, without discussion. I'm confused by this view, but even more so by the way members of the community who are not editing this page have protected Viriditas and even praised this tendentious, nose-thumbing behavior as a matter of integrity and a principled stand against "paid" editors. This disruptive editor needs a topic ban, and I'm glad to help anyone with making the case at RfC or ANI. SpectraValor (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are engaging in deliberate disruption and ignoring discussions where consensus has already occurred. For example, we established consensus on the use of quotations by Canal, yet you ignored it and removed the quotes. Your latest set of edits weren't based on a single policy or guideline, simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT which we don't use to edit. Since we have to start somewhere, why don't you start by explaining your rationale for removing the quote from Jake Tapper. The quote in question follows:

American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".

Please make a brief policy/guideline based argument, while at the same time, offering a persuasive opinion as to why your removal of this quote is an improvement. Please only stick to my query about the Tapper quote. When you are finished, we shall move on to the next concern. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fringe?

There has been a very US-centric view of the anti-GMO movement here, specifically with folks claiming that this protest group has a viewpoint that is wacky and far-out, requiring tags, notices and proper science. However, I can't see how it is justified to call something fringe that has been embraced by so many.

A strong movement of opposition to genetic engineering in agriculture has developed throughout the world, particularly in some countries of the European Union (EU). The movement has led to a moratorium in the EU and hostility towards imported genetically modified (GM) products, as well as to acts of open opposition

The most recent Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology was taken in spring 2001, on a sample of approximately 16,000 people. Its results showed a high level of mistrust of GMOs. Outright rejection ("I do not want this kind of food") was the attitude of 71%. As to whether "GMO-based food is dangerous", a majority (56%) believed that this proposition was true, as opposed to 17% who did not.

From Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe in the Electronic Journal of Biotechnology petrarchan47tc 04:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Turns out this protest movement has Monsanto hiring a new PR team.

Monsanto has selected FleishmanHillard to handle PR duties, amid fierce opposition to the seed giant's genetically modified products. While the assignment will be led from the US, it is likely that its scope will be international, given the global nature of the issues that the company faces. For example, Monsanto recently confirmed that it will cease marketing new GMO seeds in the European Union, because of public opposition. While acceptance of GMO crops in other regions is higher, Monsanto has found itself battling US farmers. Meanwhile, two US states have passed GMO-labelling laws. source

Media sources always say the march had 2 million protesters, not a "range from 200,000" as wikipedia is claiming, based on one solitary news source. This is an example of WP:OR and (as everyone knows) goes against wikipedia policy.

This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries. In Miami, organizers lost count when protesters topped 1,300. From Miami New Times petrarchan47tc 04:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. As I've said above, the only fringe material in this article are the quotes from Monsanto claiming that GMOs will feed the world, improve crop yields, etc. Most of these claims are disputed in the peer review literature and amount to nothing more than marketing and promotion. Yet, we hear not a peep out of the so-called "fringe" crusaders who believe anything Monsanto says must be true. Turns out Tapper's coverage in CNN says otherwise, noting that the company has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", which is exactly what the protesters have been saying all along. Read our article on Steven Milloy to see what's really going on here. All of these claims of "fringe, fringe, fringe" are indistinguishable from Milloy's "junk science" propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, someone just removed that Tapper quotation because it wasn't "NPOV". This is very strange article to work on. petrarchan47tc 07:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to Petrarchan47:

"However, I can't see how it is justified to call something fringe that has been embraced by so many." - the issue of fringe is a scientific and evidence-based one, not one based on what certain people may or may not believe. Plenty of people believe that vaccines cause autism, yet that is considered fringe.

"Turns out this protest movement has Monsanto hiring a new PR team." - I don't see the relevancy of this to the article at hand.

"Media sources always say the march had 2 million protesters, not a "range from 200,000" as wikipedia is claiming, based on one solitary news source. This is an example of WP:OR and (as everyone knows) goes against wikipedia policy." - Media sources are based on unverifiable and logically absurd claims from the protest organizers. Assuming that their claims of 450 global meetups are true this implies an average of over 4444 people attending EACH protest, yet there isn't proof that even a single ONE of the protests hit that amount. I believe that the claims of 2 million violate the WP:V, as the event organizers have not cited or presented any proof. Since the claims are coming from the MAM organizers, I think this falls under the "Questionable sources". In addition, see , which this claim is DIRECTLY violating.

In response to Viriditas:

"claiming that GMOs will feed the world" - Future claims are hardly fringe. The mechanisms exist.

"improve crop yields" - I believe that I have already presented scientific evidence that yields ARE improved above (in my previous reply to your claims that fringe claims aren't fringe), and explained the difference between direct and indirect yields as well as the mechanisms involved in sufficient detail.

"Most of these claims are disputed in the peer review literature and amount to nothing more than marketing and promotion." - Easy to claim, hard to prove. Find me something that isn't junk science.

"Turns out Tapper's coverage in CNN says otherwise, noting that the company has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", which is exactly what the protesters have been saying all along." - Hey look, another opinion piece! That's just as biased as citing Monsanto themselves!

So, now can we focus on presenting just the claims, and not lending undue credibility to WP:FRINGE claims? Firemylasers (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Firemylasers, this is the last time I am going to say this. Per talk page guidelines, keep your comments brief and to the point. Posting this continued page screeds makes it impossible for other editors to respond. If you want to address all of these points. Start with one, address it, wait for a resonse, and then move on to the next one. The marketing and promotion claims by Monsanto that it can feed the world, increase crop yields, and reduce pesticide use have been disproven by science. Therefore, they are not scientific. I hope we are clear on that point. 50 countries label GMO products except the United States. This is because we allow special interests to lobby our government and interfere with the democratic process, to the point where the will of the people is consistently undermined. And this is exactly what the protesters are upset about. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop posting junk science and fringe claims if you do not wish to have the data addressed.

"The marketing and promotion claims by Monsanto that it can feed the world, increase crop yields, and reduce pesticide use have been disproven by science. Therefore, they are not scientific." - ...an excellent example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU!

"I hope we are clear on that point." - absolutely not.

"50 countries label GMO products except the United States." - Ah great, time to dig out the logical fallacies again? Argumentum ad populum much?

"This is because we allow special interests to lobby our government and interfere with the democratic process, to the point where the will of the people is consistently undermined. And this is exactly what the protesters are upset about." - Or perhaps, just maybe, many of our regulatory agencies are more concerned with evidence/science-based regulations? Note how most of the countries labeling GM crops do so for POLITICAL reasons? Nah, that's crazy talk.

So not only are you WP:ICANTHEARYOU, you're spreading WP:FRINGE claims, complain about lengthy replies when an editor takes offense to your butchery of the scientific evidence, and promote claims from event organizers that blatantly violate WP:V, especially WP:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. It's quite clear from your edit warring, vague accusations of conspiracy on both this and your personal talk page, censorship of criticism from your talk page, and the removal of a RFC without following the proper guidelines that you have no interest in following wikipedia guidelines nor improving the article, and are solely here to WP:SOAPBOX. This is exactly the reason I left my account alone for a year - I had heard tales of situations like this, and as it turns out, the tales were true. This is incredibly disappointing. No wonder editors are leaving Misplaced Pages at such a swift rate. Firemylasers (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"Junk science" is a discredited term popularized by Steven Milloy, who was paid by special interests to debunk solid science that criticized their products, so you are revealing your true agenda here.

"Junk science" quickly became the tag line of Steven J. Milloy and a group called TASSC—The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition—whose strategy was not to advance science, but to discredit it...It didn't matter who had done the work—the EPA, the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, or distinguished scientists at private universities. If the results challenged the safety of a commercial product, Milloy attacked them.

Thanks for the honesty. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, WP:ICANTHEARYOU. And I love how you've decided that ANYONE using the two words "junk" and "science" next to each other automatically becomes a TASSC shill. Guess what policy you just violated? WP:Conspiracy_theory_accusations. Firemylasers (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting back on track, petrarchan47tc has made the following points:

1. This talk page (and edits to the article in resposne) present a US-centric view of GMOs.
2. The opposition to GMOs is very strong outside the United States
3. Most Europeans oppose GMOs
4. In response to the latest protest movement, Monsanto has hired a new PR team in the US
5. Recently, two US states have passed GMO-labelling laws
6. Sources say the march had 2 million protesters, not a "range from 200,000" as only one sources says.

Let's keep this thread focused only on these points. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3 don't belong here, 4 is barely relevant at best, 5 is unrelated to the subject being covered, 6 violates WP:V (especially WP:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources). Firemylasers (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. petrarchan47tc 07:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I will say I recognize the editing style of firemylasers. I wondered why I hadn't heard from a certain editor, but it appears he has emerged with a new name. petrarchan47tc 07:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with your accusations, you and Viriditas are violating WP:NPA and WP:Conspiracy_theory_accusations. I have disclosed the only other account I possess publicly, it has no commits and has been inactive for months. I am quite willing to provide real-world ID to administrators via email or some alternate private communications method if desired. Firemylasers (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:petrarchan47, the problem is that the European popular viewpoint on GM food does not reflect the international scientific consensus. The fringe theories are what you're espousing above on a science topic, not the popular opinion. Compare it to global warming: even if a majority of people in the world tomorrow decided that it wasn't real, it would still be the fringe scientific position. You're misunderstanding the use of fringe theories in this regard, and this article is a mess right now as is, never mind adding more coatracked fringe science into it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully. We are supposed to cover the scientific consensus, not what people think. Firemylasers (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is mainly cut and paste from my reply to Tryptofish above but I think it needs stating here. We need to distinguish between legitimate concerns about GE crops as presented in Genetically modified food controversies and the outrageous claims made by the marchers. The problem is that the marchers have made statements along the lines that GE foods are 'poison' and that there is worldwide media conspiracy against them. These claims do need to be stated in the article but in the same way that the Flat Earth Society's claims are in that article; in a way that it is clear to the reader that these views are extreme fringe. There is then no need to present the mainstream view.

I do not think the legitimate concerns about GE food have any place here. The marchers can lay no claim to them and they are discussed much more thoroughly elsewhere in WP. That is also where the European popular viewpoint needs to be discussed There are legitimate concerns about GE foods but that is not what the march or this article is about. The marchers made ridiculously exaggerated claims and in doing so shot themselves squarely in the foot. It is not up to us to try to rationalise their crazy arguments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I think that we may be misunderstanding one another because we are talking about two different things. What I am talking about is a sentence in the background section that reads as follows: "The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods, and there is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food." I'm referring to the sources at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not specifically addressing any point by you but stating a general principle, which seems to have been completely ignored. Calling GM foods poison is not fringe science, it is not science of any kind it is just crazy rhetoric.

Regarding your point, I see no need for that much detail. We need only say that the marchers were pressing for the compulsory labelling of GM food in the US. It is obvious from that wording that this is not currently the case. Why say more? Doing so only drags us into a pro/anti GM argument that we should not be engaged in here.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's an undercurrent in this discussion thread about the new PR team hired by Monsanto, that perhaps may imply that editors here may be editing as part of that team, or as influenced by it. If that is the case, then that's a very serious violation of, amongst other things, our WP:NPOV policy, and it must not be tolerated. On the other hand, such accusations should not be implied unless there actually is evidence that it is happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of making vague non-accusations about unspecified editors? If you really believe that some undercover Monsanto team is at work here then say so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already been accused as such. For the record, the accusation is false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Agriculture articles
• Low-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• C-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment