Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 25 January 2016

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

RfC on whether calling an event "murder" presumes the perpetrator is a "murderer".

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Netflix original programming

There is currently a discussion here regarding whether or not Netflix should be considered the actual source for labeling shows as Netflix originals, even though in some cases those shows are produced by other networks but co-opted by Netflix for international broadcasting purposes. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Carly Rae Jepsen

Hi all, I'd appreciate input at Talk:Carly Rae Jepsen regarding whether statements such as " was a commercial success" should be included in articles without specific reliable sources cited to support them. Another editor has expressed the view that a source referring to a single as a "hit", or an album charting in the top 10 or 20, identifies commercial success—and that editors "can use their own judgement" in these situations—but I myself feel this type of writing falls foul of the original research policy.

Thanks! Extraordinary Machine (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Campus Sexual Assault

There is an open RfC on the Campus Sexual Assault page that deals, in part, with a question about original research.

The conflict is explained in more detail on the page, but the portion that is relevant to OR is this: the 2015 AAU report on campus sexual assault found that women who did not report a sexual assault incident to the police did so because they "did not think it was serious enough to report". Previous research has examined this result on past surveys, but this research did not directly examine the 2015 survey. An editor has argued that, because this past research did not directly address the 2015 AAU report, it is original research to draw a connection in the entry.

This is a long-running dispute, and a previous RfC was closed without consensus, in large part due to a lack of participation. If you have time, additional voices would be a big help. Nblund (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced comparison of New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany incident with Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks incident

Another editor, User: Veggies at New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany insists upon the inclusion of a "SEE ALSO" link to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks. There is no discussion in either article of the other one; the user simply thinks the two are fit for comparison. He argues that since the WP:SEEALSO policy allows for links to articles with only an "indirect or tangential" connection to the main article in question, there is no need for any sourced commentary justifying the link—e.g. a news article or editorial suggesting a relationship or drawing a comparison between the two.

My feeling is that while there may be situations and article topics where the addition of an unsourced connection is obviously appropriate, or at least innocuous, in other cases there are a lot of potentially unwelcome consequences which force Verifiability and NPOV to the top of the analysis.

The most obviously extreme example that I could think of would be editing the article of a political candidate with a link declaring "SEE ALSO: Hitler". Undoubtedly many politicians could be given a superficial or facially plausible comparison to Hitler (!), but at this point the user's "editorial judgment" will have begun to manufacture content in a dangerous and unacceptable way. Thus I don't think a potentially damaging claim of this sort becomes exempt from WP:V simply because of some loose wording in the policy on cross-article linking. Input desired. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If no connection has been explicitly made in existing sources, it should be kept out. It's a can be re-added if a source is found. Bickering over something like see-also is also a waste of time, so just leave any problematic links out.81.88.116.27 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on the article's talk page have become intractable and outside help is needed.

The New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany were a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (New Years) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery.

The Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks were, likewise, a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (Puerto Rican Day) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery.

Seeing the similarities between the two (both of which have been extensively cited in their respective articles using verifiable, reliable sources), I decided to place a link in the "See Also" section of the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany article. I did this in accordance with the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO since I figured that readers who'd read the article might be interested in knowing about this very similar incident which had occurred years before in the US. Apparently, User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain disagrees and has been trying to argue that there must be a verifiable citation in a reliable source which "links" the two before a "See Also" link can be added to an article. Asked where this policy can be found, he linked me to WP:V. I welcome knowledgeable input, here. -- Veggies (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument presented by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain, on the grounds that it is a false comparison. They said that linking the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks in the "see also" section would be like linking Hitler in the "see also" section for a politician. This is a straw man argument that holds no water when examined closely. First, the stated reason that linking Hitler would be problematic would be that it would seem to cast aspersions on the politician from whose page it was linked. So by that logic, linking the Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks on the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany page is somehow offensive to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. Clearly this is not a concern as neither event has a BLP type reputation to maintain. This argument would only make sense here if the incidents were unquestionably different in character and severity to a degree that such a comparison would be trivializing or overblowing to one or the other, and that is not the case here. As pointed out, there are significant similarities between the two, to an extent that is really undeniable. I would also point out that there is no requirement that sources provide the comparison, as mentioned above the wording of the policy is "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." and specifically allows for this type of linking. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

At this time I'm not going to address the tenuous argument that my chosen example is not perfect and that therefore we don't need sourcing for this claim. Verifiability applies to all claims on Misplaced Pages. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're not going to defend the point you yourself have made, don't bring them up to be resolved in WP:DR. -- Veggies (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: So you're not going to defend the only argument you put forth in defense of your position? The fact is, there is no policy that supports your position, there is no requirement for sourcing on "See also"s, and the wording specifically allows for this type of addition. Those points had nothing to do with your example (an example which was much more tenuous than my rebuttal to it, which by the way is still completely valid as you have not shown any way in which I was incorrect) so your refusal to address them would seem to indicate that you have nothing which with to argue against them other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Kerlés

The Romanian historian, Victor Spinei wrote the following sentences about the invasion which ended with the Battle of Kerlés:

"During the second half of the eleventh century, hordes of Pechenegs continued to inhabit the left bank of the Danube. In 1068, led by Osul, they launched a great attack against Transylvania and Hungary through the mountain passes across the Carpathian range. After they had crossed the Mezeș Gate and robbed the province of Nyr, they advanced to the fortress of Biharea. On their way back, they were ambushed and defeated by King Salomon (1068-1074) and his sons near Dăbâca stronghold. Whereas Simon of Keza and the Annales Posonienses ascribe the attack to the Pecehengs (Besi), the Latin-Hungarian chronicles of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries asscribe it to Cumans (Cuni). The latter may not be just and adaptation of a piece of information taken from older sources, since at the time of the raid the Cuman vanguard was already in the vicinity of the Carpahtian Mountains. One think seems to be certain, namely that the marauders of 1068 were not Uzes. A west-Russian chronographs misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romaniasn (Валахи). The unknown author of the Russian chronography then explained that Cumans were also called Половцы and Kум. Historian now agree that the marauders of 1068 were Pechenegs and those medieval authors who wrote of Cumans made a mistake, given that the ethnic name Cuni did not have a very clear meaning in the Latin-Hungarian chronicles."

— Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century (pages 117-118)

In connection with the above information, the lead and the body of the article contain the following sentences: "Medieval chronicles wrote that the invaders were (...) Cumans and Vlachs (or Romanians). Modern historians identify the invaders as Pechenegs (...)." "The invasion was misdated to 1059 in a west-Russian chronicle which identified the invaders as Cumans and Vlachs (or Romanians). Modern historians agree that the invaders of 1068 were Pechenegs (...)." Based on Spinei's cited text, Eurocentral says, the Vlachs (or Romanians) should be mentioned in the infobox as belligerents, because the "Russian chronography" refers to them. Based on the same text, I say, that modern historians do not state that the Vlachs (or Romanians) participated in the battle, consequently we should not list them among the belligerents. According to a third opinion (), "the infobox should mention the belligerents as they are identified by modern scholars, not as they were identified by medieval scholars". Should we mention the Vlachs (or Romanians) among the people who participated in the battle of Kerlés in the infobox? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinei mentioned the Romanians and Cumans. They should be mentioned. We may see here a continuous refusal of Borsoka against Romanian historian Spinei. There was a similar dispute involving the same editor Borsoka, discussing about Dacians from Anna Comnen "Alexiad"; Borsoka stressed that Florin Curta repeated the Moravcsic ideea that Dacians were Hungarians.(By the way, Ana Comnena stated that Dacians lived on the Northern slopes of Balkans). But Curta only mentioned the lines of Moravcsic. In the Dacian case, Borsoka stated that Curta's lines about Dacians showed Curta's own opinion. In Chirales case, Borsoka states that Spinei's lines about Romanians and Cumans are not Spinei's own opinion. We see Borsoka acting in order to mitigate the participation of Romanians in some confrontations.

We do not know the reason of this actions. By the way, this war edit on Chirales battle started 2 years ago. Now Borsoka restarted this war edit with the same subject on the same lines. Eurocentral (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, Spinei writes of the Cumans and the Vlachs (Romanians) in his book when mentioning the report of the Russian chronicle of the battle; and the article also mentions the Cumans and the Vlachs in the same context, as it is shown by the above quotes from Spinei's work and from the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that Borsoka provided reliable sources. As Borsoka says correctly, Spinei, in fact, did not state that Romanians (or Vlachs, anyway not always the same) participated in the battle, he just mentions an unidentified Russian chronicle's report which contains several factual errors (e.g. the battle misdated to 1059 there). Borsoka properly wrote this POV in "Battle" section, among others. According to modern historians (even Spinei), the invaders were Pechenegs and/or Ouzes. The different editing style between the two editors decides the dispute; Borsoka is a hard-working, reliable and neutral editor, who contributed to a number of Good and FA-articles. In contrast, Eurocentral is a problematic, nationalistic user, who does not understand the fundamental rules and objectives of the Misplaced Pages, and also a constant participant in edit wars, personal attacks and did not give sources to his biased, POV-claims. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We are looking to a neutral point of view. User Norden was involved in war edit against Spinei in this article and against other Romanian historians in other articles. In this case his opinion is NOT NEUTRAL. Norden also falsified the situation; here is the statement of Norden: "According to modern historians (even Spinei), the invaders were Pechenegs and/or Ouzes". It is clear Norden didn't read what Spinei wrote.

This is a clear case of manipulation in Misplaced Pages and Norden user actions are a bad example on how to manipulate the references of an article. Due to this manipulations, the credibility of Misplaced Pages starts to mitigate.

The article and the debate has 2 references visible in talk page: 1. Spinei's work and 2. Hypathian codex known as Russian chronograph. Both references cited the name of Romanians. User Borsoka provoked a false issue trying to eliminate Spinei from references. This case have to be investigated, being a manipulation Eurocentral (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Eurocentral, please try to remain civil. I have never tried to eliminate Spinei from references. On the other hand, you have been abusing his name to substantiate your own original research about the Russian chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OR on GMO articles

Previous NOR entry, at the time the related article content was changed to agreement. However, editors changed it back again to claim that there is a consensus on GMO safety.

• Current talk page discussion @Genetically modified crops. Editor Tryptofish, and AIRcorn change "agreement" back to "consensus", without talk page consensus, or providing sources for their claim. The article lede currently states, "There is general scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." - Editor David Tornheim, and me changed it back to a version which was previously agreed upon, when editor Jytdog who introduced initially the consensus part, kept it as agreement (He is topic banned from GMO's). None of the references contains the word consensus.
• Cited referenes for the claim that there exists a scientific consensus
• 1) FAO Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm (2004)
• 2) Study: Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security http://genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long (2011)
• 3) European Commision: A decade of EU-funded GMO research http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf (2010)
• 4) Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf (2012)
• 5) American Medical Association, Labeling of Bioengineered Foods https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf (2012) - no longer available

Why is a consensus statement problematic?

If there were a consensus it would be clear in the wast amount of scientific literature.

• The WHO states in their official conclusion about food safety of GMOs, "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods."
• A UNEP/IAASTD report from last year (p. 34) states, "As the general public has become increasingly interested in the linkages between agricultural production systems and human health, the list of food-related health concerns has continued to grow. It includes uncertainty with regard to the effects of GMOs on human health, fear of pesticide residues on foodstuffs..."
• From the IAASTD synthesis report, "The three most discussed issues on biotechnology in the IAASTD conceredt: • Lingering doubts about the adequacy of efficacy and safety testing, or regulatory frameworks for testing GMOs ; • Suitability of GMOs for addressing the needs of most farmers while not harming others, at least within some existing IPR and liability frameworks ; • Ability of modern biotechnology to make significant contributions to the resilience of small and subsistence agricultural systems " prokaryotes (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. The first thing that needs to be stated is that this subject has just been covered at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, and discretionary sanctions apply to this discussion. I want to make clear that the edits that are in dispute are the following: , , and . So all of the noise above is simply over whether we should say "scientific agreement" or "scientific consensus", as if that were a big deal. But the reason that it is in dispute is that we have POV-pushers who want to undermine the idea that GM foods are safe, so they want to water down the idea of a "consensus", even if that means that somehow, miraculously, "agreement" is better. Now it's true that there is a WHO source that calls for testing each new GM crop plant, on a case-by-case basis, in case a new problem should emerge. That isn't an upsetting of the scientific consensus, but simply an application of good science, to check whether future findings might provide exceptions to the existing scientific consensus. No editor is claiming that there is a scientific consensus against testing new GM plants, only that there is a scientific consensus that, so far, your food won't make you drop dead. And as for talk page consensus, the immediate talk page discussion is at Talk:Genetically modified crops#Scientific "consensus", and the most recent discussion of the question in general was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. To say that Aircorn and I are ignoring talk page consensus is counter-factual. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many reports (such as this) who conclude that wisdom about safety (a certain GMO case) is incomplete. Again, my point above that you can not make general statements. And then there is the fact that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogenic, which renders glyphosate depending herbicide tolerant products unhealthy to some degree (yes, this does include non GMO as well). prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Glyphosate is not a GM plant. It is a chemical. Part of the POV-pushing is centered on creating the false impression that GM plants have more toxic chemical residues on them than conventional crop plants do, so inevitably, discussion about scientific consensus about the plants subtly shifts to discussion about scientific consensus about the residues on the plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We are discussing food safety of GMOs, which according to food safety includes pesticide residues, "In considering industry to market practices, food safety considerations include the origins of food including the practices relating to food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, as well as policies on biotechnology and food" I notice that you repeatedly refer to POV-pushers, please focus on actual evidence per sources, instead of repeating terms characteristic for battleground behavior, see WP:BATTLE. This talk is about OR not about factions. prokaryotes (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to read WP:BATTLE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) To my knowledge this question has been to WP:RFC twice. The first was closed in August 2013 as "the statement being reasonable" (Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus"). I took part in that RFC. The second RFC was closed as no consensus in July 2015 (Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 10). Whether the statement was original research was discussed at length in both RFC's. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment To claim "scientific consensus" is actually a big deal according to WP rules, and i think everyone here knows that. The second RfC trumps/negates the first one, and it wasn't simply "no consensus", it was no consensus that the SC statement had support even with the 18 sources clumped together. We still don't have any strong, non-advocacy RS stating that most or all scientists agree on GMO safety, only Pew poll of AAAS scientists. From Archive 12:

A quotation from the author of the RfC might be relevant to this discussion: "f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." - GrayDuck156 23 July

the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. - Jytdog 23 July

Now that no one is looking, two editors are inserting this language again. It cannot be said that editors weren't aware of the RfC and its findings, not after the ARbCom where it was mentioned ad infinitum. This appears to be pro-GMO POV pushing to me. petrarchan47คุก 02:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round as the scientific consensus language was already there. This is the first edit that I can find that changed it to scientific agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OR is policy, a local consensus from a RFC or agreement of editors on an article talk page cant override policy that has community consensus. No source makes that exact claim, The AAAS source is close but problematic in that it misrepresents the WHO. AlbinoFerret 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Aircorn's description leaves out the complete history. Jytdog created the second RfC because it was clear that there was no longer a Misplaced Pages consensus supporting the "scientific consensus" language. In the start of the 2nd RfC Jytdog indicates the intent and purpose of the need for a 2nd RfC: "That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again." And the result of the close was indeed that there was no consensus on what to do about the disputed language. However, the closers of both RfC's advised on revising the language to gain consensus. I described that in the following post:

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.

The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here. There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:

Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:

... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new...discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food .... Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:

• Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
• Genetically modified food (Talk)
• Genetically modified crops(Talk)
• Genetically modified organism(Talk)
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
• March Against Monsanto (Talk)
• The Non-GMO Project(Talk)

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC) (post is here).

Editors discussed the language at Genetically Modified Food (no one objected to my proposal to discuss it there) and eventually the "scientific agreement" language was the result at the GM Food article. I explained all that here.

I am pinging each of the closers of the two RfCs--@I JethroBT: and @Risker:--in case they want to comment on what they meant in the above quotes. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately left it short so as not to prejudice or discourage any uninvolved person who might be willing to look into this. Because that is what we need, uninvolved editors. What RFC did Risker close? AIRcorn (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I look at the discussion here, everyone (including me) is an editor who has long been involved in the disputes about GMOs, and predictably, it looks like most editors are lining up according to the existing "sides". Therefore, I think that the most useful purpose of a noticeboard like this being to attract "fresh eyes", I hope that uninvolved editors may be able to offer something here. But another thing – I've been thinking very hard about the dispute here, and an idea occurred to me. Shortly, I will suggest it at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Who knows, maybe it will help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There were a number of problems with the claim that there was academic consensus. Either the sources were unreliable or they did not make that claim. The only review studies presented have said that insufficient research has been conducted to draw any conclusion. If anyone has a review study that says differently, then it would be helpful to present it. TFD (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's scientific consensus, rather than academic. There are plenty of reliable sources that review the literature (thus, secondary sources) and conclude that there is no greater risk. And there are no reliable sources that conclude that there is a greater risk, although there are reliable sources that say that there still needs to be case-by-case testing. The issue you raise is whether or not it is SYNTH to take the preponderance of sources and conclude that they are in consensus. As you, TFD, well know, you and I have disagreed about the proper application of SYNTH many times before, and doubtless, we disagree again here. But thank you for providing an outside opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Per your own words it shows that the claim is WP:SYNTHESIS it matters not if you agree with it, its WP policy.

"There are plenty of reliable sources that review the literature (thus, secondary sources) and conclude that there is no greater risk."

Thats adding up the sources to come to a conclusion. What is required by WP:VER is a WP:RS that makes the claim that there is "scientific consensus" if there are so many sources, it should be easy to pull one up. AlbinoFerret 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think you have a false dilemma here, either (1) the risk is not greater -or- (2) the risk is greater. As you have acknowledged the sources indicate a need for case-by-case testing. And as TFD mentioned the review studies indicate insufficient study and knowledge from lack of long term studies. We seem to all agree that Domingo 2011 is the best (or one of the best) review articles on this subject. This Krismky article discusses eight review articles about GMO safety (including Domingo 2011). The journal for Krimsky states here its impact factor as: Impact Factor:2.194 | 5-Year Impact Factor:2.475.

1. Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
2. Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values 1-32. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment been over this before, this silly coat-racking of cites that say nothing definitive about scientific consensus is going to keep causing problems. Cite only those sources that provide undisputed support for the claim, remove the fluff. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, certainly with your background I am sure you are capable of researching the literature and forming an opinion about the general consensus. However, that is still original research and cannot replace peer-reviewed studies. I would point out that publicly known figures including Jane Goodall and David Suzuki have questioned whether there has been sufficient testing. It would also seem to violate WP:MEDRS, since we could be offering incorrect information about health claims. Since you have spent a lot of time on this, have a PhD in biochemistry and have written peer-reviewed papers, have you ever thought of writing a review study for an academic journal? Then we could incorporate your findings into the articles. TFD (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc. At one point, we had people complaining that there were too many references (up to 20 I recall) that gave a comprehensive overview on the different ways to say consensus in this topic, and now we have people picking out a few sources instead trying to claim they don't match up. This content has been through multiple RfCs, so there shouldn't be any reason to keep bringing it up as original research. Competency in the subject matter is required here, and we have multiple editors conflating specific parts of the overall consensus description in the literature as being contradictory when it is not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is remarkable that you suggest that editors who give valid policy based input are similar to climate deniers/use same tactics. I think you should retract that and read about climate denial. Or better retract teh entire comment, fringe...conflating parts...competency, are you serious?prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Many of the things listed are unfortunately behavior problems that this board isn't suitable to handle, which is why we likely won't get anywhere here (and why I mentioned them and am done on that part). That being said, and focusing on the real-world aspect, the same arguments being used to deny the GMO consensus as with climate change, vaccines, etc. is written about pretty often. It's not hard to find sources commenting on those things hand in hand and mentioning that fringe aspect of society, why they do it, etc. . We're not writing content on that right now, but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a different between an article out of Misplaced Pages, and policy based discussions when an editor suggest that other editors use climate denier tactics. There is also a difference when someone compares his SYN/OR sources which do not refer to a consensus compares that with the overwhelming consensus in climate science. I find your argumentation here very concerning, and your comments show that you seem to lack basic will to understand these differences, beside very good arguments by various involved and uninvolved editors. prokaryotes (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution