Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 23 July 2013

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 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: 30 days

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

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

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

Response

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

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

Regarding quotations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viriditas' assertions of consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More soapboxing removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts on how the article should be written

In my opinion the article should include:

Reasons for the march

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

Response from mainstream science

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

Response from Monsanto

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

Details of the actual march

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

Future plans

Brief indication of the marchers' plans for future events.

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

We should not, in my opinion have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the AP source say?

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

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

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

HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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