Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:14, 11 August 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 nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 6 August 2013 (UTC), see discussion. keep, 27 May 2013, see discussion.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

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)

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)

I don't see what for. The Obama information concerns HR 933 and it is repeated in multiple sources about the march. We write about what the sources report. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

For consensus. The alternative is that you will make edits that someone (and I'm not saying me) will revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 29 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)

You've avoided the problem. The problem under discussion is that you removed a reliably sourced section for no reason, and then proceeded to merge it into a bullet point for no reason. Yourself and others have said that the section violates soapbox, coatrack, and appears biased, but none of you have been able to support that idea. All I'm hearing is IDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what you are hearing, because you are not listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be in prose to match the rest of the article, outside of any other concerns. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Moved from below by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why the Concerns section should, at present, be formatted as bullets. There isn't enough material in support of each of the concerns to expand each concern into a paragraph. The concern about genetically modified foods and safety in general could be expanded into a sourced paragraph, but several of the concerns only are listed as one sentence in the source that is given. If someone can find a longer statement of each concern, paragraphs would be in order. However, the section should either be all bullets (as it presently is), or all paragraphs (for which there is not enough material). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 1 August 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)

I moved the following from #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now, this (in my opinion) is the most pressing issue, especially in the "concerns" section. To meet basic NPOV standards (including our fringe theories guideline), we need to ensure that antiscientific fringe theories do not go unchecked in the article. I believe the best way to do so, in the few cases left, is to simply use a source that asserts the consensus and note it after the point. The source does not have to contextually mention the March, but it would be preferable if one exists (such as the Reason.TV link from earlier). Thoughts on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've commented at length in the original talk section that it doesn't matter that the sources are not about the March, because the sentence that they support is not specifically about the March. Again, we are talking here about one particular sentence, not a general principle about the page. (Maybe it isn't working to have this discussion in two different places.) The key purpose of that sentence, however, is just what you said, to provide a context about FRINGE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

End of moved discussion.

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)

I suggest the following language for that section of the page. It's condensed from what is on the page now, but provides more detail than the edit that SpectraValor made and Viriditas reverted:

The protests were covered by news outlets including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Russia Today, and CNN.

Some commentators, speculating that the mainstream news media were influenced by corporate ties to Monsanto, suggested that media coverage of GMOs reflected Monsanto's framing of the debate, and that the marches were ignored by the media, relative to the attention given to conservative protests and to the importance of the food supply.

Is that a reasonable solution to the disagreement about this section? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the following from #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the undue tag remains because the section is weighted toward an untrue allegation regarding media coverage of the march (or lack thereof). A proposal to shrink the section and note the contrary claims has been floated, is this doable? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) On the Media section I'll first try the following on a BRD basis. Condense/summarize it down to about 1/2 of its current size. Especially where it's a coatrack for other talking points and assertions that aren't about media coverage of this event. If it goes to "R" we'll talk here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Near the end of #Media Coverage, above, I suggested an alternative language that we may also want to consider. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it, I'll replace it as such with a minor tweak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 20:03, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (and the tweak is fine with me). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's your text, so thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I don't WP:OWN anything here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

End of moved discussion.

• It seems like there has been an awful lot of reverting without any further discussion in this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion continued below, at #Media coverage 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 31 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)

There is disagreement about sourcing in the lead, although our policies and manual of style allow for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Moved from below by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Further discussion at #200,000. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 31 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)
• Support. The quote is verifiable in reliable sources and is an important part of the history of the group. It was never sourced to Facebook directly to begin with, so SpectraValor's point is specious. We have always used reliable secondary sources for this quote. It was not removed because of a lack of sources, it was removed because an editor DOESNOTLIKEIT. Sorry, that's not how it works. The reliable sources have published this quote for a reason. We write articles based on reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoration of the Facebook quote as long as it is clear that it is a quote. Facebook is not a reliable source in general, but a Facebook quote is a reliable source as to the views of the person posting the quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 1 August 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)
    • You've never been able to describe a single problem with this article. Your entire argument consists of "I will hold this article hostage to my demands". Sorry, that's not how it works. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was randomly selected to RFC however I consider myself a biased Editor on this subject so I will not volunteer a suggested resolution on the use of the tags for fringe science. I have an apriori dislike for the Monsanto corporation for all the usual reasons and could not give a dispassionate, full review of the issue in contention so I will refrain. Damotclese (talk) 23:40, 6 August 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)

There has been no response to my query. I have left a similar query on the talk page of the user who removed the material. With no response here or from that user, I have added the material back in. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including that quote. It certainly is pertinent and reliably sourced. But, as for the rationale for adding it back, it seems to contradict the fact that another edit ignored the discussion at #Issues about the science sourcing, although the one thing that is consistent is that those edits seem always to push an anti-GMO POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything. You can't add sources to this article that aren't about this topic, and you can't add content to this article that isn't found in the sources. The AP source quite adequately supplies the content and source we need about the subject. There is nothing whatsoever "anti-GMO" about having CNN note that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", which is exactly the concerns that the protesters have in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I do have a problem with including a cherry-picked quote in an encyclopedia, and so do other editors, even if Tryptofish does not. Viriditas is certainly welcome to include it in their Facebook page. This page in contrast does not belong to anyone, and we must consider WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Making the jump from "here's a quote I would love to include about this evil corporation" and "my concerns are exactly the concerns of the protesters" to "this is appropriate weight and tone for an encyclopedia article" is slightly problematic. SpectraValor (talk) 01:33, 31 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)

Americans overwhelmingly support labeling foods that have been genetically modified or engineered, according to a New York Times poll conducted this year, with 93 percent of respondents saying that foods containing such ingredients should be identified.

Three-quarters of Americans expressed concern about genetically modified organisms in their food, with most of them worried about the effects on people’s health. NYT July 27,2013 petrarchan47tc 08:25, 28 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)

I've restored it after making multiple queries, starting mutliple threads on the subject, and waiting 24 hours for a response. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it as a cherry-picked quote that serves no purpose other than to give your POV on Monsanto. Perhaps it would help to recognize that many editors have RL responsibilities and are unable to pay attention to Misplaced Pages or this article 24 hours a day. Thanks. SpectraValor (talk) 01:27, 31 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)

Give it a break. You are obviously a SPA created solely to edit (or as I would put it "disrupt") this article. Your account does not exist for any other purpose, and since you are fluent with every aspect of Misplaced Pages, it appears you already have an alternate or primary account. Hopefully, your other account is not active at the same time. As for ICANTHEARYOU, I have already shown that is your MO. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah Viriditas... Is this your only response? Conspiratorial accusations? The only person here who is "disrupting" this article is you. You're the one accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being some sort of ALEC-funded propagandist/shill. You're the one violating numerous Misplaced Pages policies. You're the one who seems to have decided that their opinion trumps the scientific research and the scientific consensus. You're the one abusing WP:ICANTHEARYOU and promoting WP:FRINGE claims. You're the one who's promoting sources that violate WP:V.

I am asking you one FINAL time to STOP with the personal attacks. If you do not stop I have no choice but to bring this issue to the WP:ANI, which I do not in any way wish to do if it is at all possible to avoid. Firemylasers (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You do sound familiar. Once requested the same of me, using the same language. A newcomer doesn't speak with such familiarity to another editor, ever. You're not pulling it off well, and the bullying and threats do nothing to change that fact. You must know no one will take you seriously at an ANI with your edit history; SPAs are not looked upon favorably. Also comments like the one above are nothing but inflammatory, which is the last thing we need at this article. If you are serious about bringing a case against Viriditas, you will need to provide diffs and specific examples, rather than a slew of amorphous accusations - there is no way anyone can check your "you're the one" statements as written, so it's nothing but a waste of time and space. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how I sound. Take your conspiracy theories to some other site. I have no clue what you're talking about in regards to "familiarity". I don't see how you could possibly manage to twist my comments into bullying and threats - I'm asking Viriditas to follow Misplaced Pages's rules and to stop attacking me so that we can get back on topic instead of having to take the issue to ANI or wherever it'll be handled correctly, how exactly is that bullying or a threat? You're making the same accusations that Viriditas has been making, breaking the same policies... You want diffs? Fine, here's some diffs.

(unfounded accusation of bad faith), (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), (direct accusation of being here to disrupt).

Viriditas and you both seem to have quite the track record of accusing people of being shills/astroturfers/sock puppers: , , , and of course your edits here such as: and Firemylasers (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

SPA much? Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you done violating WP policy yet? This is getting quite tiresome. You appear to have a history of making paranoid accusations against any and all editors whose views clash with your own. Firemylasers (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My "views" have nothing to do with my edits. The "views" in this article are supposed to come from reliable sources about the topic, not from off-topic sources or what Misplaced Pages editors want the sources to say. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 29 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)

You're absolutely wrong. We cover what the sources report, nothing more, nothing less. Take your original research to the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone here has concerns about violations of WP:SOCK, please take it to WP:SPI. Further discussion of those concerns here only makes it harder to get to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 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)

As a general principle, that's fine (although, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, what you call "crazy rhetoric" is dealt with according to WP:FRINGE). But I was talking all along about what is now one, single sentence on the page. Which details in that sentence do you now want to take out? Please be specific about the exact words, in that particular sentence, that you want to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 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)
  • It's been happening for a decade. See George Monbiot's "The Covert Biotech War". The Monsanto PR team has been extremely active on Internet forums and discussion groups for a long time, and I've previously discussed this in the talk page archives with a link to the evidence. I've been on Misplaced Pages for eight years and I've worked on tens of thousands of articles, creating hundreds of new ones and improving many. During that time, I have never seen this kind of fervor, this kind of deliberate, intentional twisting of the sources, removal of anything critical of Monsanto, and new accounts created day in and day out, with still other accounts showing up to participate in the disruption. No, I'm sorry, the simplest explanation is that this is part of the PR effort, and some of the editors here are part of that team. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 28 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'm not the one making the accusations. I'm the one saying that either the accusations need to be supported by evidence and presented at the appropriate noticeboard, or they should not be made at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 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)

To both Thargor above and Spectra below, thanks, and that should be accepted by any other editor. If I see further accusations against you, I'm going to take the accuser(s) to ANI. Sadly, after I posted the comment about this concern, a new flurry of accusations of WP:SOCK have taken place in this same talk thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The accusations continue... Firemylasers (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So I see. After I start the discussion at ANI, I will post a link to it on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the accusation is false for me, as well. I have never received any funds directly or indirectly from Monsanto or other GM food producers, and I have never been asked to make edits to Misplaced Pages. If there is evidence that specific editors are editing for profit or have COI, this should be presented on a noticeboard. Frankly, if Monsanto is paying people edit this page, they are wasting money. I don't see any evidence of coordination, and certainly no one has approached me on my talk page or in RL even to thank me for my efforts here or support careful changes I made that were reverted in their entirety by the POV pusher.

But back to what started out as the issue of this TLDR thread, the issue of fringe science and the issue of perceived US bias.

• Fringe. The NPOV on science-related issues is the consensus of the scientific community. That consensus has been demonstrated. As I said yesterday, "fringe" is not a slur, it's a Wikilabel for a position that is opposed by scientific consensus. The idea that a supreme being created the world in six days and that animals do not evolve is a popular position in the country I live in, and no matter how I feel about that, it could not be called a "fringe" position in terms of numbers of adherents. But it's absolutely a fringe position scientifically, and we would have to mention that in an article on creationism.
• US bias. If there is a strong US bias in this article, I don't think that's a violation of WP:WEIGHT since most of the marches (250 to 400, depending on which source currently in the article) and most of the marchers were in the US. And please, remember this article is not a showcase for opposition to GMO. It's an article about a specific protest march. SpectraValor (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Almost none of the sources about the march say anything about a scientific consensus. That was added back into this article based on a now-removed opinion piece by ReasonTV, which is not a realiable source. In somewhat of a tricky and sneaky set of edits, someone removed the neutral secondary source and replaced it with the wording from the unreliable source. I have now remedied that situation. There are no sources that say most of the protests took place in the US, that's an editorial interpretation of a source and it should be removed. Further, the march took place in 52 countries; the number of marches in the US is proportional to its size, not to its relevance. This is yet another fallacy you are trying to spread. If there is bias, it is source bias by American media sources, and I do have foreign sources that take an altogether different perspective. The specific protest march is against Monsanto and its GMO products, no matter how hard you try to deny it. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the key question here is whether the article contains psuedoscientific views. We have a policy on this which states,

Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly.

This is not negotiable, but policy. Considering this article from a WP:FRINGE perspective, the concern has been that quoting protestors' concerns in isolation is a way of admitting pseudoscience into the article in a way which undermines this rule. Alexbrn 04:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with WP:PSCI. Please quote me the exact sentence and source where NPOV is being violated. You should know that nobody has been able to do this, as this question has been asked dozens of times. At no time has any pseudoscience found its way into the aricle. We have an enormous amount of sources to go on to write this article and all significant POV are duly represented per policy. Perhaps you will take a moment to find a specific part of this article that you believe violates our policies. Good luck, because nobody has ever found one. To be very clear, while improvements are always welcome (and encouraged) using sources about the subject, we have a small group of editors who are hiding behind our policies and guidelines to push a specific POV that is at odds with our sources. This article cites the AP source about this march to say "Many scientists and U.S. government agencies maintain that GMOs are safe. 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." That's what our sources say and that's what we report. Our source(s) also note that "Some people are concerned about whether 'genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment'." There is no violation of any policy or guideline here. The Associated Press reports it as do a multitude of reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I want to get away from discussion of editors and focus on policy and content, as it is the only way forward here. Taking a step back, I see Misplaced Pages has an article on Genetically modified food which states in its lede: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food", which appears to be strongly-sourced. If this is correct, contrary views are pseudoscientific/fringe. Is this right? Alexbrn 05:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. I specifically asked you to identify content in this article that violates PSCI. You do not appear to be able to answer this simple question. Instead, you've attempted to wikilawyer over how we might be able to interpret a policy. Please identify the exact passage or passages that you believe violate our policy, not your interpretation of the policy. Contrary views are reported based on their source coverage per the NPOV policy in question. And, we are not discussing the risk posed by GMOs vs. the risks of conventional produce. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, it's not me changing the subject. I started by stating there is a crucial question of policy here, and that we need to determine whether pseudoscientific views are present. You have challenged me to name specific content, and then cried foul when I didn't play to your rules. However, it is not possible to achieve consensus on whether (or not) a given piece of content is a "pseudoscientific view" if we do not have consensus on what the mainstream view is first. So I ask again, do we have consensus that the view as stated in Genetically modified food, that "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food", is something we can use as a basis for assessing specific content here for its fringeiness? If so, we can then move on to examine specific content in that context. Alexbrn 06:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not how it works. We already have a policy and we already have this article. The talk page is used to improve the article. If you see a problem with the article, you identify it on the talk page and present the problem with our current policy framework. What you are not allowed to do is comment on some other article and then use that other article to interpret our policy anew. Those are not my rules, that's how we use the talk page. Again, if you can't specifically identify a problem, then your discussion belongs on either the NPOV noticeboard or on the talk page of the NPOV policy itself. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, in my experience on controversial articles where editors hold strong views it is quite usual to come to a general accommodation/understanding as a basis for proceeding in an orderly fashion. Allow me to suggest gently that the current interactions on this article and its talk page are not working well, so this may be worth a try.

There is no question here of interpreting policy; we must apply it, not "interpret" it. You write above that "At no time has any pseudoscience found its way into the aricle"; yet other editors seem to view some of the views expressed (e.g. in the "Concerns" section) as being pseudoscientific, and so needing to be contextualized with a mainstream "counter-view". This is the crux. So (to boil this down to a specific), is the statement that the protestors espouse "Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health" an inclusion of a pseudoscientic view, or not? If it is then policy dictates it must be qualified with a mainstream counter, in my understanding. Alexbrn 06:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A few things. First of all, you just edited this article to add a link to GMO controversies to the "Concerns" section. That link already exists in the GMO controversy section above it. The concerns section is not about GMO controversy, it is about the concerns expressed by the protesters in reliable sources, including their platform, agenda, and so-called rationale. Every protest movement has this and all of these concerns are found in reliable sources. Second of all, pseudoscience has a specific definition and usage. Either you are ignoring this definition and usage or you are blissfully unaware of it. The concerns of the protesters have nothing whatsoever to do with "pseudoscience" and nowhere do the protesters claim they are engaging in the scientific method. So, either you do not understand how the word is used or you using it in an erroneous context. It might help to review our article on the history of pseudoscience to give you some ideas of how to recognize it. Finally, the "mainstream" scientific POV is represented throughout the article. Given the fact that you just placed a duplicate link in the wrong section, I'm getting the sense that you haven't actually read this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On the link, you are right - it is not needed since it's a duplicate. On "pseudoscience" - great, you've made your position very clear. To paraphrase, I think you're maintaining that unless the holder of a view is "engaging in the scientific method" their views as reported are exempt from being categorized as pseudoscientific (and, presumably, fringe?), and - that being the case - we can relay that they are concerned (say) about the risk of GM food to human health without having to explore whether that view is scientifically supported or not. Alexbrn 10:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, and I wish you would stop wikilawyering. If you want to improve this article, do the research, read the sources about the protest movement, and help improve the coverage. There's a lot that needs to be done, and there are many views that haven't yet been added. Perhaps you could add more about the scientific view of the marchers and their claims from these sources. Right now, we really only have a general statement from AP, a statement from Monsanto and their lobbying group, and little to nothing about how scientists see the protest movement. If you want to help, then help find this information and add it. Please remember, only sources about the march. Here's some more information about the relevant science from another Monsanto rep. you might want to add. And here is a response from a protester to those arguments. We don't need a tit for tat call and response here, but we do want to make sure the most significant POV are represented. And both of those links discuss how the regulatory process works and impacts the science, a problem that is more political in nature. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you wrote "The concerns of the protesters have nothing whatsoever to do with 'pseudoscience' and nowhere do the protesters claim they are engaging in the scientific method". Let's leave it at that. So, applying this to specific content, the first bullet point in the Concerns section is that the protestors have "Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health" (sic). What actual content is this sourced to? In the cited sourced the nearest thing I can see is a reference to "... Monsanto, the biotechnology company whose genetically-modified crops are said to be harmful to the environment and can lead to serious health conditions." Alexbrn 11:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That particular concern can be traced to concerns about health and food safety originally listed on their website and later covered by the secondary sources in the article (for example Case 2013, "citing concerns about food safety"). A brief overview of the health risks the group is concerned about is found in the E source. The quote you are referring to says, "Tami Canal created a Facebook page, calling for a rally against Monsanto, the biotechnology company whose genetically-modified crops are said to be harmful to the environment and can lead to serious health conditions. The March Against Monsanto was born." Canal has also commented about this primary concern many times. She has told media outlets that she feels that the health of her children is threatened by Monsanto. Those particular concerns became paramount for the group and the sources cover this in spades. At the Los Angeles march, an activist told the media, "We want to stop GM crops, or at least get them labeled. We want to get more people aware of what's going on so we can come together to have healthy food. Our health is more important then their profits." (Philippines News Agency). Further, these concerns are supported by the sources already in the article. I can easily tighten up the sourcing however, by expanding this concern. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link to the MaM site and read this: "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects" - which seems to be pure pseudoscience (even in your terms), is a self-published claim regarding a 3rd party, and falls afoul of WP:MEDRS; I don't think we can uses this even to report what the MaM campaign holds to be true unless it's properly contextualized. The dailyinterlake.com piece does this, taking care to quote an oncologist stating "there is no real mechanism in GMOs that could even cause cancer" (a model we would do well to follow, I think). The syracuse.com doesn't seem to mention food safety. The stuff.co.nz quotes the "lead to serious health conditions" phrase from MaM.

I am wondering, why not state bluntly what MaM's concern is about health (cancer, birth defects, etc.)? What we've got doesn't seem to be sourced and is a bit vague. Alexbrn 13:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What isn't sourced? The concern appears on their website and is repeated by all of the secondary sources, and E source covers those concerns. If you want to look at the sources and rewrite it, then have at it, but don't rely solely on the primary, use the secondary. When you do, it's going to be worded in the exact same way as it is now. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The "... can lead to serious health conditions" bit in the E source source seemed to be in E source's own voice; but maybe it's just badly written? Isn't there a stronger source? Alexbrn 13:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There are in the reference section but I have to log out. You can pick and choose from the sources in the article to find what you need. I trust you'll do a great job. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

break

Okay, I've re-sourced to a newer source (International Business Times) which has the merit of plainly re-stating MaM's own concerns. But now I am twitchy again about pseudoscience and biomedical claims. I don't think the claim that GM food causes cancer (etc.) should be allowed to stand, even as a reported view, without some corrective context. Alexbrn 14:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Where's the pseudoscience? This is also covered by Benbrook in the E source. If you are twitchy about what you perceive as pseudoscience and biomedical claims, then why did you add them? It's almost as if you added them for the sole purpose of adding a "corrective context". But you wouldn't do that now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it is what MaM are claiming, as relayed by a reasonable source. We should neither promote it nor suppress it, but report it neutrally. And the concern they have is about GM foods broadly, not more particularly about Glyphosate. Viriditas — would you object to adding material that makes plain these biomedical claims are not supported by science? Alexbrn 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, their concerns are with GM crops that are resistant to glyphosate. These concerns are covered in the article on glyphosate, so they are not "pseudoscientific". They are legitimate concerns and that article discusses them and it's been the subject of a lot of research and debate. We aren't supposed to have a back and forth on this between supporters and opponents. That kind of discourse is reserved for the GMO controversy article. In this article, we summarize the positions of the movement (the reason they "march") and the response in their respective sections and leave it at that. The previous text you removed ("Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods on human health") did just that. The response section currently addresses this directly, as does the GMO controversy summary style section. This way, the article does not fall into a claim/counter-claim debate article and sticks solely to the subject. What the March Against Monsanto are claiming is that the reason they protest is because of their concerns about the the safety of genetically modified foods on human health. Now, we could conceivably expand that into a separate section (along with all of the other concerns, but it would have to be done very carefully. Unfortunately, in this context, we really only have responses from Monsanto officials, not from scientists, so even if we wanted to do this, we couldn't because we don't have the actual sources we need. So any expansion of the concerns would have to be expanded within the context of the movement which at this point has a very limited number of sources to draw upon. Viriditas (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, neither MaM's official site nor the secondaries (E souce/IBT) mention Glyphosate is relation to the protestor's concerns about food safety. What they say is "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects". Alexbrn 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Their official website refers specifically to Roundup and glyphosate in relation to their concerns about food safety "to learn more about genetically-modified products and how to avoid them" and the secondary sources (like E) specifically mention it. In fact, that phrasing ("Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects") refers directly and only to Samsel's review of glyphosate, popularized by Common Dreams and added to their website as a source. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's your synthesis, not what the sources state. Would you have us think the protestors think GM food is fine if it hasn't been in contact with glyposate? Nowhere do they make such claims - their claim on the adverse health effects of GM food is unqualified (again, they state: "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects" - glyphosate is not mentioned on the same page; nor is it used to qualify this claim in the secondaries, but raised as a distinct issue). Alexbrn 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Where's the pseudoscience?" - Oh boy. Firemylasers (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The old "bloggers are more authoritative than journal articles and news sources" gambit. How crude. And where is the pseudoscience? Have you even read our article on glyphosate? Obviously not. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the good old appeal to authority gambit. If we're going to play games with reliability of sources, then why are you citing a research scientist from the CS/AI lab at MIT whose work was "published" in a pay-to-play journal whose topic isn't even related to the article at hand? A journal that isn't even indexed in PubMed? A paper that involves no actual research? A paper that cites Andrew Wakefield, whose medical license was revoked and whose paper was retracted? A paper that cites Seralini's 2012 study, one of the most thoroughly debunked fraudulent studies in recent history? A paper that makes completely insane assumptions based on null evidence?

Speaking of the article on glyphosate, I think you should go take a look at it, since you obviously haven't read it. Firemylasers (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is quite clear: "While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is widely used, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist." Are you and your friends going to try and delete that as well? The rest of the article goes into these concerns and they are well documented. There's nothing pseudoscientific about these concerns and they are covered widely in the literature. What you are basically saying is that there are no risks to any of Monsanto's products. Now that is pseudoscience! Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point you're just embarrassing yourself with these posts. I must say, this has been an amusing experience, but I have far better things to do than to spar with an editor who doesn't seem to be capable of grasping core concepts of risk assessment and who is actively ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter. The fact that you cited Seneff's "study" just seals the deal. The incredible hostility from you and your attempt at taking over the article is even more interesting. Firemylasers (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the entire point of this discussion. The March Against Monsanto cites Samsel and Seneff's study to support their POV on their website, and the risks of glyphosate are well established. Your response was to point me to bloggers who are critical of the authors of the study. Your entire line of reasoning is debunked by our article on glyphosate, where the risks are discussed. I'm getting the distinct impression that you are not here to improve this article but to wage wars against its editors and to keep attacking anyone that criticizes Monsanto, a company who has a history of making products with known risks and dangers. If you were scientific in your approach, you would acknowledge these risks, except, as it turns out, Monsanto & Co. have attacked every study and every author that has ever published a paper showing these risks. That's very interesting, and we even have reliable sources about these attacks, detailing how Monsanto goes after anyone who criticizes their products. In today's news out of Germany, it turns out that attacking these people is not enough. Monsanto is now, according to German news outlets, spying on them. Until you are ready to learn how Misplaced Pages works and what we are actually doing here, you probably should find another place to troll. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hah. No wonder this article is in such bad shape. I won't even bother responding to such an irrational post. You can figure out the issues with this one on your own, I won't spoon feed it to you. Firemylasers (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I bet you can't point to anything in "bad shape" (unless you are speaking of the recent edits by Thargor & Co. which destroyed the article, in which case I agree). In fact, I double dare you to point me to content that is in "bad shape" and needs fixing (aside from the recent changes by Thargor's poison pen). Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but to keep this talk page from being derailed, the first step would be to ignore obvious socks/disrupters. Until he comes clean about his true identity, ignore him entirely. Not that those involved in protecting Monsanto care, but this activity is very disrespectful to independent editors.. petrarchan47tc 17:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Please be aware of WP:ANI#Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Boston Magazine reported that the bill 'protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks'."

I don't think this sentence should be in the section regarding the Farmer's Assurance Provision section. It's verified that Boston Magazine reported this, but it does not appear to be what the bill actually does. NPR has an expert opinion, and Politifact supports that point of view. I think we should remove that line based on the facts of the case and language of the bill. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. SpectraValor (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the primary source in this case? Given this section is about the marcher's motivations, their own thoughts on the MPAct would surely be more relevant that this third party statement, which also has the problem of looking pretty WP:SYNTH-y. A direct quote that could be placed here would be "(The MPA is) ...a provision attached to a spending bill that would allow seeds deemed unsafe to be planted anyway, trumping any court rulings." (This would clearly need to be couched in language demonstrating this is their opinion, not fact) DanHobley (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That sort of statement comes two lines after the magazine piece. My concern is more that the line comes during a clear description of the law, not the opinion area. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we replace it, I agree that not much is lost if this just comes out. As you say, third party, obscure journalistic comment doesn't sit right here. DanHobley (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I think that it is very clear that the passage on the page needs to be rewritten. The quote from Boston Magazine is, if not contradicted, at least shown to be misleading by two other sources, one of which, NPR, is undeniably mainstream and a reliable source. Knowing this, it becomes cherrypicking to simply use the Boston Magazine statement. We should delete the Boston Magazine material, replace it with an objective sentence in Misplaced Pages's voice, based on the NPR piece, and then, right after it, quote from the primary source from the March people, giving their views in their own words, and attributing it to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with outright removal. Boston Magazine is a reliable and prominent source, and removing it based on an editor's reading of the bill is WP:OR. Moreover it only semi-conflicts with the NPR and Politifact analyses. The appropriate solution is to explain all three sources and let the reader decide, per WP:BALANCE and WP:Conflicting sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't removal based on "an editor's reading," but on the reading of reliable sources, fact-checkers, experts, and the bill itself. I again ask why editors insist on adding falsehoods to this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A statement by a reliable source that isn't directly contradicted by any other reliable source can hardly be characterized as a "falsehood." You might want to review WP:TRUTH as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement is directly contradicted by the two links offered above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, Misplaced Pages editor Thargor Orlando does not trump three US congress members (and others). Please be aware of this opposition to the bill:

An amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Merkley sought, unsuccessfully, to overturn the provision. Merkley's reasoning was that it "allows the unrestricted sale and planting of genetically modified seeds that could be harmful to farmers, the environment and human health".

After public outrage, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski offered an apology for allowing the bill to be signed into law. In her statement, Milkulski said she "understands the anger over this provision", and that she "didn't put the language in the bill and doesn't support it either".

Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed to continue fighting for GMO labeling and for a defeat of the provision by not allowing it back into law after its expiration. In a May 28, 2013 interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Sanders claimed there were "about 27 states in this country that are moving forward on the labeling of GMO food", saying this showed the "momentum is with us". He went on to say, "Essentially, what that Monsanto Protection Act rider said is that even if a court were to determine that a particular product might be harmful to human beings or harmful to the environment, the Department of Agriculture could not stop the production of that product once it is in the ground. So you have deregulated the GMO industry from court oversight, which is really not what America is about." Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, none of these quotes support the claim being made in Boston Magazine shown to be false by NPR and Politifact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to parse the sourcing based on policy and guidelines, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc., and I think that Thargor is correct. Let's look at those members of Congress, one-by-one. Sen. Merkley says that the law allows allows unrestricted planting of seeds that could be harmful, but he does not say that the law "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". Those are two different things. Sen. Mikulski says nothing about lawsuits or liability, at all. Sen. Saunders does talk about legal liability, but he discusses only the ability of courts to stop the production of crops (injunctive relief), not the ability of courts to assess financial penalties against Monsanto (punitive or monetary relief). That's not to say that the Senators' views aren't noteworthy for a page about the bill.

It's true that WP:BALANCE is very applicable here, but let's look at what it really says: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Here, we have reputable sources, including Boston Magazine and NPR, that contradict one another, but they are not really equal, in that NPR examines the issue in detail, and its analysis is backed by other sources, whereas the Boston Magazine sentence is a single sentence that an editor chose to pick. Thus, balance indicates that we should regard the NPR analysis as the more definitive, as opposed to doing what WP:VALID warns against.

I suppose we could present all this as a two-sided debate, with NPR's analysis on one side, and Boston Magazine's on the other, but that doesn't belong on this page. We should link, as we do, to the main page about the bill, and not have a WP:POVFORK here. We should delete the sentence about Boston Magazine, and replace it with the primary source that DanHobley found: what the marchers themselves maintain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The NPR and PolitiFact sources don't directly contradict the Boston Magazine source:

• The NPR sources says: "But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it hasn't already exercised in the past." Notice the key word "may." Moreover even if the bill doesn't grant the USDA any new powers that doesn't mean it doesn't protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits. Protection can have multiple layers; the bill might give Monsanto extra arguments in court.
• PolitiFact validates the concerns encapsulated in the Boston Magazine quote and calls it "Half True": "However, the language in the law saying the USDA 'shall' issue permits escalates that policy, with one expert telling us it 'compels' the agency to allow the use of disputed products while litigation proceeds. And now the USDA itself is now questioning whether that provision is enforceable. The Facebook claim rightly describes the effect of the new provision, but lacks some important context. We rate it Half True." Hardly a contradiction.

In my opinion the PolitiFact source is the most thorough and most reliable, and it does not directly contradict the Boston Magazine source; it merely says the debate deserves more context. As Tryptofish observes, a detailed explanation is probably merited in the bill's article. But here this section is about concerns. Whether they are valid or not is debatable, but they are still more than fringe concerns and merit description, just without misleading the reader. In light of this I would write the passage along these lines: "According to Boston Magazine the bill 'protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks.' Although NPR and PolitiFact have noted that this interpretation reads the bill out of context, similar claims on Facebook have been used to promote the movement." Thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it would be a lot better to simply source what we say to the primary source from the protest itself, and attribute it to them. And I think that a point-counterpoint between Boston Magazine and Facebook on one side and NPR and PolitiFact on the other does not belong on this page. I'm fine with regarding the differences between sources as something less than a contradiction. But "may" does not mean "is", and "half true" does not mean "true". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal is that it leaves out the very noteworthy fact that the protesters' concerns have been validated by at least one reliable source. The fact that other sources aren't in complete agreement is beside the point, except that we don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's no dispute at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree per Tryptofish. The grounds for removal aren't anything to do with truth, but simply that a magazine's opinion of a law that is also criticized by the march's organizers just isn't relevant on this page (but would clearly be on the page about the bill). We could replace it with the organiser's opinion, which really isn't actually that prominent here! DanHobley (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you and Thargor have different reasons for wanting the Boston Magazine material removed. Regardless, the material seems highly relevant. According to the WFTS source the protesters want to defeat the bill and have called it the "Monsanto Protection Act" for what seem like the very reason described in the Boston Magazine article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm replying here to your reply above to me as well. You are engaging in WP:SYNTH when you say that the source "validates" it in a factual sense. The source agrees with it, but that's not the same thing. It's entirely appropriate to present the protesters' views, and I'm not seeing anyone trying to say otherwise. It would be one thing to say that someone at Boston Magazine agrees with the protesters' opinions, but it's another to present that information as demonstrating that the protesters' understanding of the legislation is precisely correct, when we have reliable sources that say that the quote in question gets the nuance wrong. Again, the right thing to do here is to present the protesters' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no contradiction of sources. Each source made their own analysis and decided where to put weight on in their conclusion. If we do it (as some try to) it's OR, but if the sources do we can use them, even more when added with attribution. It would be nice if we really would stick to policies and not try to misuse them for one or another personal POV. Going by the (real) book would be a start in making this article an informative NPOV entry. Maybe editors with to strong of a feeling should step away? That too would help.TMCk (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% and reject Thargor's line of argument... but I'm convinced by Tryptofish and DanHobley's. This paragraph should focus on describing the protesters' opposition to the bill and not on the validity (or invalidity) of the concerns. Still, if you take the Boston Magazine quote out you're left with a very weak explanation for the protesters' position. Best would be to replace the sentence with something like: The Facebook page for Grow Food, Not Lawns contends the bill would "require the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled against the crop as being dangerous to public safety or the environment." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with direct attribution. My issue is solely with using a news source incorrectly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Thargor. The sources do contradict each other. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! It sounds like we now agree all around. I think that if we just work out the exact wording, we'll be all set. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Other discussion

Again, for what has to be the millionth time, none of your links have anything to do with this March. We can only use sources about this topic. Got it? Good. Now, you say you don't trust the accuracy of the Boston Magazine source. You need to explain why you don't think it is accurate and how it differs from other sources. Does the bill protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential risks? According to the multitude of sources that we on this subject, yes, it does. Now, if you can show otherwise, please do so. The pattern that I'm seeing here is very clear. You and other editors are repeatedly removing and arguing to remove any content critical of Monsanto, regardless of the fact that this content is easily verifiable and published by many different reliable sources. What we have here, in my opinion, is a clear disregard of Misplaced Pages policies, and a disruptive pattern of wikilawyering to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to include details about HR 933, if it's related to the march than material related to HR 933 IS on topic, if it isn't related to the march then why is anything about HR 933 IN this article in the first place? Firemylasers (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, as you have been repeatedly informed, it is the multitude of sources about the march that include details about HR 933, and as editors, we write articles based on the sources. It is directly related to the reasons for the march, and this has been explained a dozen times on this page and in multiple discussions. You are simply disrupting this talk page again, pretending that those discussions never occurred All of the sources used to discuss HR 933 in this article are about the march. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting to discuss HR 933 on a page about a march. Please point out where Misplaced Pages policy states that off-topic expansion in an unrelated article is not supposed to be NPOV. We are supposed to write articles based on reputable sources and are supposed to provide a NPOV, this is not achieving that goal. Firemylasers (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong on every point. The sources about the march discuss HR 933. What part of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV isn't making sense to you? Please choose a specific source from the article that you feel does not meet this standard? Please be brief and specific in your reply. It sounds to me like 1) you didn't look at the sources 2) you didn't do the research, and 3) you aren't making any sense. Finally, I would like to once again point out that you and others are disrupting the talk page. The HR 933 discussion is already taking in place in this thread. This thread once again duplicates an already ongoing discussion thread. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sources pass all of those. Your attempt at excluding these sources violates WP:NPOV. Firemylasers (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be confused. We only use sources about the subject. In this particular instance, we are using sources about the March Against Monsanto. Was there something that a particular source said that disagreed with the sources we are using? I don't think so. That's a specious argument made by Thargor Orlando, and it highlights why we don't cherry pick our sources. The source in question is Annear, Steve (19 June 2013). "Thousands Sign Petition In Support of Labeling Foods Containing GMOs". Boston. You can read his bio here. What exactly is it about his reporting that you dislike? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, first the POV problem is a cherry picked hypothetical example of what it protects against (and cherry picking of a "source" (which is actually a participant rather than a source) that is saying that. Other cherry-picked examples could include "protects Monsanto against trumped up lawsuits known to be baseless, pursued solely (by Monsanto's opponents) to harass Monsanto." plus 1,000's of other possibilities. Viriditas, you are trying to establish a highly variable non-existent relevancy criteria. A very low bar if it is anit-Monsanto/GMP, and a very high bar if it is pro-Monsanto. The same old coatrack problem that I have noted several times. In essence trying to make/keep it a soapbox/coatrack for inclusion of only or mostly anti-Monsanto/GMO talking points North8000 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing cherry picked here, and it appears that you do not know what that term means. The source was written by a seasoned journalist about the March Against Monsanto.Thousands Sign Petition In Support of Labeling Foods Containing GMOs This source is also in parity with other sources about the topic. Do you have an argument against how it is used except for IDONTLIKEIT? Here is the material:

In May, protesters took to the streets of Boston as part of an international protest against Monsanto, one of the leading agricultural biotech corporations that produce genetically engineered seeds. The rally, called “March Against Monsanto,” urged legislative leaders to force food labeling so that consumers can make informed decisions about what they buy and eat.

Two months prior to the protests, President Barack Obama signed a bill that protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks. Protesters dubbed the legislation the “Monsanto Protection Act.” The protests were part of a growing concern here in the state, which has the backing of groups like Massachusetts Right to Know GMOs, who has has lobbied elected officials in an effort to pass legislation to label foods.

Exactly how many sources like this one do I need to repeat here showing the same thing? This is not a coatrack of any kind. Media outlets reported this concern over and over again. WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida said that the 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." The Orange County Register reported that "the march comes on the heels of the Farmer Assurance Provision, signed by President Barack Obama in March" and goes into detail on it. The Daily Inter Lake reported that

"The backlash against Monsanto arose mainly not out of health concerns but of the controversial Farmer Assurance Provision, derisively known as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” signed into law in March. "I had been aware of GMOs to an extent,” said Ren Robinson, one of the organizers of Kalispell’s March Against Monsanto. “But it was really after the Monsanto Protection Act passed that I got involved. I thought it would work itself out."

There is no coatrack here. We have dozens of sources linking HR 933 and the March and I've already covered this in a previous thread. Again, you folks have your panties in a twist, and you keep trying to re-open the same discussions over and over again in the hopes that you'll get a different response. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I am open to any modifications or any new proposed wording that comes from sources about the march. And we have a hell of a lot of them, so please don't offer another source that has nothing to do with the march. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am open to removing the line altogether, as I noted how the way Boston Magazine put it does not reflect the bill as noted by experts. Do you have a reason to include it that meets our muster? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You noted no such thing. The only place you noted it is in your head, and I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You have not shown that "it does not reflect the bill as noted by experts", nor have you cited one of the many sources about the march that covers this topic. Instead, you once again cited an off-topic source that has nothing to do with this subject. Again, if you can't cite a source about this subject, we can't use it. Further, your most recent revert is absurd. In your edit summary, you wrote, "Too many local additions, too many bad sources, removal of good sources." Sorry, but that's 100% false. You removed reliably sourced content about this subject, you added back sources into the lead section against best practice exemplified by WP:LEAD and you claimed that there were "too many local additions", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Finally, you made the ridiculous claim that there were "too many bad sources" when in fact there was not a single bad source added...except by yourself in your own revert! So, again, we have your continued disruption of this article and absolute refusal to improve it. The diff from your revert shows that you did not improve this article in any way, but instead degraded it by removing reliable sources that supported the material. I would like to hear your justification for this revert, beginning with why you removed citations to the Orange County Register and the Honolulu Weekly, and why you deleted the expansion of the March section with citations to the Caribbean Business, eNCA, and The Victorian Advocate. Please also explain why you added back citations that have nothing to do with the subject of this article, why you added back wording that was sourced to a now removed unreliable video editorial, and why you removed the quote from Jack Tapper, the removal of which was discussed here with no response. In fact, if we were to look at your history on this article, all we would find is the repeated addition of original research, off-topic sources, and blanket reverts made for no reason and without any stated justification. In my world, that's called intentional disruption. But please, tell me how "too many local additions" justifies you deleting this content. And where are the "good sources" that you added back and where are the "bad sources" that you reverted? Care to name them? In other words, put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to have this discussion if you're not going to read what's presented to you. We've discussed many of these already. As for the local stuff, why is a paragraph about Austin relevant? As for the bad sources, InTheseTimes is not appropriate. At this point, we should be discussing these major additions before adding them. You know this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We have not discussed this already. The expansion of the march section is underway. You reverted it for no reason. A march in Texas is clearly relevant and I was in the middle of writing about it when you deleted it. In These Times is quite clearly a ] for this topic, and I would like to know what is "inappropriate" about it. The magazine has won multiple awards and has only professional journalists working for it. In fact the author of the article in question, Miles Kampf-Lassin, is the freakin' editor. Care to explain how this isn't a reliable source? And what the heck does "At this point, we should be discussing these major additions before adding them" mean anyway? None of the edits under discussion are "major". You also added back in wording from an unreliable source that has since been removed and you added back in off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this topic. Again, how did your revert improve this article? Please be specific, because I'm not seeing any improvements. Why did you add the sources back to the lead when this content is already sourced in the body? Why did you remove the Tapper quote? You say this has already been discussed, but you never responded to the discussion. If you can't answer these simple questions, then the material will just get added back again. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss what you want to add at this point in order to make sure this doesn't go crazy again. It will do a lot to repair some of the bad blood that's been stored here because of the accusations levied on those who are working with you on the article. I admit I reverted too far on the Tapper quote, and as a show of good faith, I will restore it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still getting the "I'm holding the article hostage until you comply with my demands" vibe from you, Thargor, so the good faith here is in short supply. I don't like to be held hostage. Now tell me about why we can't expand the march section, why we can't use In These Times, and why you deleted the Honolulu Weekly showing that the HCIA was paid by Monsanto. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How's this: people who accuse me of being a paid shill do not get to complain about being "held hostage." We have stated, time and time again, about the policies, the fringe viewpoints, and so on. Let us know what you propose to add and why, and we can discuss it. We must clean this article up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "this" article, and there is nothing that needs "cleaning" up. You are holding this article hostage to your demands while repeatedly disrupting it with multiple reverts and deletions without ever once explaining or justifying your reverts. You still haven't responded to my multiple requests up above. You can start by explaining why In These Times isn't a reliable source for this article, followed by why you deleted the expansion of the march section, your rationale for deleting the sourced statement by Honolulu Weekly showing that the HCIA was paid by Monsanto, and finishing with why you restored content from an unreliable source that was removed with the addition of sources that have nothing to do with this topic. I'm waiting. Viriditas (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to keep waiting, then, if you can't see the responses above. Gain consensus for your additions, like you did with the Tapper quote, and this will go more smoothly. This is not anyone holding the article hostage, this is trying to bring the article in line with policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who has spent the last several months disrupting this article by repeatedly adding maintenance tags and off-topic sources to this article without consensus. You are and have beeen holding this hostage to your POV, and you have never responded to a single question I've asked about your reverts. You recently removed material from this article for no reason and you refuse to explain your reasons just like North. Again, you were directly asked why did you remove the link to In These Times? It's a reliable source and it will be added back. You were asked why you removed the sourced statement by the Honolulu Weekly showing that the HCIA was paid by Monsanto. It's a reliable source (they won a major award for their reports on GMOs) and it's going to be added back. I've discussed my edits throughout the entire time I've been at this article, while you have not. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward

This is getting mired down. Let's put up some specific proposals, decide on them and move forward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. In fact, I agree with it so much that I already wrote an answer to it just the other day in a discussion thread above. I'll copy it to here, with a small amount of updating:

• For me, the biggest thing 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 even more revert wars break out:

1. #Issues about the science sourcing
2. #TL;DR version for other editors
3. #The HR 933 signing timeline
4. #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section
5. #Unsourced changes to the lead section
6. #Removal of Facebook message

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops....I forgot that we sort of have a section like this open....it was so any hundred lines ago. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 19:21, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold here and siphon these out. If you can detail these in the places where I haven't, that would be great Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep each discussion in one place, so I'm moving what's here, without changing any of it. (Just follow the links in my list here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't revert you on it, but the point of putting them into individual slots was to start fresh and to get the lay of the land on each issue individually as opposed to through the bickering above. I won't argue it further, but I think that's a better way to push it through. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate what you are saying. My thinking, however, is that the existing talk threads are still quite current and not stale, and, because they remain unresolved to varying degrees, it really is better to try and resolve each of them in one place. Otherwise, we are just about certain to have editors replying to one another in more than one place at the same time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about some past edits

This is exactly the kind of disruption I am talking about. Thargor's been trying to "start fresh" in each and every discussion that's ever occured, because all he has to do to force his edits into the article is to ignore the discussion as if it never occurred, pretend it never occured, and then claim he wants to reboot it by "starting fresh" each time. No, I'm sorry, this can't be allowed. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It might have been disruptive if Thargor had reverted me, but that didn't happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring this back around to some semblance of a civilized discussion based on the science and the sources. Please don't derail this one as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Science? You're at the wrong article. You want GMO articles, Thangor, if you have sources about this protest movement, great. The one derailing this talk page is certainly not Viritidas. petrarchan47tc 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The protest is about science, so it's relevant. Also, why are you giving Thom Hartmann undue weight? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you call it undue to quote Thom Hartmann commenting about this very protest? Do you know who he is? Also, "this protest is about science" is profoundly untrue. It is about the beliefs of the people behind it. As has been stated countless times, this article shouldn't be covering GMO science, unless quoting the protesters themselves. This misunderstanding needs to be cleared up ASAP. You are obviously well versed in GMO science, and I do think you've stumbled upon the wrong article for your expertise. It is not needed here, petrarchan47tc 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

His column was already linked in the second half of the statement. It's undue weight because it's demonstrably false. As for the GMO science, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV demand that we cover the consensus viewpoint on fringe theories. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if he said that the moon is made of green cheese. If you want your opinion inserted into this article either become a noted journalist or scientist. He is a journalist of note and what he said belongs in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, about 99.99% of what journalists said that is somehow related to this is not in this article. So merely having said it is not a sufficient reason to put it in And comments alleging that Tea Party movement rallies are small is really going too far afield to be in the .01% on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Granted, I have not been able to follow the talk word for word, but I certainly am not at all aware of the 99.99% you speak of. It has been my impression that the march generated very little journalistic response. Could you please point me to at least a few responses of other notable journalists? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You missed my point. Basically it was that "a source said it" is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is room for more than a full screen of Monsanto response there is room for one full sentence of three lines for a response from Hartmann. You and some readers may feel that it's BS, but keep in mind that some readers feel that Monsanto's response is BS as well. Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What is it about Hartmann's response that makes it worth commenting out basically into its own paragraph? Having a paragraph from Monsanto makes sense: after all, the March is directly about them. Why on earth would with give Hartmann's incorrect assertion significant article space? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's ironic that a complaint about starting new discussions about topics that were already being discussed has resulted in a new discussion about topics that were already being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

None of us really have control over the (organic) talk page flow, nor should we. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But we each have control over what we do and do not say, ourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it would be helpful to resolve the discussions that are linked to from this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments about user conduct

The continued exchanges of disagreement, primarily between User:Thargor Orlando and User:Viriditas, are becoming tiresome, and accomplish nothing. Does either of them actually think that he or she will wear the other down? All that I see it doing is to waste pixels. Can the rest of us ignore the battleground editors and try to compromise to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this talk page has been mentioned at both WP:ANI and WP:AN. There are probably multiple administrators watching this page. So be civil. There is no rule against contradicting an editor four times a day on talk pages, but it doesn't help.

As was mentioned at the noticeboard, if anyone has reason, other than idle suspicion, to suspect sockpuppetry or paid editing, report it. If you have idle suspicion, say nothing until you have evidence.

Idle accusations of conflict of interest have been a long-standing ugly pattern with regard to this article. Can we stop making idle accusations?

Tryptofish has made some constructive suggestions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is it at WP:AN? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When editors complain about no response within 24 hours or refer to archived discussions that are less than a month old as evidence for "consensus," (translated, "I argued against five people two weeks ago and reverted their edits until they gave up"), there's something very wrong with an article and its talk page, and it's inadvisable for reasonable individuals to remain involved. The problem isn't POV pushers like Viriditas, who accuse people like me of being Monsanto employees with no evidence just because they think we disagree with their POV on GMOs. No, it's editors and various admins who have weighed in here or at other places because they either have such a stake in seeming impartial and fair (pointing fingers at the POV pusher AND a random one of the ten editors who disagree) or else so admire the perceived Robin Hood character of a person who will edit war to make a point that the project finally takes second place. SpectraValor (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When does anyone other than Viriditas actually build the article, you know, expand on the subject matter? And no, the subject matter is not GMO science. I see a heck of a lot of policing, but little to no content creation related to the March Against Monsanto. What I have seen is a lot of trying to keep the article from being written, or stories spun about how all problems lie with two editors and their bickering. I do hope Admins come around, and thoroughly look through the archives. They will see exactly what type of content has been aggressively added and what has been removed, all with a very specific pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO POV, and wildly outside the bounds of this article's subject matter. It began for me here, and more pro-biotech was added here. I had to continually remove the Monsanto propaganda ( and again), but I was told over and over, by a variety of editors in numerous ways, "You can't put in the protest claims without pointing out that they are not supported scientifically" and we cannot allow fringe POVs to go unchecked in this article, and it was re-added again and again because "We cannot allow fringe viewpoints to go unchecked". One time, IRWolfie swept through and erased most of my work. We weren't allowed to say "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" because, according to A13ean, the source material from Truthout mentioned Séralini, who found that GM corn created large tumors in rats, and who according to this group of editors, was discredited. And here's when another SPI rolled through to "eliminate soapboxing". Then there was the time IRWolfie declared the entire article Fringe Theory. And of course, the various efforts to change the number of protesters from 2 million to "between 200,000 to 2 million" based on one local NY newspaper article written while the protest was still ongoing, which Jtydog started here... and which ended up ensconced in Misplaced Pages at the Monsanto article and the Genetically modified food article, as well as this one... meaning these editors support the use of this one reference to change the truth that was reported by literally every other media, and to this day, which is that the protest was attended by 2 million protesters (no "range" is ever mentioned, only on Wiki). "2 million" is the uncontested turnout number as for as RS is concerned, but we are not allowed to state that on Misplaced Pages. petrarchan47tc 05:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty difficult to meaningfully expand it when, at the same time, you have to remove all the anti-scientific cruft and overweighting of fringe viewpoints. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not the aim of WP just to expand articles. We should produce a balanced and encyclopedic article. At present the article is more of a soapbox for anti-GM views. Regarding the 2,000,000 figure, all reliable sources give that as an organisers' claim only. There are no independent estimates giving this figure, see below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

200,000

I hesitate to raise this, but if it's really only just CTV News citing this figure (with everybody else relaying the organizers' estimate of 2 million) we should probably take it out of the article as an outlier; it certainly shouldn't be in the lede. Alexbrn 06:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes you hesitate to raise this? petrarchan47tc 06:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A fear for the amount of time I may have to spend discussing it on the Talk page rather than doing the things I ought to be doing today :-) Alexbrn 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I hear you! petrarchan47tc 06:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out an article from the New York Times "A Race to Save the Oranges." This article states hundreds of thousands, which seems to me more like the 200,000 number then the organizers 2,000,000 number. VViking_TalkEdits 06:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - I have added this back in, but mentioning its "hundreds of thousands" verbatim ... Alexbrn 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been trying to stay away from hotly debated topics, as I don't really like the drama. I knew about this article because of my interest in Orange Groves in Florida and wanted to point it out since it was a more recent article.VViking_TalkEdits 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

With the preponderance of sources mentioning millions (evidenced below), this (wiki-wide) lowball does not properly represent RS. petrarchan47tc 09:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason both are listed is because relying on the organizers alone is not very good activity, thus the range between outside estimates and organizer estimates. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't we usually go with what RS says instead of second guessing and correcting them? Why is it different here? Why is this number such a heated source of contention? petrarchan47tc 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see:

This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times

Plus

• CNN: Millions protest genetically modified food, Monsanto, organizers say

• IBTimes: ‘March Against Monsanto’ Draws As Many As 2 Million Globally

As many as 2 million people ... may have demonstrated ... according to the Associated Press, which cited event organizers.

• Guardian: Millions march against GM crops

Organisers say that two million people marched

• RT: Over two million march the streets of 436 cities, 52 countries

• LA Weekly: Millions worldwide join March against Monsanto petrarchan47tc 06:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should adopt the NYT "hundreds of thousands" in the lede, since it is not incompatible with the other claims, and the NYT is a good strong source. The article body can go into more detail about the other figures. Alexbrn 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The NYT article is not a good string source for this claim. It is not about the protest, only mentions it somewhere near the end of their article about oranges. I have a list of the highest quality RS right above whose very titles give us the mainstream number for the protest turnout. Editors are engaging in massive cherry picking to get this "range" - it is OR and a misrepresentation of the facts. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the actual quotes in above. All neutral reliable sources make clear that they are giving the organisers's estimates not their own. We must make this clear if we give this figure in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at my early edits to this article, you will see I did leave the "according to organizers" disclaimer - but that wasn't good enough. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize this information is technically original research as well as synthesis, however I think we need to be intellectually honest with these numbers at least in the discussion. March Against Monsanto claimed 2,000,000 participants in 52 countries and 436 cities. This equals an average number per city of 4587. Realizing some rallies will be large and some small I searched for cities that had news articles on the number of participants. I was able to find information for 36 different cities in 3 different countries. Which I know is only 10% of the cities the March Claims.

The largest group of participants that I found was in Portland with 6000 also in the thousand range were Eugene OR which had reports of hundreds or 2500 depending on the source, Miami with 1500, NYC with 2400, Washington DC with 1000 and San Diageo and Ashville with “more than a thousand.”

On the bottom end we had cities with 50, 75, 80 and dozens; with the majority of the cities in the “hundreds.” After taking the rosiest outlook for the March organizers with every one of the hundreds rounded to 999 and the more than a thousand being rounded up to 1999. The average for the marches was about 999.65 per city. If we then took the claim of the organizers that 436 cities participated and we even gave that a rosy number of 450 cities participating this only will add up to 449,850 participants worldwide. On the low end again with 450 cities participating, the number was closer to 266,000.

The numbers just don’t add up. CNN makes the statement that they cannot verify the numbers and most articles that are making the 2,000,000 person statement are based on a single AP article or just taking the organizers number at face value.VViking_TalkEdits 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but wiki saves us from the work you've just done with their handy rules about going with RS and "no original research". What is wrong with representing the sources on wiki, and adding the "according to organizers" (even though most RS did not add that disclaimer)? petrarchan47tc 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am good citing with "according to organizers" I don't really care either way. I enjoyed the research and just thought I would point it out even though I knew it was original research.VViking_TalkEdits 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of original research for the fun of it, check out these images from across the world during the MAM, it becomes easier to believe that millions participated. I figured since it was a Facebook-fueled protest, a link to these images would be acceptable, as you can see in the "external links" section of the article during the time I was building it. Now, only one external link exists. petrarchan47tc 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Those images don't seem to make it easier to believe millions participated, in fact the opposite. That said, while some offtopic discussion is may be tolerated, it seems to me this is starting to detract from the main point. Back to that, if there are so few sources mentioning alternative figures it may be best to simply mention the organisers figures in the LEDE, as organisers figures although the may be merit to mention alternative figures in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that sticking close to RS guidelines is the best way to go. (And steering clear of OR). I will let others make this change to reflect what sources say. And please be careful of getting trapped into the dreaded 3RR! petrarchan47tc 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Prior to the march, media was saying that 200,000 were expected. This makes me think that the source discussed above used the expected number rather than any sort of analysis. It seems obvious this is what happened since the number is identical. This is called lazy reporting in some circles. petrarchan47tc 07:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless we actually know that the sources used that number because it was a pre-event estimate, we would be doing WP:OR in concluding that those sources should be given less weight for that particular reason. I've seen those photos, and it gets awfully speculative to draw any editorial conclusions from them; we cannot even verify whether they are what they purport to be. We could potentially have endless back-and-forth about whether the numbers from some media sources are more reliable, or whether the numbers from the organizers are more reliable, but we won't get anywhere with that. I still think it's best to say some sources say this and some sources say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I added the photos "for the fun if it", in response to the OR just prior. I'm not a fan of OR and don't intend to use it, but rather the media sources like CNN and others who waited until the protest was finished to quote the turnout numbers. petrarchan47tc 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Elitism" comments from Monsanto

I moved mention of these comments from the "Response ..." section to the "Concerns" section because they pre-date the march. However, as Petrarchan47 has pointed-out to me, this still isn't quite right, as thse comments weren't - strictly speaking - concerns which prompted the march. One way to maybe address this is to rename the "Concerns" section "Built-up to the march" (or similar), so that this content can be accommodated. That also might encourage a more neutral gathering of material here, rather than a shopping list of concerns ... Thoughts? Alexbrn 06:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with a list of protesters concerns, in an article about the protest? "Response" should include a more well-rounded gathering, not only the response of Monsanto and biotech industry reps. But I see no reason to remove the response section. However, both sides should have their say. petrarchan47tc 06:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're being über-neutral (as we should), perhaps a "Concerns" section can even include Monstanto's concerns, such as we know them. So maybe the "elitism" stuff does belong here?

I fail to see how it would be logical to include in the section listing the concerns of the protest movement with whatever it is you are referring to as the "concerns" of Monsanto. What would be "neutral" about that? It would inverse the order of events in historical reality.

Any "concerns" voiced by Monsanto in response to the protest would, as a matter of course, appear to belong in the section, "Response".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear you: but the elitism concerns were expressed in the build-up to the march. So maybe a problem is we don't know whether the "Response" is to the march itself, or to the whole thing (including social media campaigning, etc). Maybe just re-title the section either "Response to the march" or "Response to the movement" and then it becomes clearer where the elitism comments belong ... Then (also) the media coverage section could become a subsection here? Alexbrn 07:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the requested/required source for that contention. This march was planned far in advance, so it seems to not make sense, but I look forward to proof that protesters showed up because they were outraged by the company's recent comments. petrarchan47tc 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

By "in the build-up" I simply mean "before". The article (now) does not state that the "elitism" thing was a concern of the protestors, it's in a separate paragraph. The point is that things Monsanto said before the march can't be a response to the march, which is why I'm asking if we should clarify the titling. What do you think? Alexbrn 09:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's telling that the tag I placed earlier on the response section, given it had and still has no response from anyone not pro- Monsanto, has been removed without any discussion... yet the same tag placed earlier by another editor on the media section (the one where Thom Hartmann's criticism is continually removed) remains. The POV surrounding this article is so obvious it's laughable. Very entertaining indeed. (General POV statements - not directed at anyone in particular). petrarchan47tc 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, since I removed the tag (and a lot of content in addition) in an attempt to address this issue; so are you calling me someone who is "pro-Monsanto" (whatever that means)? By removing all that Hawaii stuff, isn't the undue-ness resolved? Alexbrn 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclear wording. I meant that the response section had no input from anyone not pro-Monsanto, meaning responses from Monsanto itself and a biotech org is the only content included. petrarchan47tc 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate you adding the tags back until the situations are resolved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I don't think it makes sense to have Monsanto's criticism of the protesters in a section about what the protesters think, simply because it took place before the March, and therefore was not a "response" in the sense of responding after the March. I believe that as long as we continue to say that it happened before the March, we won't mislead anyone if we present it as part of the Monsanto response, since Monsanto was aware of the March and its issues before the March began. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough: now it's worded in a less convoluted way it now seems fine there ... Alexbrn 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage 2

This section is tagged as being undue. As I see it, the second paragraph only is at issue. It airs the claim that "the mainstream news media were influenced by corporate ties to Monsanto". This is an extraordinary claim; as such it needs extraordinarily good sourcing. But here, it has rather thin sourcing. As such I don't believe this claim can be adequately supported and this paragraph should be removed. Alexbrn 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It also claims that the mainstream media ignored the protests, which is completely false. I asked above what made Hartmann's claim so compelling and necessary that it needed its own area, I thought what we came up with above was a more responsible option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For the (what seems like) millionth time, Hartmann is a noted journalist and it does not matter whether what he said was true or false. Martin you need to quit entering your POV into this article. As for Alexbrn's concern, I agree. The Wisconsin daily and the other weekly are not substantial enough for their statements to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It absolutely matters. WP:V cares about verifiability and not truth, yes, but it also requires us to be sensible about the sources we use. We are under no obligation to give voice to false claims. This is not my point of view, but the real world. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hartmann seems like a reasonably notable commentator. His observations are obviously biased but that's fine so long as we clearly attribute them, I think. Alexbrn 13:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point. His claim is false, not biased. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What, that the march got less coverage than comparable Tea Party events? Surely this kind of thing is in the realm of opinion (unless we have some kind of media-coverage statistics to draw on) ? Alexbrn 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That as well as the idea, which is the point of Hartmann's piece, that it was ignored by the mainstream media. We're better off putting that false viewpoint with the others, there is no justification for highlighting it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Hartmann might be wrong, but he seems like a notable-enough commentator and we contextualize his view with the preceding paragraph. Of the three commentators in this section, he is the one that can stay, in my view. Alexbrn 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't contextualize his view, we advance it and highlight it even though we know he's incorrect. It's our job as editors to look at the sources and their accuracy, and use a discerning eye. I am not seeing a good argument for putting his claims out there when they're false, when we can simply put them with the other false claims and nod to their existence. Seems like a reasonable compromise as opposed to eliminating the false viewpoints completely, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If those claims are truly false please back your assertion up with some sourcing since so far we have just your word for it. That would help the discussion about it being undue a great deal.TMCk (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The evidence of mainstream media coverage is in the article already. It's not my word. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point out where the article states that "fact". Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin, this is not the UK--we have hundreds of news outlets here. The coverage was scanty in the US. Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What comment of mine are you responding to??? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Martin, my mistake. The culprit was Thargor. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That is untrue. Hundreds of outlets covered it, including many national mainstream sources. We have many of them in the article already! Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)From what is in the article one sure cannot conclude it was widely covered. I myself found out reading a foreign news source and discovered this article while looking up something else.TMCk (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can list them all if we need to. I don't believe that's necessary, and would largely be just to make a point. It's simply a POV issue to be giving that much weight to such an incorrect viewpoint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you mean Thargor. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me suggest simplifying and shortening the middle quote from "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right? It wasn't on CNN, or FoxNews? That's peculiar " to "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right?" I think it gets across the same information.

Also, I'm not so bothered about the version that is on the page at this second, because there is actually much less quoting of stuff that was wild speculation by the commentators. It's really just their opinions, related to the page subject, and clearly attributed to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We should just report what the media coverage was. Any implication of a media conspiracy (which your proposed comment is) is an unsupported extreme fringe view that has no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What's there now, particularly if improved by the edit I just suggested here, no longer implies anything about a conspiracy. It kind of implied that before, but it really doesn't now, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it you are proposing, "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right?". That to me implies that one would expect the march to be newsworthy but for some reason it was not well reported. What reason is there not to simply say, with a little more detail, 'the march was sparsely reported/averagely reported/well reported in the media'. Any suggestion that the level of media reporting was unusual in some way gives undue weight to a theory on a par with the moon landing conspiracies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mainly because the statement isn't true. The March was heavily reported, by multiple organizations including major ones. This isn't moon landing stuff, but it is assuming that coverage didn't happen that clearly did. Hartmann's claims are not factual. I'm okay with including a statement that some commentators believe it was covered poorly as opposed to simply eliminating the claim as I would prefer, but the significant attention to a false viewpoint is what creates the undue weight situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is not true? I have suggested that we simply state the degree to which the march was covered by the media; nothing more. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I proposed was to shorten the section of the page a lot more than what it is at the moment. But other editors have objected to that, and restored some of the three quotes. I'm now suggesting deleting some of the second quote. That's what I'm proposing, OK? What you quote indicates that the person who said it thinks that the protest must clearly have been newsworthy. It's hyperbole to compare that with moon landing conspiracies. We can (1) have an even longer set of commentator quotes, and leave you and some other editors unhappy, (2) shorten it the way that I tried and leave a different group of editors unhappy, or (3) try to find a reasonable compromise. I'm attempting (3). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the reason for including a quote which shows that one commentator thought that there shoulD have been more media coverage of the march?

The reason that some want to include it is that they believe that there was a worldwide conspiracy, orchestrated by Monsanto, to suppress media coverage. That is on a par with the mood landing conspiracy theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, let's entertain for the moment the possibility that this is the reason some editors want to include it. Edit Misplaced Pages, you come across all kinds! But that doesn't matter, and there's no need to settle the score. What does matter is what content we have on the page. The content we have there, at this moment, is: a list of coverage, arguably showing a lot of coverage, followed by three opinions, two of which express the opinion that there should have been more coverage. Not Misplaced Pages's opinion, but the opinion of two people, with the opinion clearly attributed to them. Nothing on the page about a conspiracy. Nothing. It's two sentences on the page, low down on the page. Deplete this particular page of all the non-mainstream opinions, and there won't be much of anything left. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thargor: I'd still like to see some proof for your claim "The March was heavily reported, by multiple organizations including major ones." And of course I'm talking about US media, especially cable news outlets. You keep repeating your claim yet it seems to be just your own strong personal view/opinion w/o any back-up presented as of yet. And again, the article's content doesn't support this extreme view.TMCk (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest looking in the article for the examples. You say that the article content does not support the "extreme view," but the content, in fact, details the multiple media organizations that covered the march, including major ones. If you claim the examples in the articles are not enough, tell me how many you need to see for you to accept the fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on what's on the page, some major media outlets covered it, and some others did not. Different people have different opinions about whether there should have been more coverage. If one looks with fresh eyes, without worrying about what the page said in the past, at what that section of the page says now, it's really not bad. It gives three opinions from three people sympathetic to the subject of this page, and attributes their views to them. It doesn't imply anything conspiritorial. It's quite short, so it's not giving it a lot of emphasis. I don't think that we can shorten it further without getting to something that will be unable to have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What the page does now is gives more weight to the argument that it wasn't covered than to the reality of the coverage. It's why I was okay with the compromise language you and I spoke of above. I would love to hear from User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper and User:Gandydancer as to why they oppose that compromise language. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we have to get to keeping score by word counts, we are never going to get to any kind of compromise. As far as I'm concerned, it is not undue weight. And if no one tries to expand the section further, then I think it would be appropriate for those who wish it were shortened to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's up to those who want to add information to justify it, so that's what I'm looking for. If they're going to insist on expanding a false claim, we need evidence for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargo. I have neither supported nor opposed anything in regards to that section. I asked you a legit question + clarified it further but you again refused to provide what was ask for. If the only answer you have is "because it is so" you missed the point of the discussion, thou I really can't imagine how this is possible. I ask you one more time to correct this and provide what was asked for.TMCk (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
To make it even more clear, if you can't or won't back up your so far only personal and strong believe by showing the march was covered by most major news outlets and in dept and at a close time frame of the date the march took place you have no point here. Your opinion, valued or not in general, has no bearing at all in this thread and in regards to truth and due weight of reliable sourced and attributed opinions from those you want to exclude. Policies and guidelines are back stabbing you in this matter. The way I see it, you don't even have a "use common sense" argument here since you seem to refuse to back up your claims.TMCk (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the claim that it was not widely covered is fully countered in the article's sources and in the section itself. My claims are backed up. You disagree, but you cannot tell me what it would take to change your mind, nor can you show any evidence to support the expansion. If you want the information included, it's up to you to justify it per our policies. Can you do that, or shall we simply remove the section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, I want to make a distinction between (1) Misplaced Pages saying that it was not widely covered, and (2) a commentator saying that it was not widely covered. The current language makes it very clear that it is the latter. In fact, what is written in Misplaced Pages's voice is what is in the first paragraph of the section, where we describe all of the sources that did provide coverage. Readers are free to read the objective information about coverage, then read the opinions of the commentators, and then finally reach their own opinions as to what they find credible or not. The WP:BURDEN that you are asking of TMCk really boils down to showing that there is a source for each of the three commentators, not that what the commentators say reflects mainstream opinion. If you want to make an issue of the dead link for one of those sources, then that's something that we might want to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not looking for Misplaced Pages's voice to say anything in particular here. My concern is solely about the amount of weight we're giving a claim that is clearly false. While I'd prefer we not place false claims in the encyclopedia, I'm on board with a compromise where we acknowledge that some commentators believe the coverage was lax. I don't see how we can mesh what's currently there with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so since you are not talking about a rebuttal in Misplaced Pages's voice, I think that brings us back to the word-count score. I'm trying to think of ways to further shorten the second paragraph of that section. Obviously, one way would be to go back to the summary that I had written, but that got reverted. Can we further shorten any of the quotes? Can we omit one of the quotes? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen a good defense of reverting that to begin with. I'm still waiting to hear a policy-based reason for it. If we need to include some sort of quote, Hartmann is the only really noteworthy voice we've included, so his line would be the sensible one to keep, but it doesn't really solve anything as much as make a bad situation better-but-still-bad. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As with the cliché about glass half empty or half full, I think that you overstate "still-bad". It seems to me that "better-but-" is always an improvement, albeit not as big an improvement as you might have hoped for. Especially given the dead link for Joseph Bachman, let me suggest the following. We keep the sentences about Livingstone and Hartmann, as they are now. We delete the existing sentence about Bachman. Then we add a sentence, after the sentence about Hartmann, saying: "Joseph Bachman, writing in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, also questioned what he saw as a lack of mainstream media coverage." Would that be enough of an improvement? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't go with that. It still way outbalances the section. "Better-bad" is what we appeared to have agreed upon before. I'd like to hear from those still opposed as to why that's not tolerable. Looking at the two discussions, the most we have consensus for is just Hartmann's statement, and even then, it's 2-to-1 in favor of what we came up with above in terms of legitimate discussion. I'm willing to go with something that's along the lines of "Some commentators, like Thom Hartmann, have claimed that the mainstream media ignored the march," but we can't keep unbalancing the article this way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm withdrawing my suggestion, with the observation that you are unlikely to get anything you consider to be "better". Besides, it turns out that the link wasn't bad, just a paywall. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My worry is this: I mean, the Louisiana Weekly and the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune ... seriously? These are sources weighty enough to support implications of corruption and lack of integrity in America's mainstream media. I'm not an an American, but if this is all it takes to call your established media institutions into question I am, frankly, amazed! Alexbrn 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what we talk about when we talk about coatracking. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

A sensible approach if we're concerned about balance between these two paragraphs is to beef up the first paragraph. In 15 minutes of looking, I've easily found two more national news articles covering the march in the days after it. That said, coming to this dispute with what I hope is a fresh and disinterested eye, I don't actually feel the balance of this section is too bad. The context on the dissenting voices (of which there were 3 as of my writing this) is clear from the names and sources as explicitly stated. I would even go so far as to recommend a purely descriptive leader sentence on this second paragraph, maybe: "Some commentators questioned the prominence of media coverage of the march in the USA." DanHobley (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with being disagreed with, but my issue with balance is that we're giving a clearly false claim significant airtime. I understand the need to note that the viewpoints exist, which is why I haven't outright removed them at this point although I believe it could be justified by policy. If there's a better way to achieve balance on this, I think we'd all like to see it happen and move on from this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(PERSONAL OPINION- having just performed a news search on this, I half agree with the premise. There's less out there than you might expect.) Regardless of what I actually think on what the sources are expressing, though, IMO the nature of these sources is very obvious from the text, and a reader can draw their own conclusions on the weight they put on these voices. I guess I'm saying I favor leaving the 2nd paragraph be as-is. (that's a vote, not shouting, sorry!) DanHobley (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan, thank you for coming to the page, and thank you for finding the excellent idea of adding to paragraph 1. At this point, I agree with everything Dan said here, and I'm in favor of not cutting anything further from the second paragraph. Our readers are smart enough to be able to assess the sources in that second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why the degree of media coverage matters so much and why it is contentious? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Which is a good reason to stop agonizing over the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It matters to those who support the March because it sustains a "corporate media" meme where the media looks out for the big and powerful as opposed to the people. It's why it's so important for some to have it expressed significantly in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, despite my facetious reply, that's actually the real reason. The meme exists, and the meme is part of the subject matter of this page. But, per WP:RGW, Misplaced Pages is here to document the meme, not to settle the score or even to set the record straight. We don't have to purge it from the page to satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, that doesn't explain why some editors are so determined to argue for shortening the section. It explains why some editors buy into a meme, but it doesn't explain why other editors who reject the meme get so worked up about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. We just need to give it the proper weight, which is not an amount of "screen time" higher than the reality. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which we do now. I say that, keeping in mind that you rejected the idea of leaving anything more than a short summary on the page, and keeping in mind that we don't have to purge it from the page to satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How is giving a false, minority viewpoint the majority of the media coverage space within the realm of proper weight? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I already said, because we don't determine that simply by word count, or by measuring the height of paragraphs with a ruler. (In fact, if you allow that the first of the three commentators is not quoted about the quantity of media coverage, then what we have about the other two commentators is approximately the same as the first paragraph.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which means we're still weighted heavily in one direction. I understand what you're saying, but the weight of the section is being pushed very much to show a specific POV, and one that's demonstrably false. We can't be complacent. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for understanding. I understand you, too. I guess this is something where I don't mind being complacent. I don't think it's a big deal at this stage. The earlier language bothered me enough to want to change it, but the current language just doesn't bother me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not the biggest problem here, no. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice about accusations

All editors who either are concerned about Monsanto influencing editing of this page, or who have been accused of being influenced, please take notice. Please read carefully WP:ANI#Much heat, but little light, taking special notice of items 4 and 5 on the numbered list. If I see any editors here, from this point in time going forward, who go against what it says at ANI, I will file a complaint against them at ANI without further notice here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Control issues and self-appointed police have yet to aid our efforts here. But enjoy yourself. petrarchan47tc 19:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We are a community of volunteers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Items on Numbered List

Here, so that no one has to refer to the noticeboard, are the numbered suggestions:

1. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:SOCK, please report it at WP:SPI.
2. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:COI, please report it at WP:COIN.
3. If you believe that we do not have an adequate policy for dealing with edits by PR accounts, please start a discussion about how to improve our procedures.
4. But if you are not willing to do any of those three things, then please stop making accusations.
5. Anyone who is unwilling to do any of the above, and continues to make accusations, should get attention from administrators, because throwing around accusations without being willing to back them up is just using WP:NPA violations to try to get the upper hand in a POV dispute.
6. I would like to see some administrators make sure that the above is actually being adhered to.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC) copying original by Tryptofish

Name of Concerns Section

I am renaming the Concerns section to Concerns of Protesters. It isn't about concerns of Monsanto. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble, but WP:MOS generally recommends that section headers not repeat what is in the page name. I realize that "protesters" is not the same as "March...", but it's sort of implied, so I'm not convinced that this edit really helps. Spell it out when it's Monsanto's concerns, but it's implied when it's the marchers. Also, unambiguously, MOS says that only the first word should be capitalized. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Motivation" would be another phrasing to consider, as it could only apply to the protesters. DanHobley (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Issues" would be another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the original post on their site is entitled Why Do We March? They only use this phrase, so we can't just crib their terminology. DanHobley (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted "motivation", so I better explain. Seeing it on the page, it came across to me as sounding vaguely like ulterior motives. I don't think we want to characterize it as being about what was going on in the marchers' minds. I don't really have a problem with either "concerns" or "issues". We aren't saying that the concerns are Misplaced Pages's concerns, or that Misplaced Pages agrees with that framing of the issues. After all, this is a page about the March Against Monsanto. If we cannot present the reasons for the March, we are in a real pickle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with not using Motivation, but the problem remains for me that almost everywhere else on WP, "Concerns" de facto implies "Criticisms of the article's topics". That's not what we mean here. Let's keep dwelling on this, but compared to other issues this article has, this isn't exactly a major problem. DanHobley (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

...another alternative might be to include the stated objectives of the protesters as well, then rename this section "Objectives". DanHobley (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and I came up with "Positions". Personally, I like that the best, so far. We are just stating the positions expressed by the marchers. How about using that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

good one! Alexbrn 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Positions" is ok just like "Objectives" or "Concerns"; As long as we keep the existing intro which makes clear that the points of concern are held by those who organized the march. My point: Protesters might have attended for one or more or even different concerns. The latter is just my own opinion but I think it makes sense, at least it does for me.TMCk (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that what you say is very reasonable. It sounds to me like maybe "Positions" is going to work. Does anyone see any problems with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason (including any MOS concerns) that "Concerns of protesters" should not be used. "Positions" sounds awkward to me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Even so I don't have a big problem with the other titles, I agree that "concerns" might be the best choice to go as it is precise and neutral. Referring to my comment above, I should've thought it thru which I didn't at the time. As I mentioned above, the protesters had different agendas and there is no doubt that all had certain concerns but that doesn't mean (and we have no source to confirm such), that all had a clear position in regards to the bullet points laid out. If we go by the organizers those points are their position but again, that doesn't mean that all protesters went along with the same. Basically I'm back to the point I've raised before that those positions need to clearly be presented as the organizer's stand. The other option would be to broaden the section in prose, which would enable us to provide a more comprehensive section for the in part different reasons (of the attending protesters). Any thoughts?TMCk (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In this very early version of the article, I had called it "issues". No one expressed any problems with the titling. Maybe it could be used again? (Sorry, I don't know whether this has already been discussed, I haven't been around much.) petrarchan47tc 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why "Positions" sounds awkward to anyone. As in "these are our positions", it just indicates what the protesters stood for. Some editors have objected to "concerns" and "issues" on the grounds that those words make it sound like there were valid concerns or valid issues, although I personally think that objection is a stretch. But with some editors objecting to those word choices, and the only articulated objection to "positions" being that someone finds it awkward, I'd at least like to understand why it might be seen as awkward. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Although the analogy is obviously not exact, one can make a comparison to what it says at WP:SAY. Just as we should write "the marchers said" in preference to "the marchers revealed" or "the marchers claimed", it is neutral and accurate to say that "the marchers' positions were...".

Also, I agree with the idea of making it clear that various marchers had various things that they were most interested in. And there has already been talk about breaking out the bullet points into paragraphs, at #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The only issue that I have with breaking up the bullet points into paragraphs is that some of them do not have their own sources, and are only taken from sentences on the web site of the protesters. If they are split out as unsourced paragraphs, they are likely to be tagged or deleted. If someone can find sources for each of the bullets, they can be split into paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Umh, pardon me, but bullet points or not, the content must be sourced either way.TMCk (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The bullet points all had one source, and some of them had other sources, and some of them were listed in the web site at the length that they were listed in the bullet points. Their expansion into paragraphs would require expansion beyond the length of the original source. If someone can do that, with new sources, that is fine, but I am not sure that new sources exist that will justify expansion into paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I really can't follow your rational. I repeat: Bullet points or not, the content must be backed up by sources. Converting those bullets into prose doesn't change that at all. Should the existing section/bullets not be properly sourced, (and I didn't check that b/c I have, maybe to much(?) trust in what is presented there), than it could not be kept as bullets or prose anyways. Are you suggesting/saying that we should keep it as is? If so please give a good and valid reason for it. Perceived lack of sourcing for converting the bullets into prose is simply ridiculous unless the bullets are not properly sourced with begin with. If you're still sure about the point you've made, please clearly explain the difference in sourcing we would need according to your rationale.TMCk (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
One more thing to clarify: Bullet-points can be converted into prose as we just say the same in a more encyclopedic way, no doubt about that. If there are more sources to expand the section, writing in prose doesn't make a difference besides being more encyclopedic. This is after all not a list of sitcoms' episodes or such...TMCk (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should probably treat the bullet points versus paragraph issue as a separate discussion, especially since it is somewhat speculative, in that the paragraph plan depends upon someone actually adding more content to the section. But I'd certainly welcome the addition of more sources. Anyway, the main topic of this thread is the name of the section, to appear in the section header. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why "Positions" is awkward. Absent such an explanation, my first choice is "Positions" and my second choice is "Issues". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I like "positions" also. DanHobley (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• At this point in the discussions, would anyone object to changing the header to "Positions"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be crazy. I'M DOING IT. DanHobley (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion of sourcing of the concerns above, I don't see why we can't use the primary source: . This seems like a no-brainer to me, and policy allows primary sourcing in cases like this. (WP:ABOUTSELF). I'm in the process of trying to beef this out at least a little. DanHobley (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Just a note to explain a few of the changes I've made. In the edit summary, I said that I had added detail about bees... don't be confused when you don't find it: I decided against it but forgot to edit my summary accordingly. I found this in the City Weekly article about Canal: "The company’s use of neonicotinoid pesticides on its crops has been challenged by numerous studies—including researchers with the Harvard School of Public Health—who argue that the pesticides imperil bee populations, which, in the long term, could jeopardize the global food supply." This could be used to flush out the minuscule mention of bees in the "issues" section. I am assuming that good deal of protesters supported this as an issue, given so many marchers are pictured in bee costumes.

There was a good deal of GMO science added that didn't mention the march at all. It makes no sense to include it here, as has been exhaustively discussed, so I've removed it. Let's stick to using sources about the march, and using the guidelines about sourcing appropriately from now on. petrarchan47tc 07:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If the principle is to have no "GMO science" in the article (and instead focus tightly on the protestors), why add the science about bees? Alexbrn 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it was one of the main concerns of the protesters. Did you see their bee costumes? That kind of needs expansion, and the source was about the protest. Anyway, you guys enjoy yourselves. Have a nice life. Don't work too hard, and remember to step away from the computer screens once in a while and get some sun! petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The GMO science exists there to battle against WP:FRINGE. Previously discussed, yes, that we need to address it. I will re-add a source that directly contrasts the science with the march to fulfill policy for now. For the record, your changes did not improve this article, and increased the problems that already existed in it regarding balancing scientific views and claims against the prior discussions had. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If I hear the fringe excuse to add OR to this article one more time, I'll take my life, I swear :) TMCk (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't, as you will be sorely missed. Setting aside the, um, f-word for a moment, consider also that we should not make this page a WP:POVFORK. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns which of course are unfounded :)
If you'd like to use the "F" word just do so. I have no problem with that and spelling out can make things more clear and thus easier. Regarding the wp:POVFORK issue, that's my concern all along. It might be the only bigger issue where we disagree, mainly on how to not implement such fork.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't clear (darn that Internet, as a communication medium!), I did indeed see your emoticon that indicated that you were joking. Fair enough then, I'll soon tell somebody "Fringe you!". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn and Thargor Orlando about these edits. Where, exactly, was the discussion about making these changes? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Further, although there has been extensive discussion about the science background, there certainly was no consensus to purge it to that extent. If anything, the consensus has been trending in the opposite direction. I also don't see an explanation or justification of many of the other changes that were made. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the effects of the edits, taken as a whole, was almost entirely to either reduce the amount of content that presents POV-balance to that of the March, or to move it lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?

I made the closure on the recent ANI thread filed by Tryptofish, with his post-posting approval. I had hoped since that time that there would be some improvement in the clashes here, but that does not seem to be the case, both here and on editor Talk pages. I consider myself a friend of a few of the editors on both viewpoints on this page, and because of my closure at ANI feel qualified to comment here regarding the future of this article, which I have never edited. (Full disclosure: I do see an editor here who I have urged sanctions on in the past, but I don't recall any personal interaction.)

As I have commented previously, I believe this overall matter is likely to wind up at ArbCom. As someone who follows the proceedings of that body, and not always with approval, I suggest here as I have elsewhere that the following possibilities be considered first:

• Taking this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Frankly, if there are successful cases of resolution there, I am unaware of them.
• An Rfc, though the battle would quite possibly shift or expand to exactly how to word the Rfc and what it would consist of.
• Finding a widely respected member of the community who has unanimous approval of all the principal editors at odds here, most likely an administrator/bureaucrat/past or present ArbCom member/WMF employee, to come in with fresh eyes and do some arbitration, possibly binding. This is a non-standard but potentially highly effective method.

Finally, I must note that I have been looking into some of the Monsanto and related articles. Today I made a deletion of one sentence that has now been reverted twice at the article Glyphosphate which I found interesting. I will continue to look into this matter, but my preliminary sense is there are some issues in Monsanto-related articles that need scrutiny. With cordial concern, Jusdafax 06:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN and RfC are rarely useful, and it should be noted that Viriditas has been blocked for three months by an uninvolved administrator for his conduct here. I do believe that, without the poisonous accusations coming from one corner, we may have a better opportunity at coming to a consensus on the issues at hand. Seeing how poorly Arbcom handled the Tea Party movement case, I'd like to think we'd be able to hash this out on our own without significant further intervention. I will again suggest we make some sub-discussions below regarding what the remaining issues are and we can hash them out. I'm certainly willing to treat a lot of this with a clean slate if others are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the second and third bullet points, especially the third. petrarchan47tc 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do indeed approve of Jusdafax's close and thank him for it, although subsequent events, including a massive display of bad faith towards me on my talk page, a waste-of-time new thread at ANI, and a three month block of Viriditas, seem to show that the problem is not settled. About content RfCs, this talk page already has numerous talk threads, each about a specific issue. I don't think a general RfC about the overall state of the page will generate any light. But if we want to identify specific questions to ask about specific things in the content, that could make for one or more useful RfCs. I suggest looking at the numbered list of unresolved questions at #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward, identifying which ones are still, today, matters that remain sources of disagreement, and then opening separate RfCs for each of those if we can't resolve them amongst ourselves. Before the block occurred, I began the early stages of starting what I hope could be a constructive WP:RFC/U about Viriditas. If the troublesome conduct continues after he comes back, I will resume that process. And if that process doesn't resolve things, then I am prepared to be the filing party of an ArbCom case that will scrutinize all parties involved. But let's hope that things will not have to go that far. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• As I was hitting the save button, another idea occurred to me. A variation on Jusdafax's third bullet point would be to ask someone like that to mediate a mediated discussion of the content issues. (That worked very well a year or two ago, for the lead section of WP:V.) That might work better than content RfCs, or might work as a way to construct content RfCs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for changes (I've copied part of this from my comment at the most recent ANI)

See the changes I made by this comparison of diffs, where I order the issues in a common sense flow, and put the introduction the first section at the top (it was hidden at the bottom of the first section for some reason, and is again), and made other stylistic edits. There was no reason given, but all of my changes were reverted between 4 edits/3 editors. I can't see what the problem was with my version, and would love to hear the reasoning from those who reverted everything. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

At the bottom of #Changes, just above, I made three comments indicating my objections. I want to admit that there were probably some things that could be restored from what you did, so my apologies if my contribution to the reversions seemed overly sweeping to you. Let me take some of your edits one-by-one:

1. : It seems to me to be more logical to have the response come directly after the things (concerns/positions/issues) that it was responding to. It wasn't a response to the media coverage, and the effect of the edit was to move that aspect of the POV lower on the page.
2. : A lot of things going on here, but you are incorrect about the consensus here about the science, and again, you moved that information lower on the page. Other editors in the discussion above pointed out how questionable it was to add the content about bees.
3. : I've left out some fairly trivial edits about images before this one, but why add that abbreviation?

Given how everything on this page has been contested, you would have done yourself a favor by making a list like this and discussing it in talk before making the edits. You don't have to, of course, but bold edits risk WP:BRD reverts. After all, look at how long I've been asking other editors' opinions about changing a header from "Concerns" to "Positions" without actually making the edit. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan's attempted list of outstanding issues

I have a rather shocking alternative view on this article - as things stand right now, the article as-is is actually in pretty decent shape. I challenge other editors to attempt to forget all of the heat in these talk pages, and actually read it again. The typical WP editor, with no knowledge of this controversy would IMO see this as a perfectly reasonable small article, and I'd say due to all these eyes on the page, it actually meets WP policy way better than the vast majority of small articles out there. Note however that this way of looking at things doesn't recognise conflicts over what could be in the article but isn't, but that kind of problem is surely better than material in that isn't appropriate. The majority of reverts recently have largely been essentially arguments about wording, or at a slightly more detailed level, whether additional clarifying clauses are appropriate (e.g. "Protesters concerned about GMO effect on environment" - should it have an additional "...especially bees"?)

Inspired by the above discussion, I thought I'd try and compile another, fresh (nearer the bottom...) list of outstanding issues as I see it. I would encourage others to add items to my list, and sign them. The idea here is that we can have the very tightly defined issues at the top, and subsections below to define the problem, and try to thrash out a specific compromise position. This might not work, but I thought it would be worth a try. I have tried to blend this with Tryptofish's list from a week ago. Note that entry zero is a statement of "philosophy" for this page. I've seen many voices on both sides of these arguments say it, so I'm hoping consensus already exists for this. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is well-said, and I too think that the page is in surprisingly good shape (which will probably be something that I will come to regret having said). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

0. This page is about the protest, and reactions to the protest. It is NOT a forum for science arguments.

The exception would be the GMO controversy section and a sentence in the lead, where material already established from the main controversies article could be deployed - explicitly to counter WP:FORK concerns. I'm thinking in particular of Jytdog's consensus statement from the other article, which has been largely approved by a RfC. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of us disagree with this statement. The FORK issue is important, but the FRINGE one is too just to ensure that this doesn't become something for the worst of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support and Oppose, in equal measure. I think that covers it, doesn't it? The problem with general philosophical statements about Misplaced Pages pages is that they run up against conflicting details. I do agree that we should not make this page a WP:POVFORK about the GMO debate in general. But I also feel strongly that we must present the marchers' reasons for the March. We have to do that! And once we do that, we run up against, well, you pick: fringe, POV-fork, POV, balance, whatever. If all we do is report the marchers' reasons, then we have a problematic page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The marchers views are fringe and so long as we report them in the appropriate way we need not run into any problems. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously A little background is required but no more. We should not be addressing issues here that addressed more fully elsewhere. This is not a soapbox for anti-GM or pro-GM views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Details surrounding the presentation of the 2 million marchers number, though not the philosophy of what should be in the article.

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We agree - I hope - we should recognise the lower (200k) and higher (2M) numbers, and describe their origins. We already do this. Ongoing revisions govern whether we should actively note whether other news outlets "churnalised" the protester's number, or not. I honestly can't bring myself to have a strong opinion. I don't think it matters. I note the final discussion of this below seemed to have come to this conclusion (?) DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I, too, see this as a minor issue. As long as we present both the high and the low numbers, and don't particularly endorse one over the other in Misplaced Pages's voice, I'm complacent about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• We need to make clear that the 2 million figure is the organisers claim. That is what the sources say it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• List and attribute. Crowd estimates are very inexact, so there's no issue with offering both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

2. What's the source for the list of the marcher's positions? (I'm hopeful I resolved this this evening).

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the primary source for the protesters concerns this evening, per WP:ABOUTSELF. This material is all now directly cited (though the positions of the actual ref numbers may not be ideal), and IMO it's very obvious this is the protester's opinions, not scientific fact. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I redacted your unsourced personal opinion on a talk page that attacks the subject of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(comment restored) Never make changes to other people's comments, Canoe - per WP:TPO. You know how rude this is, right? Diff for anyone reading this later:

I think you've misunderstood anyway, there's absolutely no attack there. I 'm trying to make the point that FRINGE isn't relevant here (in my opinion), as the context is clear enough. DanHobley (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I read it as an unsourced attack on the article subject. Your opinion is that they either don't believe in science or don't trust it. I don't really care if you wish to leave it. Others may request you redact it as disruptive. When you make POV comments like that I can see why many other editors will go out of their way to simply ignore your input or counter it. If Louis Riel were a BLP subject it would be the same as voicing your opinion on what you believe his ideals are based on. Even though this isn't a BLP article it is all about people. If they came here and saw your comments I can understand why they would just retaliate my slamming Misplaced Pages in the media for being POV on their motivations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, attacks on the article subject are permitted on the talk page; that is its purpose. As Dan says you should not remove comments from others except in very specific circumstances. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan, I agree with you. So long as it is clear from the context that the marchers' position is fringe we need not go into the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ugh. Dan, now you can see why I have concerns about the general philosophical concept in item zero. I do not think that saying that "this is the protester's opinions, not scientific fact" is an attack that violates WP:BLPGROUP. But I think that what you really should have said was "this is the protesters' opinions, not the opinions of Misplaced Pages or of the majority of mainstream science sources". What should be the underlying issue is actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Anyway... I think it's good to use what the marchers themselves have said, as a primary source. I also like the idea of using mainstream news reports (secondary sources) to report things like "many of the marchers said that they believed that...". I think that we need to avoid commentaries from people who may or may not have been associated with the March, particularly in the form of cherrypicked quotes, because that has historically sent this page down the road of battling quotations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

3. How much of the marcher's concerns over human health risks should be included? Should the direct quote "cancer, infertility and birth defects" be present? Also, more detail on the other entries?

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale for removal, as IMO it's clear this is the protester's position. Primary sources support the factual accuracy. I can't see how more detail on the organiser's objectives (e.g., additional sentence or clause) could really cause any more concerns than what we have, if you're worried about WP:WEIGHT. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion again. I always thought talk pages were not for voicing your opinion on the subject? If a protester claims to be marching against "cancer, infertility and birth defects" that they believe can be caused by GMO then we include it as a sourced motivation for the protest. This article isn't called 'motivational basis of the protest' so which science they base their protest on probably doesn't belong. Statements by protesters yes, second guessing the motivation of the statements, no. If a protester states "Dr. Sues says we don't want green ham." then we should be able to include that as a quote. We shouldn't go into the Science of Dr. Suess though. We could mention that Dr. Suess made lots of money by creating Green Eggs and Ham or was critizedd for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is expected to more than make simple statements about the march, it is expected to analyse it while deferring to sources. We aren't a newspaper. We know that the opinion of the marches is not valid because it disagrees with the consensus position, yet for some reason you want to include it anyway without including the scientific perspective. Also, on "... so which science ...", there is only one science. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It should only be included if it can be put into context that it is ill-founded, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Less than now, and this is a big problem with the article. "Covering" their view has become a soapbox/coatrack for promoting their views. Also, paraphrasing their views in neutral terms rather than repeating their talking points is a needed change here. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'd be looking for, specifically. It's one of the fringe viewpoints guideline and policy require us to deal with. Thargor Orlando (talk)

This seems to be the issue that will continue to create controversy until it is decided once and for all whether or not it is Misplaced Pages's place to limit and counter the protest's views on what some editors believe is a fringe viewpoint. Assuming that there is no disagreement on whether or not the protesters are holding fringe beliefs when they express concerns re Monsanto's conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, claimed economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply, and concerns about GMOs harming the environment, we need to decide if it is the mission of WP to step in to limit what we include re the protest's viewpoint on health issues. A comparable article would be the War on women article where there is a sharp disagreement as to whether one even exists. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, our guidelines and policies insist on it. To claim GM food causes "cancer, infertility, and birth defects" is a fringe viewpoint, period. It is not supported by the science. That statement alone is what is causing strife, and a simple note after the sentence about the scientific consensus will solve the protests here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• If we have reliable sourcing that the marchers themselves have said it, then we can reasonably include it. If it's only some secondary commentator, then leave it out. If it is WP:FRINGE or violates WP:MEDMOS, then we have to do some specific things. First, we present it as a direct quote, in quotation marks, and attribute it clearly to them. Second, we provide on this page, in some fashion, correct information reflecting mainstream science (also reliably sourced, of course). It doesn't mean that we have to have a point-counterpoint over every last issue, but it's a great reason to retain a sentence or two about mainstream scientific consensus in the GMO background section. It's a mistake to try to purge the page of the protesters' views, on the grounds that they are fringe and will mislead our readers, because it's not our job to assume that our readers are unable to read, but we correspondingly should not make this a POV-fork that only reflects the protesters' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We stating what the marchers' concerns are but not in a way that gives them undue weight, prominence, or authority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No undue authority, I agree completely. About weight and prominence, the fact remains that this is the subject of the page. I think that's a significant distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is hard to separate these factors. For example, to have in the lead, the marchers stated, "GM foods give you cancer" is, on the face of it, a neutrally stated factual statement about the motivations of the marchers. However, by giving an extreme fringe claim high prominence within the article, we give it publicity and credibility that it does not merit. I do agree that we should give the marchers' motivations but not in a way that promotes them.

I do not think that giving the mainstream science view along with the marchers' claims is the solution. For example, having something like the marchers stated, "GM foods give you cancer" although this is contrary to the mainstream science view has several problems. It shows a fringe view on apparently equal terms with a mainstream view, it invites arguments and sourcing battles between editors, and it slightly glamourises the marchers position as 'freedom fighters'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, that's what I've just done since (after kicking this issue around a bit) I now think it's fairly clear that this is what WP policy requires, since WP:PSCI states that fringe views "should be clearly described as such". I don't think there is a false equivalence here, since we're showing that one view is a fringe view, the other is scientific consensus. What a reader chooses to favour between these is really beyond our control as editors! Alexbrn 09:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After a few edits back and forth between Alexbrn and myself, I thought we had a version that satisfied Alexbrn's concerns while also satisfying my desire that we avoid too much of a point-counterpoint. Subsequently, User:Gandydancer reverted it, and I would welcome Gandydancer's comments here in this talk section. But, that said, I think that Gandydancer has a valid point. I went back and carefully reread WP:PSCI, and although it does indicate how fringe views should be rebutted, it doesn't actually say that the rebuttal has to come in the next sentence, only that it has to be easily found on the page, and we do already have the GMO background section. I think that this question really gets at exactly where the remaining disagreements about how to write this page exist, and therefore I'd very much like to see further discussion about it, from multiple editors. I can see a rationale for leaving it as is, or for a version that I had tried in one of my edits, where the rebuttal came in a footnote, or for a third way, in which we rewrite it slightly, to more clearly emphasize the attribution, somewhat as I recently did with the Tami Canal statement about anger, frustration, and concern for her children. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for your careful consideration of this point. I really should not have to clarify my position on this particular point, but I will do it anyway. In my opinion, Misplaced Pages's position is correct when they say that currently there is no evidence that GMO foods are not safe. On the other hand, my mind remains open since current science has also shown that (surprisingly) sometimes genetic ill effects do not show up in the first generation, and sometimes even show up in the third generation. Furthermore, current science also shows that some chemicals, which apparently are not harmful when exposure is single, turn out to be toxic when in combination with other chemicals, which could apply to GM products as well. And of course, the problem that an industry peer reviewed study can be made to say anything that a manufacturer wants it to say. Even so, none of that should, or does, have any bearing on this article. The article stated that the protest's views are what WP calls fringe and they have been countered with what WP considers the scientific stance. That should be enough. It should not be necessary for WP to hound the protesters and put WARNING!!! signs throughout the article as though readers are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that trying to neutrally paraphrase their views rather than letting the article become a soapbox. The worst example is allowing their description of the law via it's affect on a non-existent hypothetical situation "even if they are shown to be unsafe". That's like describing the diplomatic immunity law as one which excuses the diplomat "even if they personally murder 1,000 Americans". North8000 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifically about the health claim, I'm going to make a WP:BOLD edit along the lines of the third option that I described in my previous comment. Please see if it helps, and if not, please revert and comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I took that one phrase out. I'll be mostly off wiki for over a week. With Tryptofish being an objective expert person "in the middle", I give them my support and if I had a "proxy" I'd give them that too. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In anticipation of the predictable reaction to that, no, there is no cabal. And no, I reject the role of speaking for anyone other than myself. But thank you for the compliment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And this is a very minor observation, but I think it's kind of ironic that the sentence I rewrote about Canal's motivations has now been removed (but I'm OK with the removal). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

4. Is the amount of "the science" in the article appropriate? (in those restricted sections)

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is, as long as it remains restricted to a minimal statement in the lead, and the single GMO controversy background section. I agree that WP:FORK is a legitimate thing to guard against in this article... but what we have is NPOV. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In terms of fringe science, we're basically okay in its current incarnation except for the Concerns section. Once we address that, it appears the article will meet what policy demands. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think my answer here is really the same thing as what I just said in the section immediately above. I think that the science consensus information in the GMO background section is essential to keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• We need minimal science in the article. This is not a science article. The science is covered better and more fully elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

5. Issues regarding the background on the HR933 signing timeline, which appear to have been largely championed by the currently-blocked Veriditas.

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion. To me, the article looks fine without this information, but wouldn't object if it went in avoiding WP:SYNTH. DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I think that Viriditas was partly correct (note!!), and we should not simply blow this issue off. Go back to the earlier discussion for the details, but I think it's very relevant that the protesters said that the signing of HR933 by President Obama was something that played a big role in motivating them to protest. We are going to have to be careful about how we write about the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, because many of the protesters' assumptions are at least partly in disagreement with other source material – but the issue is actually very noteworthy for the purpose of explaining what led to the protest. What Viriditas and I were disagreeing about was his stated plan to make a dedicated section of the page (probably after what is now the Positions section), going into the bill in a lot of detail. Per WP:Summary style, I strongly oppose doing that, because we already have a main page about the legislation, and that page includes the controversies about the bill. What I recommend instead: in the background section of this page, we already have a sub-section about a bill in California. We should expand that a little bit, to cover both the California law and the Obama signing of HR933. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds sensible, Trypofish. As you seem on top of this, I reckon just trying to add it would be fine. That might let us also alter the formatting of the last bullet point of Positions, which has good content but poor format/style. DanHobley (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly, that you are referring to taking it out of the Positions section (as opposed to adding it there)? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Expand the Background Californian bill section, and move background type material out of positions and into the background as appropriate? (but not all of it?) Certainly let's not decrease our total coverage of this issue, just reorganise it. DanHobley (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, good. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

6. A facebook post describing the movement's aims was removed, and hasn't been reinstated.

DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We now use the primary website source for the protester's concerns, so hopefully this has mostly been superseded. Though I wouldn't object to working it in again, per WP:ABOUTSELF.DanHobley (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is a guideline option. I think the guideline may be changed to include more links. Some readers like to link to the subject websites. The guideline was written based on one main website. Now many subjects have Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a main peacock site. Twitter is probably the fastest updating and the peacock one the slowest. What we should be including are at least two. The peacock one for extreme detail showing all of their feathers and the faster social one that they are most active on. We have a bad double standard now with one site as the minimum and 8+ as the max. I think talk pages get consensus on the count on a case by case basis. Two should be fine for this article. I assume they post regular updates on Facebook and the main page is just a database. I haven't looked at either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent. If you look back at the earlier discussion, I argued for putting it back (again, please note that I agreed with Viriditas about it!), on the grounds that the statement reflects the views of the subject of the page, but I also see that some editors felt that Facebook fails WP:V because we cannot really know who posted the comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint

Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree The marchers made the ludicrous claim that Monsanto orchestrated a worldwide media blackout. The article should not directly or indirectly support this crazy claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree. It's not overwhelming. That is unhelpful hyperbole. It's one sentence about someone who felt that the media accepted Monsanto's terminology, and two sentences about two persons who felt that there was too little coverage. It's true that there are fringe-y people who believe the conspiracy theory that the media are in league with big business, and those three commentators are probably in that group. They appear to have said it elsewhere. But they don't say it in the quotes that are now on the page. The article, in its present state, does not directly support the crazy claim. Does it indirectly support it? Only if one knows what else the sources have said, and thinks that because Misplaced Pages cited those sources, Misplaced Pages accepts as "true" everything in those sources, even the things Misplaced Pages never quoted or mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not about crazy claims. This is about a section being balanced rougly 5-to-1 in favor of a false claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I was referring to where Martin called it a crazy claim, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree, per Tryptofish. Also, if protesters were making a claim that a media blackout was organized, that should be in the article!? Certainly more appropriate than the 3rd party discussions we have, which have this innuendo but don't say it. Again, we can trust our readers to understand that's a primary claim, and unsubstantiated. If a 3rd party source exists saying this is nonsense, fine - but if not, it's not for us to editorialize this claim away (i.e., this isn't necessarily a fringe claim without the refs for the opposing view). We already note wideranging coverage did happen. DanHobley (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Could one of the disagreers above explain to me what encyclopedic purpose the media section currently serves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'll do that. First, WP:RGW. We're really not here to set the record straight. You don't need to purge the page of every bit of opinion, held by the protesters, with which reliable sources disagree. Now, that said, I'll admit that it's the least important part of the page, so I don't want to argue that this stuff is a really big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, I am not arguing that this is a fringe point of view, but rather that we're giving significant undue weight to a false claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And for the record, I'll point out again that it's a total of two sentences, and they don't even contain the false claim. Please consider also: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • As of this moment, it's two paragraphs. The Livingstone claim which is okay, the Alternet claim that is demonstrably false, the Hartmann claim that is demonstrably false, and the Bachman claim that is demonstrably false. Yes, it's not the biggest issue in the article. It still needs to be solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 18:45, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
        • Wow, you are right! I went and looked, thinking that there wasn't anything there from Alternet, but there it was, a third paragraph that I somehow didn't previously notice was there. I don't remember who added it (without taking part in the discussion here), and I'm not going to go back and find out. But I am going to remove it right now. It's obviously a false opinion represented as fact, because it plainly contradicts the first paragraph. There is absolutely no place on this page for obvious falsehoods like that. That said, we will have the first paragraph, which I increasingly think we need to make sure that what is here is true, in contrast to some falsehood out on the Web, and the second paragraph. If we agree that the Livingstone claim is OK, then I'd like to live with the Bachman and Hartmann claims that are presented as opinions without repeating the parts that are obviously false. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The Alternet source seems to make the distinction that the mainstream news coverage wasn't live coverage, presumably on a medium such as television, but that seems to me to be too minor a point for us to include here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Abstain I have some sympathy with the complaint (and note how ironic it is that in the just-failed AfD a clamour of voices were arguing that the March had - and has - a great deal of mainstream and in depth media coverage). However, I can live with the text as it stands. I don't think this is a big issue any more. Alexbrn 09:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Needs slashing The wording on this item/question is not very good. But the second 2/3 of the section should get deleted. It's just talking points of one side, not a description of media coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Do people think it would make the situation better or worse if there were actually a sentence in this section explicitly acknowledging that the protesters themselves believe there was inadequate coverage? Assuming such a reference exists? (FWIW, the current rewrite of this section looks like an improvement, though I'm having a tough time getting particularly worked up about the detail in this section.) DanHobley (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It might marginally improve it, but the point is more that the claim is demonstrably false. A simple nod that there were complaints about coverage would suffice, but not lines and lines of things we know to be incorrect. It's not that the theory is fringe, but that we're giving much too much weight to this claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Dan, I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. There is no point in putting that the marchers were generally disappointed with the media coverage and would have preferred more. This would apply to the organisers of any publicity event and it is not the least bit important or notable. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that we mention the, plainly crazy, claim by some that there was a worldwide media conspiracy, orchestrated by Monsanto, not to report the march we could mention this but only in the same way that we would mention the moon landing conspiracies or flat earthists' views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I suspect it would be easier to respond to Dan's proposal if we actually had such a source to look at. But anyway, I just deleted the title of Hartmann's piece, because it didn't really add to the section (it implied that the "liberal media" might not be so liberal, which is not really an issue about GMOs). With that, this whole discussion comes down to: "Joseph Bachman, writing in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, questioned what he saw as a lack of mainstream media coverage. Radio host Thom Hartmann compared what he saw as scant coverage of the protests to the greater media attention garnered by small Tea Party rallies." Sure, there are also conspiracy theories out there. But, for what is on the page right now, is this really too much weight? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section?

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. Because they are not cited to support a sentence about the March. It's a sentence about the scientific consensus. And it's appropriate to have this one sentence about the scientific consensus, to provide proper context for the views of the protesters. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, per Tryptofish again. DanHobley (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, but we must be wary of starting any mainstream/protestors scientific argument on this pages. I would prefer that we make clear that the protestors' arguments are fringe by our wording rather than by presenting contrary arguments here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, in fact neutrality requires it. Alexbrn 09:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

9. Should we add more quotes from Dave Murphy, at the end of what is now the last bullet point in the Positions section?

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. Doing so would only be cherrypicking quotes to push the protesters' POV. Let's stick, instead, to what the protest itself has announced. (I added points 8 and 9 because they were also some leftover issues from earlier discussions, and I want to make sure we establish consensus about each of them). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. We are not here to improve the protestors' arguments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• No. That would be to give undue weight (and it's "Dave", not "Dan"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 09:29, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • Woops, sorry, fixed! Thanks for pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Million and how often it is reported

That the organizors claim that 2 million people marched is unsupported by any reliable sources. If you want to state their claim, fine, but it must be attributed. Not included it as their claim is POV. As to how often and which media reported that number, this is pure Original Research. The fact that Jake Trapper, who apparently is strongly biased in this matter, reported it on CNN is not indicative that this is the most commonly reported number. Leave our the original research and the clear POV presentation of crowd statistics. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on the "200,000" section, we have indeed added that the numbers came from organizers, but even that was unsatisfactory to the editors here. Be careful about cherry-picking and unsubstantiated claims concerning Tapper.

Repeat:

This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times July 25.

• Guardian: Millions march against GM

• RT: Over two million march the streets of 436 cities, 52 countries

I've never seen editors argue so much to exclude widely accepted RS such as Guardian, CNN and RT. it's baffling to me. petrarchan47tc 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SODOIT? Sounds good to me. (Clarification - add the refs) DanHobley (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. I have enjoyed the 3RR noticeboard twice now, both in relation to perfectly justified changes to this article, but unacceptable to editors here. I have no desire to immerse myself in this again, but have at it!. petrarchan47tc 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've tried a new compromise phrasing, widening the refs we use as you suggested. DanHobley (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the highly POV Miami source and the sentense stating the obvious. I say obvious, because we couldn't even report the 2 million claim if some sources had not reported on it. Plus it was grammatically incorrect, because as worded it implied that those organization reported "their" own estimate, when they simply reported what the March organizers claimed. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not comfortable the source used to make the "estimates began at 200,000" claim. This article was printed at 5:00 PM Eastern time, while the march was only half-way through. I think if we are going to base a claim on one single source, it should be better than some local newspaper that happened to cite the exact number that was previously estimated for turnout, rather than wait until the dang thing was over. How can use of this source be justified? Why don't we go with WP:RS in this, and as a compromise we can add the disclaimer, "according to event organizers"? petrarchan47tc 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We should just stick with who presented what numbers, where they are reported as explicitly coming from somewhere else, and if they made comment on them (redundant, as they didn't in the sources I read). Given how contentious this article has become, we need to remove as much editorializing as possible, as it does look very synth-y. DanHobley (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This change needs to be considered for the similar content at Monsanto in their section about MAM, as well as Genetically modified food controversies, in their "protests" sections - the same sourcing was used there for "range" claims. petrarchan47tc 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the sources are engaged in churnalism and just repeating claims from other news sources. We know that the organisers self-reported 2 million and then the sources covered that, and later sources reported just 2 million without any apparent verification. On wikipedia it isn't "Verification not truth", it's verification and truth. By the way the editorial stance of the guardian is Anti-GMO. I suggest you have a look at some of their environmental blogs. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything of substance here - and I think this is what the article currently says, no? The 2M figure certainly needs to be there, as long as it's noted as self-reported, which it is. TBH, I've kind of lost track of what the problem now is in this section. IMO it's decent. DanHobley (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

None as of current version, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents in that I agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible resolution to contentions: Removal for being non-encyclopedic

Greetings! I was randomly selected for the RFC to discuss and decide whether Fringe Science or Undue Weight tags should be retained or eliminated, however I'm overwhelmingly biased against the Monsanto corporation so I will refrain from volunteering an opinion on the tagging, yet after reading through the Talk: page here what is emerging is what appears to be an inescapable awareness that the issue of Monsanto and its behavior globally negates unbiased, dispassionate reporting in an encyclopedia format. So does the reporting of protests and efforts to stop or hinder Monsanto's behavior, there is no possibility of unbiased, dispassionate, WP:NPOV reporting.

Misplaced Pages policy suggests that article entries should be encyclopedic, that they attempt neutrality or give equal weight, that it reports salient facts and does not attempt to right wrongs, save the world, become battle grounds for contentious issues... You know the drill, we all are well aware of various Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. As much as I hate Monsanto, looking at the article here I don't see it being very encyclopedic, it's using Misplaced Pages as a battle ground.

It may be somewhat extreme however how about deleting the article entirely? The march itself is well known, but it's not an historic event, anybody who wants to research the march against Monsanto can easily find better information about it using Google search engine queries, nothing monumental took place during the global protest, and people who want to learn about Monsanto's activities and products as well as opposition to the multinational globally don't need Misplaced Pages to fulfill their searches. Nothing about the march, its organization, or anything about it is even remotely encyclopedic in nature, after all. Damotclese (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion yesterday (by me). It was closed keep per SNOW. Thus this is not likely to be a fruitful discussion, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict w Wolfie...)Strongly oppose discussion on the deletion. An AfD was placed on this article not 24 hours ago, for the second time, and there was a snowball consensus to keep on all sides. Here's the record: . Please, please, please, let's not have that discussion again within 24 hours in yet another venue.

As regards your general thesis, I'm not sure I agree that this is an insurmountable problem. I would contend that a good fraction of editors in this dispute are perfectly able to set aside their personal feelings and edit dispassionately, counting myself amongst them. In fact, this is why I'm here, after the first RfC on this (as I know are several others). If there is a minority here who can't be dispassionate about this (on whichever "side"), then that is their problem to address - by which I mean, step aside personally, and let clearer heads prevail. It's surely totally against the ethos of this site to not cover material because it's hard to do, or because people have strong views. Should we not cover climate change? Holocaust denial? The US government? Political parties? DanHobley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Damotclese, I missed the deletion discussion, but had I been involved I would have voted to keep. I can see why some users would like the article to be deleted because it has become a soapbox for anti-Monsanto and anti-GM views and a general topic battleground. I agree with DanHobley above though, this is not an insurmountable problem. The article should simple be about the march, written in encyclopedic language. This is not the place for pro/anti gm food or pro/anti Monsanto debate or discussion of scientific topics of any kind. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's true that we're seeing a religious battlefield develop here, yet my primary suggestion for deletion still remains, the article is not very encyclopedic. If we were to crack open a printed encyclopedia prior to the advent of the Internet, we might find footnotes about protests such as this one, but historically encyclopedias would not bother to include anything like this march. As you note, the non-encyclopedic nature of the article is not insurmountable, true. Damotclese (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Immerse yourselves: "March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history". petrarchan47tc

But Petrarchan47, that's one of the problems. :) AlterNet is not a legitimate reference for determining any scientific issue any more than Fox "News" is. AlterNet is highly biased, catering to a progressive political position which, I would agree, cleaves strongly to scientific principles yet is biased nonetheless. That article you reference fails on any number of fatal logic fallacies, not the least of which is the begging the question claim that there were "millions" in the protest, nor the begging the question supposition that the movement is "gaining steam."

Immersion in to the scientific literature is what the other Editors suggested is the most reasonable avenue of contention resolution on this article, not diving in to highly biased blogish web sites that cater to particular political and social world views. No offense intended, please understand. :) I appeal to science and the Scientific Method which AlterNet just aint no part of.

The whole article here is badly un-encyclopedic. The article is strewn with unsupported suppositions. It totally fails to meet even rudimentary High School level reporting of the event leave alone reach what I would consider to be good encyclopedia work. Damotclese (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working to make this article more encyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This may not be as hard as people think

IMHO one person was warring and dominating, and everybody else has been just trying to work this out. With that IMHO one person now under a longer term block, I'm thinking that those remaining may be willing and able just get this worked out.

IMHO there appears to be (only) two large debates which might in fact be one debate:

1. Assertion that there is either too much or an imbalanced amount of anti-GMO "talking point" type material in the article, or assertion that such is not the case.
2. That some or all of the anti-GMO talking point material is wp:fringe and should be handled( deprecated) as such. (This might be just another way of asserting /dealing with #1.) Or an assertion that such is not the case / should not be done.

Is "these are the (only) two large debates" an accurate description? Are the debates accurately described? If so can we settle this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas is only one of the more outspoken editors who wants to include the actual perspectives of March Against Monsanto at this article. It's completely outrageous that they have been blocked.

Please stop asserting that the science is settled when it is not. Numerous studies have linked GMOs to cancer and other health risks. Editors should not be allowed to disqualify these studies simply because they don't like them. As we have outlined at this page, there is no consensus on the safety of genetically engineered foods. groupuscule (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) I did not assert any such thing above. I was jut trying to define (both sides of) the big questions. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources show that the scientific consensus is that GM food is as safe as "traditional" food. Your essay is just that, and does not reflect the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the concerns of the protestors should not be "blocked", but you are quite wrong to state the science isn't settled: it is. There is no evidence, fit for use on Misplaced Pages, that GM food poses a risk to human health. The guidance for biomedical information is WP:MEDRS and we have nothing in line with that that supports the protestors' concerns. Until and unless we can get consensus that the protestors' health claims are unscientific fringe views, there is no prospect of making sensible progress on fixing this article. Alexbrn 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary, North. DanHobley (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

From a recent peer-reviewed literature review in Environment International:

Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. A harsh response to that review was recently published in the same journal (Rickard, 2010). This is indeed only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs, which remains completely open at all levels.

And many more sources here. groupuscule (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

...which, if you'd read WP:MEDRS, you'd know were not reliable sources for biomedical information. Alexbrn 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This source and many others available at the userpage I linked conform well to the MEDRS guidelines—more than any that you have presented. Which sources do you consider higher-quality? groupuscule (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The ones cited in the ongoing RFC. The consensus on this is solid. Alexbrn 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thought: We may be able to cut the gordian knot here if we can find an appropriate, notable, 3rd party (i.e., not Monsanto!) source criticising the protesters' aims specifically. This would remove possible objections that attempts to counter FRINGE are SYNTH in themselves. I'll see if I can find something, but who knows if such a thing exists. DanHobley (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The dailyinterlake.com piece (which we use) takes care to quote an oncologist stating "there is no real mechanism in GMOs that could even cause cancer" ... but even that isn't RS for medical claims. How about we get some expert input here by taking this specific issue (of health claims) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine ? Alexbrn 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Reason.TV link does this specifically.Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My compromise idea is to dial back on the amount of anti-GMO talking points in the article, and use more "attribution" type wording on those and use more neutral summation type wording on those. And in exchange, the folks advocating classification/handling/deprecating handling those views as fringe would end that quest. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a plan, but the risk is that by "dialling back" we present an untrue/unsourced image of the protest. Some of the views expressed in it were pretty extreme ("Monanto killing millions" says the placard at this source we use), and Misplaced Pages should not get into a situation where it's spinning their views into more reasonable positions than in fact were taken. Alexbrn 16:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I was speaking only in vague terms. What I intended was less coverage of anti-GMO talking points, and doing so in a way that is more "reporting on what they said" and less looking like the article is used to actually make the anti-GMO case. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh yes it's hard! I'd prefer to discuss these things in terms of specific items of content, instead of broad concepts about the page, and I've done so in the section that Dan created above, with the numbered questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm always looking for shortcuts that move things forward. My main effort here was just towards a good process rather than any particular end. And IMHO the main person who was warring/dominating it away from a good process is now gone, and a normal process appears in place, albeit mired down. So what I was doing is not so needed at the moment. Secondarily I was giving my advice/ outlook on the article. Third I was trying to find a shortcut to resolve the toughest issue (in general terms). So I was trying to help out but really not interested in the article. Certainly not enough to match the level of participation of folks willing to have substantial discussions on individual sentences. So I might step back from active participation here, but still watch it in case the barn catches on fire again or if someones feel I can help on a particular issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as a criticism of you, and I certainly don't want you to scale back your involvement here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I didn't take it that way...we know each other better than that. Other than a teensy influence from being an indicator that my vague compromise idea probably isn't going to go anywhere, your post had no effect on what I wrote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying, in short I'm reducing, not eliminating my involvement here. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"GMOs are safe"

This article is about a protest against Monsanto, their influence, and for the labeling of GMOs, among other things. When this was up for deletion the first time, the seeming consensus at the AfD was that it needed expansion to be a proper article. It was challenging, because media coverage was on the light side in my country, but it was a fun challenge. I immersed myself in all the articles I could find about MAM and went from there. I'm telling you this, because if this article is to be built based on wiki guidelines, it will be built on the literature ABOUT the protest. The articles showed the complaints/concerns were many and varied, though a few easily rose to the surface and those were what I highlighted by adding them to the article. Any seriously helpful editing is probably not going to come from the same group who've been edit warring here for two months - and it's easy to demonize Viriditas, in his absence, as the culprit, but the true problem is that editors here are NOT immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article. Not in the least. Again, the main topic on this talk page is "GMOs are safe" "In fact, we better add this fact to the Lede!".

GMOs being safe is way off topic and is OR done in wiki's voice when added to this page, unless it comes from one of the pieces written about his topic, and in a balanced way resembling media coverage, which is to say, the GMO coverage here would look much more like my early version, since it came directly from RS about this article's topic. I think it's very apparent folks have some adgenda here regarding GMOs and the message surrounding them, and that very obviously the purpose here is not to improve the article based on what RS says about it. That is what's causing all the ridiculous problems here. This should have been a very simple article to build and should not have needed much tendIng to afterward. Yet, three months later people are still insisting on the same off-topic OR being aded to or remaining in the article.

In my opinion, doing the exact same thing but expecting different results is crazy - someone disinterested in GMOs but really in love with wiki and using its guidelines purely should rewrite this article based on RS about the March. This very early version of the article includes a reference list that should be very helpful in this pursuit, should anyone take it on. It is a very good list - and an exhaustive one at that. In one of the main articles about the protest, it mentioned that science had not proven GMOs to be dangerous (or something along those lines) and went on to illustrate protesters take on the GMO issue. That is what I used for the article - the balance struck on the GMO mention was taken from RS and presented based on how it was presented there. That is in keeping with guidelines.

A false balance on the GMO issue has been added and insisted upon exhaustively, daily, at this article that doesn't represent any RS about the topic. In fact it seems to be getting worse instead of better. There are a slew of links to completely unrelated science declaring the safety of GMOs. Adding to this. The balance is further thrown off by what is removed from the article - little unnoticeable things to the average eye, but glaring to one who has researched the RS in the topic of the March. Some of these differences can be seen by comparing the last re-do of mine and the subsequent reversion. I would ask that this be reviewed. For instance, two illuminating images were removed with no reason, some information about the organizer, Tami Camel, was removed, the GMO controversy was swapped as top position in first section instead of the intro paragraph, which is at the bottom of the first section again. I had ordered the first section to reflect the flow of events and the topics as they arose in RS - but the present ordering (a revert of my work) does not represent the balance or flow found in RS. It likely represents an outside view on how this should be presented - and I note that this means the "GMOs are safe!" is declared nearest the top. petrarchan47tc 17:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, again, look at our policy on neutral points of view and on fringe theories, in which claims about GM foods not being safe or causing cancer and such fall under. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick solution for your complaint: ask Alexbrn not to add "claims about cancer and such". Problem solved! petrarchan47tc 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To save some time for future readers, the appropriate section of the fringe guidance for this particular case is Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories#Quotations. What this means for our situation in the Concerns/Positions section isn't totally clear cut, as it comes down to whether this section is clear enough that this quote is an opinion. As noted above, no quote may prove easier to justify. DanHobley (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The back and forth here reminds me so much of this exchange between a MAM activist and the confrontational tv host. He tries to push her into sounding wacky, so the movement is more easily discredited (his obvious goal) while she makes claims no more wild than "But let us choose - label GMO food; please do more long-term studies", etc. This is a good reflection of what I learned by studying the topic-related RS, the views were not far out, and frankly I saw no wild claims about health effects, rather a unanimous request for labels, and a great concern for the yet unknown outcome of using GMOs. petrarchan47tc 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You may not consider the views "far out," but when talking about the safety of GM food, they are fringe, and we must, per policy, include information that expresses the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that some of the protesters' claims fall under "3. Questionable science" at WP:FRINGE/PS - a substantial following, but some critics allege as pseudoscience. The text advises us to take "a bit more care". Helpful. Also, not to describe as "unambiguously pseudoscience", but this clearly does fall under the broad advice for WP:FRINGE. Some information on the mainstream scientific position is clearly appropriate, but as a community here we need to decide how much. Given other of the protesters' complaints do not fall under fringe, perhaps adding balancing views only to the ones that are would be a good way to go. Only the human health claims seem unambiguously fringe to me. DanHobley (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll note that we're not seeking a point/counterpoint on every claim made by the protesters, only the ones that are significantly outside of mainstream scientific consensus. Balancing viewpoints are all we need, and we have it in the early section but not yet under concerns. My personal issues with fringe claims are satisfied once we address the concerns section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Since US opinion is not the only opinion in the world, something that US residents sometimes forget, what do you think of the fact that the EU countries limit or ban GMOs? I would hope that you are not suggesting that they believe in what you call fringe science? Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The bans certainly aren't based on the scientific consensus, no, but this isn't the place to discuss geopolitics. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the science is done only by industry and are no longer than 90 days, your excitement about the results seems strange.

The statements claiming we need science to counteract protesters' claims are not in keeping with what the administrator I first consulted had to say. DDG said it was not needed (see early talk records) and no one disagreed with him. Now the drum is continuously beaten that we must - and that the scientific consensus is a sure thing, based on a past RfC by jtydog. I am seeing RfCs being abused a lot. Large groups show up and subtly or blatantly support a certain pov. For instance, at BP, where in the talk one will see many of the same editors as here, we had a new person show up when deep discussions about the coverage of the gulf spill where taking place, and start an RfC - it may have been his very first contrib to the page (he never touched the article) which asked if the BP page should mention the gulf spill at all. A ridiculous starting point resulting, after tons of newcomers showed up to vote, in a ridiculous result, which the latest RfC shows no support for. People can call their friends and tip an RfC so fast and easily, I've lost faith in them.

Groupscule made a list of references which bring the 'scientific consensus' into question. But that is another issue - for this article, we do not need to discuss the science of GMOs. It is enough to link to the related articles. This has been agreed to by other admins and editors as well, though we need this to be more clearly stated - we need someone to take the reigns on this. I hope those found abusing this project are topic banned or banned altogether. And soon petrarchan47tc 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the comment below before having had a chance to read what you said here. I like DGG, but he was speaking as an editor, not as an administrator. (WP:No big deal and all that.) The most applicable survey of consensus is the RfC I just linked to, below. As for warning about bans, etc., the place to raise that is WP:AN. Just because editors disagree with you does not mean that they are abusing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I added this question to the numbered list above. Please see: Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus", where the exact same statement and sourcing are being discussed by a large cross-section of the community. The RfC will close in a few more days, and it looks to me like the overwhelming consensus there is that the statement and the sources are valid. The only question that then remains for us here is whether it is somehow WP:OR to take the sentence from Genetically modified food controversies and apply it here at March Against Monsanto. That happens to be the same question behind the now-closed thread at ANI that Viriditas started, and I don't have to remind anyone how that ended. It would be WP:SYNTH if we used those sources to say something about the March itself. But we don't. It's a sentence about the scientific consensus. It isn't synthesis. Should we delete that sentence? No, for the reasons already being discussed in the numbered list above. If we do delete it, then WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:POVFORK will all require us to have a sentence refuting the protesters' views every time we state the protesters' views, a never-ending point-counterpoint. Better, and more efficient, to state the facts in the background section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should revert to my early version and go from there, with new editors who haven't been warring here. This was the extent of the coverage of the GMO issue at the time:

Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling. Source

Any editing done after this point to extend the claims and therefore make the article worthy of fringe warning labels, science, drama, etc., I will not defend. The same group arguing against wild claims seems to be the same the ones adding them. petrarchan47tc 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As this line doesn't reflect the scientific consensus, I cannot agree to it. If it said "Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment, although the scientific consensus is that genetically modified food is safe" or something similar, I could be okay with it. I'm just one person, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I don't think you have consensus for that. It would seem to have the effect of putting the page in your preferred version, and it would undo the effects of a lot of discussion since then. Although it's true that there are multiple disagreements, you still have to work with the other editors here. You might want to consider joining in the discussions above about the specific content points. In fact, you might even want to engage with the reply that I gave to you yesterday, where I listed point-by-point some of the concerns that I had about your group of edits. As for your accusations about other editors, you are getting dangerously close to where Viriditas was. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is that editors are arguing their views supersede RS, like the AP that I quoted above. And when I say RS, I'm talking about RS for this article specifically - refs that cover MAM, which is much more nuanced that the portrayal here, if you read the actual source material. I disagree that folks found to be highly POV and who display an overly emotional dedication to arguing in circles here (and to any GMO mention on wiki) should have any input whatsoever to this article. petrarchan47tc 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And I, in turn, find it concerning that I have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over again, just because a few editors disagree with it. Please see: #8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section?, and my summary here: , in the part where I start by saying "Let's get specific about this claim of WP:OR." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

...the true problem is that editors here are NOT immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article...

Oh I expect that some of the Editors do examine the extant literature, but that they pick-and-choose which sources they're willing to accept as factual. As was noted, fixing the article so that it is encyclopedic is not an insurmountable task, but it may take decades. :) Damotclese (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines; What they mean.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reading thru the discussions again, especially the recent ones, show as clearly as one can show that those rules mean shit as they're treated as such. Going by the rules, this article would be a piece of cake but it is clear by now that it is hijacked by editors who might or might not work as shims of the GMO PR campaign but sure have issues putting their strong personal feelings aside for the good of the article. It's becoming more and more a clear and visible choke to any even just slightly informed reader. Haha....! If this should become a reasonable and trustable good article, this silliness has to stop! We don't want readers to vomit all over their keyboard, won't we...?!TMCk (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of editing according to policies and guidelines. But I rather suspect that all editors, no matter what their perspectives about this page, will say the same. And some will swear that anyone who disagrees with them either doesn't understand policy and guidelines, or is willfully ignoring them. And I'm strongly in favor of vomiting (just checking if anyone is reading this). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

But, I think that putting aside one's personal feelings about the subject matter is an excellent suggestion! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion? I sure think so. Will it happen? Wishful thinking...!TMCk (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More: There is a clear agenda about even "censor"/remove opinions of the article's subject. Should that be seen as a precedence to remove faulty opinions of politicians or else if they're not backed up by science??? I'm sure you get my point.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifically on that last point, about editors wanting to remove or tone down the opinions of the protesters, I feel that I have to point out that there are also editors who have wanted to include comments of people not associated with the March in order to buck up the protesters' views. If you are in favor of everyone on both "sides" setting aside their personal feelings, I'm with you, but if you are implying that it's just people on one "side", then I have a problem with what you are saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "shims", but part of trying to have a civil discourse (which is what I assume this section is about) is not to poison the well by repeating insinuations which lack evidence. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that you nominated the article for deletion a second time a few days ago, IRWolfie, do you think it might be understandable for others to question your neutrality when it comes to this article? Jusdafax 00:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No I do not think it would be understandable and do not see what connection you are trying to make to any issue I have raised. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagreed with the AfD and commented "keep" there. I think it was a bad idea. But if we attributed bad faith to everyone who started an AfD that didn't get consensus, we'd have to drive away much of our editor base. I remember the first AfD that I started. The page was kept, and I got an earful about it. Deletion discussions are polarizing by their very nature. This is as good a place as any to point out the value of setting aside one's personal feelings on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The first nomination had merits; The second had "point" written all over it and was not in the best interest of WP. That of course is "just" my personal opinion. Unlike some unnamed editors on this page I disclose what is my personal opinion (...vs. facts and policies...). The problem on this page is clear w/o speaking it out again even more clear than some others have already done in the past. And it's not "science vs. fringe".TMCk (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the deletion nominations, I agree. I nominated it the first time when it was poorly formatted and the work of people with no experience in Misplaced Pages, and there was no evidence of collaboration. I then requested a speedy closure four days later when it looked like a Misplaced Pages article. The second nomination was a threat to throw some other child's toys out of the pram. What I still don't see enough of is willingness to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm going to log out for the night, and vomit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that because you've eaten too much GM food? ;-) Alexbrn 07:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what is the purpose of this thread? If you wish to make vague insinuations can you please do that elsewhere, preferably off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to get the page back on track even if it is not very likely to happen.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Earlier today I was not watching my computer and a guest in the house edited this article. I have since explained how wrong this was. It will definitely not happen again. I will go through and correct now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is first one. The others seem to have been either corrected or have consensus. This is the diff between the others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, I think everything is fixed. Stuff happens! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the few times that the Someone Else Did It defense, also known as little brother defense, actually is plausible, because Canoe1967 actually reverted the edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for believing me. I wish it was me as I thought they were good edits. I would have done similar myself but now I can't.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious nonsense

"In post-march coverage, Alternet printed, "While March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history with 400 simultaneous events in 60 countries around the globe, no major corporate media outlets in the US covered the live event. CNN ran a followup short on the event on May 28, and mainstream coverage has trickled in here and there, but has been sparse."Worldwide Movement Against Monsanto Gaining Steam

To call this nonsense, to literally argue that Alternet didn't have an idea what they were doing, but some Misplaced Pages editor knows the score, is rather odd. And disturbing. I am wondering if there is one person here who has studied the available material about the March Against Monsanto. They wouldn't argue with this Alternet quotation, if they had, I assure you. It was a giant march, and it was not covered well by mainstream media. The idea of corporate controlled media has been called a "meme" on this talk page. Which is ridiculous*. I need to ask why folks are so interested in spending time editing this page when they have not studied the topic. The result is vandalism, folks. petrarchan47tc 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me draw your attention to #7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint. No it isn't vandalism. It's a disagreement about POV, but not vandalism. I assure you that I am reading the material, including the first paragraph of the Media coverage section of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're calling a "false viewpoint", but where are the refs proving these claims? And when I say material, I am not speaking of the Misplaced Pages article based on the material, i'm speaking of source material. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The words "false viewpoint" come from the header of that discussion section; they are not my words. You should follow the link and read what is there. Yes, I do understand that you were talking about the source material. So let me draw your attention to the source material in the first paragraph of the Media coverage section of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I do hope you aren't insinuating that this minuscule list of media outlets - sans context such as, what percentage of media this represents, the amount and type of coverage, etc - this list that essentially constitutes OR (if indeed it is trying to 'say something' that is not found already said in RS, ie "lotsa coverage fer that MAM thing") - refutes Alternet and Thomm fricking Hartmann. And yes, that first para that you now point me to was indeed created as OR refutation of the Thom Hartmann claim, which for whatever reason has been under heavy attack since the very begining of the article. A thorough review of the edit history will show that the first paragraph, which is just weird, was created in a struggle to remove uncomfortable claims, to prove them wrong blatantly using OR whilst claiming to be the ones who are really here to follow guidelines and build a proper article. A review of the history will show that no one ever tried to remove Monsanto's rebuttle. I put it in there. There is only one "side" being attacked here, no matter how convoluted and spun the retelling of this story gets. At some pont, an intelligent truly NPOV lover of the wiki will do a review of this whole situation, and all will be seen. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating anything. Please feel free to raise any issues you want at the appropriate notice board, but please stop casting aspersions on other editors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am AGF, so I do wonder why you would point me to an example of OR/SYNTH. How am I to respond? Now I go to a noticeboard? Why isn't this upsetting to anyone but me? This is obviously against the guidelines, yet we are editing on account of it. I cannot imagine another article where this is acceptable. And every editor here is responsible for letting this slide, which is confusing to me. I know that the editors here understand basic wiki guidelines, and this paragraph has no business being on wikipedia. I am wondering why am I the only person who sees this. petrarchan47tc 01:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is there something I'm missing here? Why would we presume an activist news service is reliable exactly? Particularly about something so demonstrably false? (i.e this statement stands in contrast to the fact that the event is notable purely based on the media coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Is this first paragraph of the media section the best example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH ever, or second best? We have already been over this, the event wasn't much covered by mainstream media and Alternet is considered RS, in a case where we have little to go on, it is fine. We quote directly from Monsanto press releases and industry as well, where appropriate. petrarchan47tc 01:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources are never declared de-facto reliable. Reliability is case by case. I'm still not sure what you are basing calling it reliable on. It is a news service with a set agenda, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

VE

All that I (thought) that I did was change two words. Apparently VE decided that I removed a photo, changed a heading, and I don't know what else. So damn irritating when I hardly have time to keep up with the talk page here. grrr. Now I guess I have to waste even more time and report the damn thing. grrr, grrr... Gandydancer (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it's OK now. Please check if what I wrote is OK with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

'GMO controversy' section.

I have removed a comment about lobbying and slightly rewritten this section. I believe that it now gives an encyclopedic and balanced description of the background to the march without promoting any anti/pro views on Monsanto or GM foods. What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it is well sourced, but somewhat out of date, I have removed the poll data because it is not about the march, it is an argument supporting the marchers' position. What exactly was it supposed to balance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, what exactly is your poll result supposed to balance? It is just promoting the marchers' POV, which is not the job of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 is not out of date. Since we have stepped away from a need to use protest-related sites for the scientific position, it is also reasonable to use a poll to show that 9 out of 10 Americans question it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The quoted poll was 2010. We cannot try to balance a general scientific consensus with a poll of the public. Firstly they are about two different subjects, the scientific consensus is about the safety of the foods but the poll was about labelling.

I have no strong opinion either way on labelling but this article is not the place to discuss the subject. All we need to say is that the marchers want labelling of GM food and some others do not. It is not our job to decide who is right, or to present evidence for either side here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree Martin. However, if in this article we include sites to contradict their position, sites where the protest is not mentioned, we must also include information that supports their concerns in a similar manner--thus the poll is reasonable. My preference would be to remove any information that is not directly related to the march. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Which sites are you referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that we should deal with the overall controversy, beyond the March itself, according to WP:Summary style, I have low enthusiasm for including the poll. It looks to me like the poll was added sort of as a way to balance the other edits that Martin made. To the degree that those edits might have needed to be balanced, a better approach would be to try to fix them, instead of to get into making other compensatory edits to balance them. And I do think that some of Martin's edits were a mistake in this instance, and so I have revised them. In particular, I was quite puzzled by the removal of the quotation marks (gosh, do I sound like Viriditas now?), because we have discussed those quotes numerous times before and the consensus was to leave them as direct quotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any consensus. The quotes serve no useful purpose and only make the writing less encyclopedic. There are no issues of plagiarism (the quotes are far too short) or of attribution (both views are clearly attributed. Quotations like this encourage 'quote wars' instead of a proper encyclopedic writing style. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A while back, you removed a lot of quotes, and the now-blocked editor made a big deal about it. I commented that I felt that most of your edits then were helpful, but that I would prefer to restore direct quotes from the people who were behind the protest. Subsequent discussion seemed to indicate that there was at least some consensus, including no objection from you at that time, for putting those quotes back as direct quotes. The drama on my user talk page about supposed plagiarism was about one of those two quotes. Taking those things together, I would have preferred that if you now wanted to de-quote those quotes, you would have discussed it here in talk before, rather than after, doing it, as we are doing for so much else. I am optimistic that the battles over quote wars are going to quiet down now, so I think the best way not to reignite them is to not make new changes that could reignite them. There is nothing un-encyclopedic about having quotations in an article, whereas it's a little dicey to have passages as long as those presented without quote marks, with one unchanged from the source, and the other only changed from "can" to "could". Really, these two direct quotes should not be a big deal to you, so I don't see any reason to tone them down. Let's leave the quotes, and, in "return", let's leave out the poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you at least explain to me the encyclopedic purpose of having direct quotes. There is no possibility of misunderstanding if we paraphrase or even use the exact words in our text. The use of a few words of normal English cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called plagiarism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain that. As I just said above, there "is nothing un-encyclopedic about having quotations in an article". It's an article about the March Against Monsanto. People have said things about the March Against Monsanto. We report some of the things that they have said. Maybe there's a slight difference in tone, compared to some old-fashioned print encyclopedias, but that is because we are not an old-fashioned print encyclopedia, and we report a wider variety of topics than anything that has previously been produced in print. This article is about a present-day controversy. We sometimes quote what people said during the controversy. Previously, I agreed with some of your edits about quotes, but I do not see the issue as extending so far that, every time a quote appears, we have to run from it squealing "eek! eek! it's a quote! I'm so scared! save me!". These particular quotes are not going to set off a quote war unless editors on both "sides" decide to make it a war. I didn't say that you plagiarized, but I said that "it's a little dicey", and that's what it is, no more, no less. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

California Proposition 37 and the Farmer Assurance Provision section

At the moment this reads like a promotional campaign by the marchers. We do need to say why the marchers were marching and what they were marching for but not in language that gives their fringe views credibility and authority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you would make specific suggestions about what to change in the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let us start at the beginning then:

The combined total spent by food industry advocacy groups on the campaign to defeat Proposition 37 was $45 million.

This should be removed. There was a fair and legal vote. How much each side spent on their cause in not relevant to the march. The statement is intended to make a vague accusation against one side of the debate.

Canal credits Proposition 37 with "opening her eyes" to GMOs for the first time.

Another unnecessary quote in a badly worded and biased sentence. We should have something along the lines, 'Canal had said that Proposition 37 led to her interest in GM foods'. Simple facts without emotive words phrases like "opening her eyes" and "credits". Either that or remove the sentence completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either of those. The first is a statement of fact, and it was very widely reported in connection with these protests. It's clearly part of the background to the protests. The second reports what motivated Canal, and it's properly attributed. We cannot purge this page of the reasons for the March. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording about Ms. Canal and Proposition 37, as proposed by Martin, but, upon consideration, am reverting it back, because it is an accurate quote as to what she said. (Does anyone question that she said that?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not in any way question that fact that she said that but I do question WP giving her a soapbox to promote her views. We need to state her motives in neutral and encyclopedic language. The use of the word 'credits' is not even a quotation it is in the voice of WP. Words like 'credits' suggest support for the stated view, why not just 'stated' or 'said'. The use of "opening her eyes" suggests that the revealed facts were true and that they had been kept secret. Please, have a read of a printed encyclopedia like Chambers or Britannica. You well not see the kind of language used in the article there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 17:16, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin

I agreed with User:Martin Hogbin about the removal of unencyclopedic anti-BP content from the BP article. There were and are anti-BP POV-pushers who insisted that any removal of anti-BP was a "whitewash", but I thought that they were trying to "black-wash" the company, in particular by the addition of negative material that was already in its own articles. I disagree about the removal of some of these quotes from this article. This article is not Monsanto but is about the protests, and should explain the protests with a neutral POV so that the reader can form an opinion. This article can present the views and motivations of the protesters as long as it does not promote fringe science. Undue weight differs when writing about a company than when writing about opposition to a company. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I second this. DanHobley (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not just the content but the language used. We should not be staging a quote war, as in X says "GM foods are bad" Y says "GM foods are good" we should be neutrally stating the views and motivations of both parties once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I'm going to third what Robert said. He's right. I'm all in favor of WP:BLPGROUP, but not to the point of, in effect, watering down the subject of the page. I think I can see how you might see some of the language as being aggressive and confrontational, and it's not entirely unreasonable to wish that we could make our language here more, well, civil. And I'm in favor of doing that when we write in Misplaced Pages's voice. But this is an article about a controversy that was very confrontational at times, and, however good your intentions are (and I am convinced that they are good), it's a mistake to try to make the reliably sourced quotes "nicer". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that edit wars over quotes are bad, because they are edit wars. I am not sure what is meant by the staging of quote wars. I agree that there should be no more quotes than are needed to present the point of view of the protesters. However, we should focus more on the views of the protesters than of opponents of the protest, because this article is about the protests, not about genetically modified food or Monsanto. I agree with User:Tryptofish, because this article is about the protests, and the protests are controversial, and we need to be careful to present their views and motives neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "quote wars" refers to having one quote from one "side" followed by a quote from the other "side", over and over again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. If so, I agree that we should not stage quote wars, and should not try to provide an equal number of quotes to both sides. This article is about the protests, not about people who disagree with the protest, or a company or products that the protesters disagree with. The protesters are entitled to reasonable but not excessive explanation, including in their own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article doesn't need to be balanced with every point made by the protest. We have pro-life and pro-choice articles that each have their own POVs stressed without countering. If Monsanto has a POV then create Monsanto March Against Protesters. Their POV can be stressed there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(And that's all I have to say!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1. "Monsanto protests around the world". The Washington Post. 25 May 2013. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
2. Cite error: The named reference LAT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. "Global march challenges Monsanto's dominance: TIMELINE". RT. 26 May 2013. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
4. Cite error: The named reference CNN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Livingston, J. Kojo (3 June 2013). "Millions worldwide join March against Monsanto". The Louisiana Weekly. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
6. Hartmann, Thom (28 May 2013)."So Much For The Liberal Media". The Thom Hartmann Program. Talk Radio News Service. Retrieved 18 June 2013.
7. Bachman, Joseph (6 June 2013). "Monsanto Protests Not in the News". Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune. Retrieved 21 June 2013.

• 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 controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment