Misplaced Pages

Talk:March Against Monsanto

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 18 August 2013 (→Can we first be clear what we are talking about: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:02, 18 August 2013 by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) (→Can we first be clear what we are talking about: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
    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.
    Article policies
    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: 15 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.
    Article policies
    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: 15 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.
    WikiProject iconAgriculture Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    LowThis 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.
    WikiProject iconFood and drink Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Food and Drink task list:
    To edit this page, select here

    		 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
    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.
    WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

    		 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
    Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
    WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the social movements task force.
    Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
    Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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.

    RFC on Clean-Up Tags

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

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

    • Remove the fringe and undue tags. I'm involved in these discussions, but I think that the tags are WP:POINTy, and I would prefer that the issues giving rise to the tags be resolved through talk page discussion during the time of page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Endorse per Tryptofish. The issues are under discussion and the tags serve only to create drama and derail productive discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Remove the tags when the issue is solved. The tags are there for readers and editors to let them know that the article runs afoul of policy and guideline. Removing the tags implies the issues are solved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Remove Fringe tags I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the 'undue' tags, so won't comment on that. But this article is about a protest against Monsanto and GMOs. We have links to the GMO controversy article, we don't need to use this page to drive the point home about GMO safety, other articles on the Wiki have this well covered. This article is about the protesters and their beliefs, whether those beliefs are ridiculous (fringe) is entirely beside the point. I think editors who are hot for GMOs have been confused about the purpose of this article since its inception. It is not another place to discuss GMOs in a scientific sense. It is clear to the reader from the start that this is NOT a science-based article. The reader understands they are getting the views and the story behind a protest group. Does the Occupy Movement need huge caveats and tags to explain that no, the banking industry is not against you, they are indeed saving the world? No. It might be a good article to review when looking at this one, to help determine whether we've veered off the tracks here or not. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'd argue that, if the Occupy page actually stated that the banks are out to get you, we should have the real information next to it to ensure that the legitimate, verifiable viewpoint is put forward. That the page here actively promotes fringe viewpoints (against guideline and policy), a simple point as to what the scientific consensus states is appropriate. You seem to want to remove the tags simply because the fringe beliefs are "beside the point?" That's the entire problem with the article currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I would appreciate if you could point me to the guideline which covers a situation such as this. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
          • WP:FRINGE, specifically " theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." No one, to my knowledge, is looking to remove any claims, just present the proper context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
            • ADMIN ASSISTANCE PLEASE I am asking for a link to guidelines for this specific situation: an article whose subject is "against" something. Since this article is about people who question GMO safety, that idea shouldn't need a tag - it is essentially the topic, or a main one, of this article. Wiki must have dealt with similar situations in the past - I'd like to see the conclusions that were made. petrarchan47tc 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
              • If the article is not demonstrating the scientific consensus regarding those claims, then it needs the tag. When we solve that problem, we no longer need the tags. This isn't hard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
                • Which claims? The article demonstrates the scientific consensus adequately without the original research by using sources about the march. Health concerns about GMOs are in the journals all the time. The World Health Organization says that GMOs could potentially lead to allergic reactions, gene transfer in humans, and crossbreeding with plants. Most scientists agree that better studies and tighter regulatory mechanisms are needed. Calling for more science is not fringe. In June alone, plant scientist Margaret Smith of Cornell University called for improved studies. And in July, Zheng Fengtian of Renmin University said, "More research needs to be conducted on GM organisms before putting such products on the market. With more attention from the public and media, greater policy control will be seen." And furthermore, there is no consensus in the marketplace. In the UK, for example, most consumers and half of all farmers are against growing GM foods. Barclay's latest YouGov poll conducted in June in the UK, showed that "only 21% of consumers are willing to support GM food" while "43% of consumers were completely against the idea of the government promoting GM technology and 67% would prefer to buy 'conventional' food." The numbers are similar in the United States and elsewhere. None of this is "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
            • FGS, this article is not about a mainstream idea! Repeated claims that it is doesn't make it so.TMCk (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Is it more important for Misplaced Pages to accurately convey the positions of "March Against Monsanto" or to downplay and qualify these positions lest a reader take them seriously? March Against Monsanto is not a "fringe" movement with "fringe" ideas (and this discussion is not settled on Misplaced Pages). But even if it were, we should not censor articulations of its core principles. We should feature them, so that readers understand what "March Against Monsanto" is really about. We don't censor the article on Nazism, nor does anyone suggest countless qualifiers to caution the reader against Nazi theories of Jewish inferiority. Also see Heaven's Gate (religious group), Million Man March, Arab Spring, Society for Cutting Up Men, and an enormous variety of other articles about protest movements. How would we have covered the Galileo affair according to the principles we use now? The flock of editors demanding that we describe GMO science of all things as uncontroversial doth protest too much, wethinks. groupuscule (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The subject is not fringe in the context of politics, society, and culture. The concerns expressed by the protesters are shared widely, especially in Europe, but other places too. However, the science is fringe. But I agree that we really don't need the tags simply because the page explains why the protest believes what it believes. And we clearly do need to describe what the protesters believe, because this is a page about the protest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Are we quoting science in this article? What science are you referring to? If it isn't in this article, we don't need to discuss it here. petrarchan47tc 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not at length, but according to WP:Summary style. Please see: March Against Monsanto#GMO controversy and the discussion above at #Issues about the science sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Nope. This article is still about a protest march. The "mainstream" article is Genetically modified food to which we link to.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    And that does not mean that this article can promote fringe viewpoints simply because it's not the main article in a topic. As noted in WP:FRINGE, "Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories." The context of the fringe points of view in this article must, per guideline and policy, have the proper context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    This article is not promoting any "fringe" viewpoints, and you've been repeatedly asked to point to them. Your answer to each request has been the sound of crickets chirping loudly. If you can't provide the diff, then your argument gets tossed off a cliff. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that, of your hundreds of small edits to this article, I'm not willing to go through them line by line to find the anti-scientific information you're adding without the proper scientific context. I've been clear about what you're doing, I'm not building a case against you right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    Note, this is one of many of your responses admitting that you cannot provide evidence for your claims about my edits. You've done this over and over and over again. Usually, when an editor says something they can't back up, we can attribute it to ignorance or a mistake. However, when they keep doing it, over and over again, we can safely conclude that they are lying. Do you agree? I've never added a single "anti-scientific" contribution to this article. The diffs show I've added more pro-GMO content than you or any other editor combined. Your confusion about how NPOV works and how we write for the enemy is clear. However, that doesn't give you the right to repeatedly make false claims. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's talk about mainstream ideas, such as the labeling of GMO products in 50 different countries except for the United States, where special interests work night and day to lobby the individual states and Washington to oppose the will of the American people, the vast majority of which support the labeling of GMOs. So, you have it completely backwards. The protest movement is mainstream and the position of special interests fighting against this movement is "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I did not mention a word about science, I discussed politics, one of the primary complaints made by the protesters. Furthermore, the most current, reliable sources indicate that the "scientific consensus" is not clear at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    The source does not mention safety. Bravo, successfull twist of a source successful, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    It most certainly does mention safety, and it doesn't need to use the word "safety" to do it. You must have missed the part about the movement of transgenes into Mexican maize and the use of more glyphosate and herbicides to fight resistant weeds. The article also links to Waltz's "GM crops: Battlefield" which was published in Nature in 2009, which, according to cell biologist David Schubert at the Salk Institute, shows that "People who look into safety issues and pollination and contamination issues get seriously harassed", and have their academic careers threatened. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Certain editors deny the current scientific consensus about safety (see above). They are using this article to have quotes attacking the safety of GM Foods without having the scientific rebuttals in. They've also edit warred to include the most credulous estimates of the actual numbers involved in the march (a source which did an analysis said 200,000, the organisers said 2 million and so people edit warred 2million in). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to accept or deny any science - this article is not about the science at all, and has linked to articles that do cover the science. This article is about a bunch of wackos who question the addition of Roundup into into seeds, among other things. Big deal. Why does it cause such drama to allow these folks to think what they think? We aren't promoting their view in wiki's voice, or in the voice of All things True and Scientific. Also, the ridiculous 200,000 quotation comes from ONE local news station and it was published whilst the event was ongoing, meaning they couldn't have done a fair count. All other sources say 2 million or roughly so. But, we have allowed you and the rest to use the 200,000 quotation at every mention of this event on wiki. I complained a little when I was taken to court for a bogus 3RR, but no one seemed to pay any attention. There is an obvious attempt to downplay MAM for some reason, the reason doesn't matter to me, it's that Misplaced Pages is being abused; out primary tenant here is NPOV and relaying untwisted facts. petrarchan47tc 00:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    I think that Petrarchan47 is actually referring to people who question the introduction of Roundup resistance to seeds, not Roundup to seeds. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    The 2 million figure has been questioned by several sources, the original source for it always leads back to the event organizers, and it's almost certainly inaccurate. Firemylasers (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Petrarchan, there is one thing that I agree with your on and that is that this article in not about science, it is about a protest movement. We should accurately describe the movement, including its motives, here. The problem is that the article went beyond that. Rather then just describing, in encyclopedic language, the motives of the marchers it effectively promoted those motives by having prominent and emotive quotes and wording that subtly promoted the anti-GM view. I changed much of that and I think the article is much better now, although some want to change it back;
    We still have: "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled. Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced healthy food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children.
    My complaint about this is that using a direct quotation gives "undue prominence" to the distinctly fringe view that GM food is poison. Also the statement, in WP's voice, that Canal was 'concerned about the health of her children' gives authority to her undue concern that her children's health would be harmed by eating GM foods. I would not want to remove her motives, just state them in a different way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    Martin, you and I keep re-discussing this same issue. As I've said before, I don't think that it's WP:UNDUE to present what the main organizer of the subject of this page says about what she thinks, in her own words, so long as we distinguish her views from what we say in Misplaced Pages's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose disruptive perma-tags. The editors tag teaming over these tags have never, ever been able to answer the question, "for what exact reason have you added these tags?" They cannot answer this simple question for one simple reason—there is no reason. The tags are added as a badge of shame intended to hold this article hostage to their POV. In other words, these edit warriors are saying, "I will hold this article hostage until you do as I say." That's not acceptable. Nowhere does this article violate the guideline on WP:FRINGE science, nor does it violate any known Misplaced Pages policy for that matter. This article is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say about the topic, which means significant content that is verifiable and found in multiple reliable sources about the subject, not what Misplaced Pages editors believe or want those sources to say. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I was randomly selected to RFC however I consider myself a biased Editor on this subject so I will not volunteer a suggested resolution on the use of the tags for fringe science. I have an apriori dislike for the Monsanto corporation for all the usual reasons and could not give a dispassionate, full review of the issue in contention so I will refrain. Damotclese (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

    I agree. SpectraValor (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Why not use the primary source in this case? Given this section is about the marcher's motivations, their own thoughts on the MPAct would surely be more relevant that this third party statement, which also has the problem of looking pretty WP:SYNTH-y. A direct quote that could be placed here would be "(The MPA is) ...a provision attached to a spending bill that would allow seeds deemed unsafe to be planted anyway, trumping any court rulings." (This would clearly need to be couched in language demonstrating this is their opinion, not fact) DanHobley (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    That sort of statement comes two lines after the magazine piece. My concern is more that the line comes during a clear description of the law, not the opinion area. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether we replace it, I agree that not much is lost if this just comes out. As you say, third party, obscure journalistic comment doesn't sit right here. DanHobley (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    At this point, I think that it is very clear that the passage on the page needs to be rewritten. The quote from Boston Magazine is, if not contradicted, at least shown to be misleading by two other sources, one of which, NPR, is undeniably mainstream and a reliable source. Knowing this, it becomes cherrypicking to simply use the Boston Magazine statement. We should delete the Boston Magazine material, replace it with an objective sentence in Misplaced Pages's voice, based on the NPR piece, and then, right after it, quote from the primary source from the March people, giving their views in their own words, and attributing it to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree with outright removal. Boston Magazine is a reliable and prominent source, and removing it based on an editor's reading of the bill is WP:OR. Moreover it only semi-conflicts with the NPR and Politifact analyses. The appropriate solution is to explain all three sources and let the reader decide, per WP:BALANCE and WP:Conflicting sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    This isn't removal based on "an editor's reading," but on the reading of reliable sources, fact-checkers, experts, and the bill itself. I again ask why editors insist on adding falsehoods to this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    A statement by a reliable source that isn't directly contradicted by any other reliable source can hardly be characterized as a "falsehood." You might want to review WP:TRUTH as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    The statement is directly contradicted by the two links offered above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Gandy, none of these quotes support the claim being made in Boston Magazine shown to be false by NPR and Politifact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm trying to parse the sourcing based on policy and guidelines, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc., and I think that Thargor is correct. Let's look at those members of Congress, one-by-one. Sen. Merkley says that the law allows allows unrestricted planting of seeds that could be harmful, but he does not say that the law "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". Those are two different things. Sen. Mikulski says nothing about lawsuits or liability, at all. Sen. Saunders does talk about legal liability, but he discusses only the ability of courts to stop the production of crops (injunctive relief), not the ability of courts to assess financial penalties against Monsanto (punitive or monetary relief). That's not to say that the Senators' views aren't noteworthy for a page about the bill.
    It's true that WP:BALANCE is very applicable here, but let's look at what it really says: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Here, we have reputable sources, including Boston Magazine and NPR, that contradict one another, but they are not really equal, in that NPR examines the issue in detail, and its analysis is backed by other sources, whereas the Boston Magazine sentence is a single sentence that an editor chose to pick. Thus, balance indicates that we should regard the NPR analysis as the more definitive, as opposed to doing what WP:VALID warns against.
    I suppose we could present all this as a two-sided debate, with NPR's analysis on one side, and Boston Magazine's on the other, but that doesn't belong on this page. We should link, as we do, to the main page about the bill, and not have a WP:POVFORK here. We should delete the sentence about Boston Magazine, and replace it with the primary source that DanHobley found: what the marchers themselves maintain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    The NPR and PolitiFact sources don't directly contradict the Boston Magazine source:
    • The NPR sources says: "But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it hasn't already exercised in the past." Notice the key word "may." Moreover even if the bill doesn't grant the USDA any new powers that doesn't mean it doesn't protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits. Protection can have multiple layers; the bill might give Monsanto extra arguments in court.
    • PolitiFact validates the concerns encapsulated in the Boston Magazine quote and calls it "Half True": "However, the language in the law saying the USDA 'shall' issue permits escalates that policy, with one expert telling us it 'compels' the agency to allow the use of disputed products while litigation proceeds. And now the USDA itself is now questioning whether that provision is enforceable. The Facebook claim rightly describes the effect of the new provision, but lacks some important context. We rate it Half True." Hardly a contradiction.
    In my opinion the PolitiFact source is the most thorough and most reliable, and it does not directly contradict the Boston Magazine source; it merely says the debate deserves more context. As Tryptofish observes, a detailed explanation is probably merited in the bill's article. But here this section is about concerns. Whether they are valid or not is debatable, but they are still more than fringe concerns and merit description, just without misleading the reader. In light of this I would write the passage along these lines: "According to Boston Magazine the bill 'protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks.' Although NPR and PolitiFact have noted that this interpretation reads the bill out of context, similar claims on Facebook have been used to promote the movement." Thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    My thoughts are that it would be a lot better to simply source what we say to the primary source from the protest itself, and attribute it to them. And I think that a point-counterpoint between Boston Magazine and Facebook on one side and NPR and PolitiFact on the other does not belong on this page. I'm fine with regarding the differences between sources as something less than a contradiction. But "may" does not mean "is", and "half true" does not mean "true". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    The problem with your proposal is that it leaves out the very noteworthy fact that the protesters' concerns have been validated by at least one reliable source. The fact that other sources aren't in complete agreement is beside the point, except that we don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's no dispute at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree per Tryptofish. The grounds for removal aren't anything to do with truth, but simply that a magazine's opinion of a law that is also criticized by the march's organizers just isn't relevant on this page (but would clearly be on the page about the bill). We could replace it with the organiser's opinion, which really isn't actually that prominent here! DanHobley (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Evidently you and Thargor have different reasons for wanting the Boston Magazine material removed. Regardless, the material seems highly relevant. According to the WFTS source the protesters want to defeat the bill and have called it the "Monsanto Protection Act" for what seem like the very reason described in the Boston Magazine article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm replying here to your reply above to me as well. You are engaging in WP:SYNTH when you say that the source "validates" it in a factual sense. The source agrees with it, but that's not the same thing. It's entirely appropriate to present the protesters' views, and I'm not seeing anyone trying to say otherwise. It would be one thing to say that someone at Boston Magazine agrees with the protesters' opinions, but it's another to present that information as demonstrating that the protesters' understanding of the legislation is precisely correct, when we have reliable sources that say that the quote in question gets the nuance wrong. Again, the right thing to do here is to present the protesters' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    I agree with you 100% and reject Thargor's line of argument... but I'm convinced by Tryptofish and DanHobley's. This paragraph should focus on describing the protesters' opposition to the bill and not on the validity (or invalidity) of the concerns. Still, if you take the Boston Magazine quote out you're left with a very weak explanation for the protesters' position. Best would be to replace the sentence with something like: The Facebook page for Grow Food, Not Lawns contends the bill would "require the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled against the crop as being dangerous to public safety or the environment." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have no issue with direct attribution. My issue is solely with using a news source incorrectly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agree with Thargor. The sources do contradict each other. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Great! It sounds like we now agree all around. I think that if we just work out the exact wording, we'll be all set. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

    200,000

    See also: § Unsourced changes to the lead section

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

    What makes you hesitate to raise this? petrarchan47tc 06:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    A fear for the amount of time I may have to spend discussing it on the Talk page rather than doing the things I ought to be doing today :-) Alexbrn 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, I hear you! petrarchan47tc 06:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Just to point out an article from the New York Times "A Race to Save the Oranges." This article states hundreds of thousands, which seems to me more like the 200,000 number then the organizers 2,000,000 number. VVikingTalkEdits 06:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks - I have added this back in, but mentioning its "hundreds of thousands" verbatim ... Alexbrn 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you, I have been trying to stay away from hotly debated topics, as I don't really like the drama. I knew about this article because of my interest in Orange Groves in Florida and wanted to point it out since it was a more recent article.VVikingTalkEdits 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    With the preponderance of sources mentioning millions (evidenced below), this (wiki-wide) lowball does not properly represent RS. petrarchan47tc 09:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    The reason both are listed is because relying on the organizers alone is not very good activity, thus the range between outside estimates and organizer estimates. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Don't we usually go with what RS says instead of second guessing and correcting them? Why is it different here? Why is this number such a heated source of contention? petrarchan47tc 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    Let's see:

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

    Plus

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

    Organisers say that two million people marched

    Perhaps we should adopt the NYT "hundreds of thousands" in the lede, since it is not incompatible with the other claims, and the NYT is a good strong source. The article body can go into more detail about the other figures. Alexbrn 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    The NYT article is not a good string source for this claim. It is not about the protest, only mentions it somewhere near the end of their article about oranges. I have a list of the highest quality RS right above whose very titles give us the mainstream number for the protest turnout. Editors are engaging in massive cherry picking to get this "range" - it is OR and a misrepresentation of the facts. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ah, but wiki saves us from the work you've just done with their handy rules about going with RS and "no original research". What is wrong with representing the sources on wiki, and adding the "according to organizers" (even though most RS did not add that disclaimer)? petrarchan47tc 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    I am good citing with "according to organizers" I don't really care either way. I enjoyed the research and just thought I would point it out even though I knew it was original research.VVikingTalkEdits 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    In the spirit of original research for the fun of it, check out these images from across the world during the MAM, it becomes easier to believe that millions participated. I figured since it was a Facebook-fueled protest, a link to these images would be acceptable, as you can see in the "external links" section of the article during the time I was building it. Now, only one external link exists. petrarchan47tc 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Those images don't seem to make it easier to believe millions participated, in fact the opposite. That said, while some offtopic discussion is may be tolerated, it seems to me this is starting to detract from the main point. Back to that, if there are so few sources mentioning alternative figures it may be best to simply mention the organisers figures in the LEDE, as organisers figures although the may be merit to mention alternative figures in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I would have to agree that sticking close to RS guidelines is the best way to go. (And steering clear of OR). I will let others make this change to reflect what sources say. And please be careful of getting trapped into the dreaded 3RR! petrarchan47tc 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Aha! Prior to the march, media was saying that 200,000 were expected. This makes me think that the source discussed above used the expected number rather than any sort of analysis. It seems obvious this is what happened since the number is identical. This is called lazy reporting in some circles. petrarchan47tc 07:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Unless we actually know that the sources used that number because it was a pre-event estimate, we would be doing WP:OR in concluding that those sources should be given less weight for that particular reason. I've seen those photos, and it gets awfully speculative to draw any editorial conclusions from them; we cannot even verify whether they are what they purport to be. We could potentially have endless back-and-forth about whether the numbers from some media sources are more reliable, or whether the numbers from the organizers are more reliable, but we won't get anywhere with that. I still think it's best to say some sources say this and some sources say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Please note that I added the photos "for the fun if it", in response to the OR just prior. I'm not a fan of OR and don't intend to use it, but rather the media sources like CNN and others who waited until the protest was finished to quote the turnout numbers. petrarchan47tc 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

    Media coverage 2

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

    It also claims that the mainstream media ignored the protests, which is completely false. I asked above what made Hartmann's claim so compelling and necessary that it needed its own area, I thought what we came up with above was a more responsible option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    For the (what seems like) millionth time, Hartmann is a noted journalist and it does not matter whether what he said was true or false. Martin you need to quit entering your POV into this article. As for Alexbrn's concern, I agree. The Wisconsin daily and the other weekly are not substantial enough for their statements to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    It absolutely matters. WP:V cares about verifiability and not truth, yes, but it also requires us to be sensible about the sources we use. We are under no obligation to give voice to false claims. This is not my point of view, but the real world. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Hartmann seems like a reasonably notable commentator. His observations are obviously biased but that's fine so long as we clearly attribute them, I think. Alexbrn 13:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Missing the point. His claim is false, not biased. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    What, that the march got less coverage than comparable Tea Party events? Surely this kind of thing is in the realm of opinion (unless we have some kind of media-coverage statistics to draw on) ? Alexbrn 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    That as well as the idea, which is the point of Hartmann's piece, that it was ignored by the mainstream media. We're better off putting that false viewpoint with the others, there is no justification for highlighting it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

    We don't contextualize his view, we advance it and highlight it even though we know he's incorrect. It's our job as editors to look at the sources and their accuracy, and use a discerning eye. I am not seeing a good argument for putting his claims out there when they're false, when we can simply put them with the other false claims and nod to their existence. Seems like a reasonable compromise as opposed to eliminating the false viewpoints completely, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    If those claims are truly false please back your assertion up with some sourcing since so far we have just your word for it. That would help the discussion about it being undue a great deal.TMCk (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    The evidence of mainstream media coverage is in the article already. It's not my word. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Please point out where the article states that "fact". Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Martin, this is not the UK--we have hundreds of news outlets here. The coverage was scanty in the US. Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    What comment of mine are you responding to??? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry Martin, my mistake. The culprit was Thargor. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    That is untrue. Hundreds of outlets covered it, including many national mainstream sources. We have many of them in the article already! Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    (ec)From what is in the article one sure cannot conclude it was widely covered. I myself found out reading a foreign news source and discovered this article while looking up something else.TMCk (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well, we can list them all if we need to. I don't believe that's necessary, and would largely be just to make a point. It's simply a POV issue to be giving that much weight to such an incorrect viewpoint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I think you mean Thargor. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Let me suggest simplifying and shortening the middle quote from "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right? It wasn't on CNN, or FoxNews? That's peculiar " to "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right?" I think it gets across the same information.
    Also, I'm not so bothered about the version that is on the page at this second, because there is actually much less quoting of stuff that was wild speculation by the commentators. It's really just their opinions, related to the page subject, and clearly attributed to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    We should just report what the media coverage was. Any implication of a media conspiracy (which your proposed comment is) is an unsupported extreme fringe view that has no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    What's there now, particularly if improved by the edit I just suggested here, no longer implies anything about a conspiracy. It kind of implied that before, but it really doesn't now, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    As I understand it you are proposing, "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right?". That to me implies that one would expect the march to be newsworthy but for some reason it was not well reported. What reason is there not to simply say, with a little more detail, 'the march was sparsely reported/averagely reported/well reported in the media'. Any suggestion that the level of media reporting was unusual in some way gives undue weight to a theory on a par with the moon landing conspiracies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Mainly because the statement isn't true. The March was heavily reported, by multiple organizations including major ones. This isn't moon landing stuff, but it is assuming that coverage didn't happen that clearly did. Hartmann's claims are not factual. I'm okay with including a statement that some commentators believe it was covered poorly as opposed to simply eliminating the claim as I would prefer, but the significant attention to a false viewpoint is what creates the undue weight situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    What is not true? I have suggested that we simply state the degree to which the march was covered by the media; nothing more. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) What I proposed was to shorten the section of the page a lot more than what it is at the moment. But other editors have objected to that, and restored some of the three quotes. I'm now suggesting deleting some of the second quote. That's what I'm proposing, OK? What you quote indicates that the person who said it thinks that the protest must clearly have been newsworthy. It's hyperbole to compare that with moon landing conspiracies. We can (1) have an even longer set of commentator quotes, and leave you and some other editors unhappy, (2) shorten it the way that I tried and leave a different group of editors unhappy, or (3) try to find a reasonable compromise. I'm attempting (3). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    What is the reason for including a quote which shows that one commentator thought that there shoulD have been more media coverage of the march?
    The reason that some want to include it is that they believe that there was a worldwide conspiracy, orchestrated by Monsanto, to suppress media coverage. That is on a par with the mood landing conspiracy theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, well, let's entertain for the moment the possibility that this is the reason some editors want to include it. Edit Misplaced Pages, you come across all kinds! But that doesn't matter, and there's no need to settle the score. What does matter is what content we have on the page. The content we have there, at this moment, is: a list of coverage, arguably showing a lot of coverage, followed by three opinions, two of which express the opinion that there should have been more coverage. Not Misplaced Pages's opinion, but the opinion of two people, with the opinion clearly attributed to them. Nothing on the page about a conspiracy. Nothing. It's two sentences on the page, low down on the page. Deplete this particular page of all the non-mainstream opinions, and there won't be much of anything left. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    @Thargor: I'd still like to see some proof for your claim "The March was heavily reported, by multiple organizations including major ones." And of course I'm talking about US media, especially cable news outlets. You keep repeating your claim yet it seems to be just your own strong personal view/opinion w/o any back-up presented as of yet. And again, the article's content doesn't support this extreme view.TMCk (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    I suggest looking in the article for the examples. You say that the article content does not support the "extreme view," but the content, in fact, details the multiple media organizations that covered the march, including major ones. If you claim the examples in the articles are not enough, tell me how many you need to see for you to accept the fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Based on what's on the page, some major media outlets covered it, and some others did not. Different people have different opinions about whether there should have been more coverage. If one looks with fresh eyes, without worrying about what the page said in the past, at what that section of the page says now, it's really not bad. It gives three opinions from three people sympathetic to the subject of this page, and attributes their views to them. It doesn't imply anything conspiritorial. It's quite short, so it's not giving it a lot of emphasis. I don't think that we can shorten it further without getting to something that will be unable to have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    What the page does now is gives more weight to the argument that it wasn't covered than to the reality of the coverage. It's why I was okay with the compromise language you and I spoke of above. I would love to hear from User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper and User:Gandydancer as to why they oppose that compromise language. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well, if we have to get to keeping score by word counts, we are never going to get to any kind of compromise. As far as I'm concerned, it is not undue weight. And if no one tries to expand the section further, then I think it would be appropriate for those who wish it were shortened to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's up to those who want to add information to justify it, so that's what I'm looking for. If they're going to insist on expanding a false claim, we need evidence for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thargo. I have neither supported nor opposed anything in regards to that section. I asked you a legit question + clarified it further but you again refused to provide what was ask for. If the only answer you have is "because it is so" you missed the point of the discussion, thou I really can't imagine how this is possible. I ask you one more time to correct this and provide what was asked for.TMCk (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    To make it even more clear, if you can't or won't back up your so far only personal and strong believe by showing the march was covered by most major news outlets and in dept and at a close time frame of the date the march took place you have no point here. Your opinion, valued or not in general, has no bearing at all in this thread and in regards to truth and due weight of reliable sourced and attributed opinions from those you want to exclude. Policies and guidelines are back stabbing you in this matter. The way I see it, you don't even have a "use common sense" argument here since you seem to refuse to back up your claims.TMCk (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I believe the claim that it was not widely covered is fully countered in the article's sources and in the section itself. My claims are backed up. You disagree, but you cannot tell me what it would take to change your mind, nor can you show any evidence to support the expansion. If you want the information included, it's up to you to justify it per our policies. Can you do that, or shall we simply remove the section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thargor, I want to make a distinction between (1) Misplaced Pages saying that it was not widely covered, and (2) a commentator saying that it was not widely covered. The current language makes it very clear that it is the latter. In fact, what is written in Misplaced Pages's voice is what is in the first paragraph of the section, where we describe all of the sources that did provide coverage. Readers are free to read the objective information about coverage, then read the opinions of the commentators, and then finally reach their own opinions as to what they find credible or not. The WP:BURDEN that you are asking of TMCk really boils down to showing that there is a source for each of the three commentators, not that what the commentators say reflects mainstream opinion. If you want to make an issue of the dead link for one of those sources, then that's something that we might want to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am not looking for Misplaced Pages's voice to say anything in particular here. My concern is solely about the amount of weight we're giving a claim that is clearly false. While I'd prefer we not place false claims in the encyclopedia, I'm on board with a compromise where we acknowledge that some commentators believe the coverage was lax. I don't see how we can mesh what's currently there with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    OK, so since you are not talking about a rebuttal in Misplaced Pages's voice, I think that brings us back to the word-count score. I'm trying to think of ways to further shorten the second paragraph of that section. Obviously, one way would be to go back to the summary that I had written, but that got reverted. Can we further shorten any of the quotes? Can we omit one of the quotes? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I haven't actually seen a good defense of reverting that to begin with. I'm still waiting to hear a policy-based reason for it. If we need to include some sort of quote, Hartmann is the only really noteworthy voice we've included, so his line would be the sensible one to keep, but it doesn't really solve anything as much as make a bad situation better-but-still-bad. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    As with the cliché about glass half empty or half full, I think that you overstate "still-bad". It seems to me that "better-but-" is always an improvement, albeit not as big an improvement as you might have hoped for. Especially given the dead link for Joseph Bachman, let me suggest the following. We keep the sentences about Livingstone and Hartmann, as they are now. We delete the existing sentence about Bachman. Then we add a sentence, after the sentence about Hartmann, saying: "Joseph Bachman, writing in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, also questioned what he saw as a lack of mainstream media coverage." Would that be enough of an improvement? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I can't go with that. It still way outbalances the section. "Better-bad" is what we appeared to have agreed upon before. I'd like to hear from those still opposed as to why that's not tolerable. Looking at the two discussions, the most we have consensus for is just Hartmann's statement, and even then, it's 2-to-1 in favor of what we came up with above in terms of legitimate discussion. I'm willing to go with something that's along the lines of "Some commentators, like Thom Hartmann, have claimed that the mainstream media ignored the march," but we can't keep unbalancing the article this way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Then I'm withdrawing my suggestion, with the observation that you are unlikely to get anything you consider to be "better". Besides, it turns out that the link wasn't bad, just a paywall. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

    Arbitrary break

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

    I'm fine with being disagreed with, but my issue with balance is that we're giving a clearly false claim significant airtime. I understand the need to note that the viewpoints exist, which is why I haven't outright removed them at this point although I believe it could be justified by policy. If there's a better way to achieve balance on this, I think we'd all like to see it happen and move on from this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    (PERSONAL OPINION- having just performed a news search on this, I half agree with the premise. There's less out there than you might expect.) Regardless of what I actually think on what the sources are expressing, though, IMO the nature of these sources is very obvious from the text, and a reader can draw their own conclusions on the weight they put on these voices. I guess I'm saying I favor leaving the 2nd paragraph be as-is. (that's a vote, not shouting, sorry!) DanHobley (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Dan, thank you for coming to the page, and thank you for finding the excellent idea of adding to paragraph 1. At this point, I agree with everything Dan said here, and I'm in favor of not cutting anything further from the second paragraph. Our readers are smart enough to be able to assess the sources in that second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Can someone please explain to me why the degree of media coverage matters so much and why it is contentious? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    No. Which is a good reason to stop agonizing over the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    It matters to those who support the March because it sustains a "corporate media" meme where the media looks out for the big and powerful as opposed to the people. It's why it's so important for some to have it expressed significantly in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, despite my facetious reply, that's actually the real reason. The meme exists, and the meme is part of the subject matter of this page. But, per WP:RGW, Misplaced Pages is here to document the meme, not to settle the score or even to set the record straight. We don't have to purge it from the page to satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    On second thought, that doesn't explain why some editors are so determined to argue for shortening the section. It explains why some editors buy into a meme, but it doesn't explain why other editors who reject the meme get so worked up about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Correct. We just need to give it the proper weight, which is not an amount of "screen time" higher than the reality. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Which we do now. I say that, keeping in mind that you rejected the idea of leaving anything more than a short summary on the page, and keeping in mind that we don't have to purge it from the page to satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    How is giving a false, minority viewpoint the majority of the media coverage space within the realm of proper weight? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    As I already said, because we don't determine that simply by word count, or by measuring the height of paragraphs with a ruler. (In fact, if you allow that the first of the three commentators is not quoted about the quantity of media coverage, then what we have about the other two commentators is approximately the same as the first paragraph.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Which means we're still weighted heavily in one direction. I understand what you're saying, but the weight of the section is being pushed very much to show a specific POV, and one that's demonstrably false. We can't be complacent. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well, thank you for understanding. I understand you, too. I guess this is something where I don't mind being complacent. I don't think it's a big deal at this stage. The earlier language bothered me enough to want to change it, but the current language just doesn't bother me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's not the biggest problem here, no. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

    Name of Concerns Section

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

    Sorry to quibble, but WP:MOS generally recommends that section headers not repeat what is in the page name. I realize that "protesters" is not the same as "March...", but it's sort of implied, so I'm not convinced that this edit really helps. Spell it out when it's Monsanto's concerns, but it's implied when it's the marchers. Also, unambiguously, MOS says that only the first word should be capitalized. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    "Motivation" would be another phrasing to consider, as it could only apply to the protesters. DanHobley (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps "Issues" would be another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    For reference, the original post on their site is entitled Why Do We March? They only use this phrase, so we can't just crib their terminology. DanHobley (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I just reverted "motivation", so I better explain. Seeing it on the page, it came across to me as sounding vaguely like ulterior motives. I don't think we want to characterize it as being about what was going on in the marchers' minds. I don't really have a problem with either "concerns" or "issues". We aren't saying that the concerns are Misplaced Pages's concerns, or that Misplaced Pages agrees with that framing of the issues. After all, this is a page about the March Against Monsanto. If we cannot present the reasons for the March, we are in a real pickle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem with not using Motivation, but the problem remains for me that almost everywhere else on WP, "Concerns" de facto implies "Criticisms of the article's topics". That's not what we mean here. Let's keep dwelling on this, but compared to other issues this article has, this isn't exactly a major problem. DanHobley (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    ...another alternative might be to include the stated objectives of the protesters as well, then rename this section "Objectives". DanHobley (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about it, and I came up with "Positions". Personally, I like that the best, so far. We are just stating the positions expressed by the marchers. How about using that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    good one! Alexbrn 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    "Positions" is ok just like "Objectives" or "Concerns"; As long as we keep the existing intro which makes clear that the points of concern are held by those who organized the march. My point: Protesters might have attended for one or more or even different concerns. The latter is just my own opinion but I think it makes sense, at least it does for me.TMCk (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that what you say is very reasonable. It sounds to me like maybe "Positions" is going to work. Does anyone see any problems with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    I see no reason (including any MOS concerns) that "Concerns of protesters" should not be used. "Positions" sounds awkward to me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    In this very early version of the article, I had called it "issues". No one expressed any problems with the titling. Maybe it could be used again? (Sorry, I don't know whether this has already been discussed, I haven't been around much.) petrarchan47tc 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm puzzled why "Positions" sounds awkward to anyone. As in "these are our positions", it just indicates what the protesters stood for. Some editors have objected to "concerns" and "issues" on the grounds that those words make it sound like there were valid concerns or valid issues, although I personally think that objection is a stretch. But with some editors objecting to those word choices, and the only articulated objection to "positions" being that someone finds it awkward, I'd at least like to understand why it might be seen as awkward. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Although the analogy is obviously not exact, one can make a comparison to what it says at WP:SAY. Just as we should write "the marchers said" in preference to "the marchers revealed" or "the marchers claimed", it is neutral and accurate to say that "the marchers' positions were...".
    Also, I agree with the idea of making it clear that various marchers had various things that they were most interested in. And there has already been talk about breaking out the bullet points into paragraphs, at #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    The only issue that I have with breaking up the bullet points into paragraphs is that some of them do not have their own sources, and are only taken from sentences on the web site of the protesters. If they are split out as unsourced paragraphs, they are likely to be tagged or deleted. If someone can find sources for each of the bullets, they can be split into paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Umh, pardon me, but bullet points or not, the content must be sourced either way.TMCk (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    The bullet points all had one source, and some of them had other sources, and some of them were listed in the web site at the length that they were listed in the bullet points. Their expansion into paragraphs would require expansion beyond the length of the original source. If someone can do that, with new sources, that is fine, but I am not sure that new sources exist that will justify expansion into paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    I really can't follow your rational. I repeat: Bullet points or not, the content must be backed up by sources. Converting those bullets into prose doesn't change that at all. Should the existing section/bullets not be properly sourced, (and I didn't check that b/c I have, maybe to much(?) trust in what is presented there), than it could not be kept as bullets or prose anyways. Are you suggesting/saying that we should keep it as is? If so please give a good and valid reason for it. Perceived lack of sourcing for converting the bullets into prose is simply ridiculous unless the bullets are not properly sourced with begin with. If you're still sure about the point you've made, please clearly explain the difference in sourcing we would need according to your rationale.TMCk (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    One more thing to clarify: Bullet-points can be converted into prose as we just say the same in a more encyclopedic way, no doubt about that. If there are more sources to expand the section, writing in prose doesn't make a difference besides being more encyclopedic. This is after all not a list of sitcoms' episodes or such...TMCk (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    I like "positions" also. DanHobley (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm going to be crazy. I'M DOING IT. DanHobley (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Per the discussion of sourcing of the concerns above, I don't see why we can't use the primary source: . This seems like a no-brainer to me, and policy allows primary sourcing in cases like this. (WP:ABOUTSELF). I'm in the process of trying to beef this out at least a little. DanHobley (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for doing those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

    Changes

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

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

    If the principle is to have no "GMO science" in the article (and instead focus tightly on the protestors), why add the science about bees? Alexbrn 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Because it was one of the main concerns of the protesters. Did you see their bee costumes? That kind of needs expansion, and the source was about the protest. Anyway, you guys enjoy yourselves. Have a nice life. Don't work too hard, and remember to step away from the computer screens once in a while and get some sun! petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    The GMO science exists there to battle against WP:FRINGE. Previously discussed, yes, that we need to address it. I will re-add a source that directly contrasts the science with the march to fulfill policy for now. For the record, your changes did not improve this article, and increased the problems that already existed in it regarding balancing scientific views and claims against the prior discussions had. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    If I hear the fringe excuse to add OR to this article one more time, I'll take my life, I swear :) TMCk (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Please don't, as you will be sorely missed. Setting aside the, um, f-word for a moment, consider also that we should not make this page a WP:POVFORK. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for your concerns which of course are unfounded :)
    If you'd like to use the "F" word just do so. I have no problem with that and spelling out can make things more clear and thus easier. Regarding the wp:POVFORK issue, that's my concern all along. It might be the only bigger issue where we disagree, mainly on how to not implement such fork.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    Just in case it wasn't clear (darn that Internet, as a communication medium!), I did indeed see your emoticon that indicated that you were joking. Fair enough then, I'll soon tell somebody "Fringe you!". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Alexbrn and Thargor Orlando about these edits. Where, exactly, was the discussion about making these changes? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    Further, although there has been extensive discussion about the science background, there certainly was no consensus to purge it to that extent. If anything, the consensus has been trending in the opposite direction. I also don't see an explanation or justification of many of the other changes that were made. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    It seems to me that the effects of the edits, taken as a whole, was almost entirely to either reduce the amount of content that presents POV-balance to that of the March, or to move it lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

    Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?

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

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

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

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

    DRN and RfC are rarely useful, and it should be noted that Viriditas has been blocked for three months by an uninvolved administrator for his conduct here. I do believe that, without the poisonous accusations coming from one corner, we may have a better opportunity at coming to a consensus on the issues at hand. Seeing how poorly Arbcom handled the Tea Party movement case, I'd like to think we'd be able to hash this out on our own without significant further intervention. I will again suggest we make some sub-discussions below regarding what the remaining issues are and we can hash them out. I'm certainly willing to treat a lot of this with a clean slate if others are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I do indeed approve of Jusdafax's close and thank him for it, although subsequent events, including a massive display of bad faith towards me on my talk page, a waste-of-time new thread at ANI, and a three month block of Viriditas, seem to show that the problem is not settled. About content RfCs, this talk page already has numerous talk threads, each about a specific issue. I don't think a general RfC about the overall state of the page will generate any light. But if we want to identify specific questions to ask about specific things in the content, that could make for one or more useful RfCs. I suggest looking at the numbered list of unresolved questions at #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward, identifying which ones are still, today, matters that remain sources of disagreement, and then opening separate RfCs for each of those if we can't resolve them amongst ourselves. Before the block occurred, I began the early stages of starting what I hope could be a constructive WP:RFC/U about Viriditas. If the troublesome conduct continues after he comes back, I will resume that process. And if that process doesn't resolve things, then I am prepared to be the filing party of an ArbCom case that will scrutinize all parties involved. But let's hope that things will not have to go that far. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As I was hitting the save button, another idea occurred to me. A variation on Jusdafax's third bullet point would be to ask someone like that to mediate a mediated discussion of the content issues. (That worked very well a year or two ago, for the lead section of WP:V.) That might work better than content RfCs, or might work as a way to construct content RfCs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Here is my suggestion for changes (I've copied part of this from my comment at the most recent ANI)
    See the changes I made by this comparison of diffs, where I order the issues in a common sense flow, and put the introduction the first section at the top (it was hidden at the bottom of the first section for some reason, and is again), and made other stylistic edits. There was no reason given, but all of my changes were reverted between 4 edits/3 editors. I can't see what the problem was with my version, and would love to hear the reasoning from those who reverted everything. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    At the bottom of #Changes, just above, I made three comments indicating my objections. I want to admit that there were probably some things that could be restored from what you did, so my apologies if my contribution to the reversions seemed overly sweeping to you. Let me take some of your edits one-by-one:
    1. : It seems to me to be more logical to have the response come directly after the things (concerns/positions/issues) that it was responding to. It wasn't a response to the media coverage, and the effect of the edit was to move that aspect of the POV lower on the page.
    2. : A lot of things going on here, but you are incorrect about the consensus here about the science, and again, you moved that information lower on the page. Other editors in the discussion above pointed out how questionable it was to add the content about bees.
    3. : I've left out some fairly trivial edits about images before this one, but why add that abbreviation?
    Given how everything on this page has been contested, you would have done yourself a favor by making a list like this and discussing it in talk before making the edits. You don't have to, of course, but bold edits risk WP:BRD reverts. After all, look at how long I've been asking other editors' opinions about changing a header from "Concerns" to "Positions" without actually making the edit. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

    Dan's attempted list of outstanding issues

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't think any of us disagree with this statement. The FORK issue is important, but the FRINGE one is too just to ensure that this doesn't become something for the worst of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support and Oppose, in equal measure. I think that covers it, doesn't it? The problem with general philosophical statements about Misplaced Pages pages is that they run up against conflicting details. I do agree that we should not make this page a WP:POVFORK about the GMO debate in general. But I also feel strongly that we must present the marchers' reasons for the March. We have to do that! And once we do that, we run up against, well, you pick: fringe, POV-fork, POV, balance, whatever. If all we do is report the marchers' reasons, then we have a problematic page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The marchers views are fringe and so long as we report them in the appropriate way we need not run into any problems. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support. Obviously A little background is required but no more. We should not be addressing issues here that addressed more fully elsewhere. This is not a soapbox for anti-GM or pro-GM views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I redacted your unsourced personal opinion on a talk page that attacks the subject of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    (comment restored) Never make changes to other people's comments, Canoe - per WP:TPO. You know how rude this is, right? Diff for anyone reading this later:
    I think you've misunderstood anyway, there's absolutely no attack there. I 'm trying to make the point that FRINGE isn't relevant here (in my opinion), as the context is clear enough. DanHobley (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I read it as an unsourced attack on the article subject. Your opinion is that they either don't believe in science or don't trust it. I don't really care if you wish to leave it. Others may request you redact it as disruptive. When you make POV comments like that I can see why many other editors will go out of their way to simply ignore your input or counter it. If Louis Riel were a BLP subject it would be the same as voicing your opinion on what you believe his ideals are based on. Even though this isn't a BLP article it is all about people. If they came here and saw your comments I can understand why they would just retaliate my slamming Misplaced Pages in the media for being POV on their motivations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Canoe, attacks on the article subject are permitted on the talk page; that is its purpose. As Dan says you should not remove comments from others except in very specific circumstances. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Dan, I agree with you. So long as it is clear from the context that the marchers' position is fringe we need not go into the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Dan, now you can see why I have concerns about the general philosophical concept in item zero. I do not think that saying that "this is the protester's opinions, not scientific fact" is an attack that violates WP:BLPGROUP. But I think that what you really should have said was "this is the protesters' opinions, not the opinions of Misplaced Pages or of the majority of mainstream science sources". What should be the underlying issue is actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Anyway... I think it's good to use what the marchers themselves have said, as a primary source. I also like the idea of using mainstream news reports (secondary sources) to report things like "many of the marchers said that they believed that...". I think that we need to avoid commentaries from people who may or may not have been associated with the March, particularly in the form of cherrypicked quotes, because that has historically sent this page down the road of battling quotations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Your opinion again. I always thought talk pages were not for voicing your opinion on the subject? If a protester claims to be marching against "cancer, infertility and birth defects" that they believe can be caused by GMO then we include it as a sourced motivation for the protest. This article isn't called 'motivational basis of the protest' so which science they base their protest on probably doesn't belong. Statements by protesters yes, second guessing the motivation of the statements, no. If a protester states "Dr. Sues says we don't want green ham." then we should be able to include that as a quote. We shouldn't go into the Science of Dr. Suess though. We could mention that Dr. Suess made lots of money by creating Green Eggs and Ham or was critizedd for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    This article is expected to more than make simple statements about the march, it is expected to analyse it while deferring to sources. We aren't a newspaper. We know that the opinion of the marches is not valid because it disagrees with the consensus position, yet for some reason you want to include it anyway without including the scientific perspective. Also, on "... so which science ...", there is only one science. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    It should only be included if it can be put into context that it is ill-founded, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Less than now, and this is a big problem with the article. "Covering" their view has become a soapbox/coatrack for promoting their views. Also, paraphrasing their views in neutral terms rather than repeating their talking points is a needed change here. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    This is what I'd be looking for, specifically. It's one of the fringe viewpoints guideline and policy require us to deal with. Thargor Orlando (talk)
    This seems to be the issue that will continue to create controversy until it is decided once and for all whether or not it is Misplaced Pages's place to limit and counter the protest's views on what some editors believe is a fringe viewpoint. Assuming that there is no disagreement on whether or not the protesters are holding fringe beliefs when they express concerns re Monsanto's conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, claimed economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply, and concerns about GMOs harming the environment, we need to decide if it is the mission of WP to step in to limit what we include re the protest's viewpoint on health issues. A comparable article would be the War on women article where there is a sharp disagreement as to whether one even exists. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Gandy, our guidelines and policies insist on it. To claim GM food causes "cancer, infertility, and birth defects" is a fringe viewpoint, period. It is not supported by the science. That statement alone is what is causing strife, and a simple note after the sentence about the scientific consensus will solve the protests here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If we have reliable sourcing that the marchers themselves have said it, then we can reasonably include it. If it's only some secondary commentator, then leave it out. If it is WP:FRINGE or violates WP:MEDMOS, then we have to do some specific things. First, we present it as a direct quote, in quotation marks, and attribute it clearly to them. Second, we provide on this page, in some fashion, correct information reflecting mainstream science (also reliably sourced, of course). It doesn't mean that we have to have a point-counterpoint over every last issue, but it's a great reason to retain a sentence or two about mainstream scientific consensus in the GMO background section. It's a mistake to try to purge the page of the protesters' views, on the grounds that they are fringe and will mislead our readers, because it's not our job to assume that our readers are unable to read, but we correspondingly should not make this a POV-fork that only reflects the protesters' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    No undue authority, I agree completely. About weight and prominence, the fact remains that this is the subject of the page. I think that's a significant distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The problem is that it is hard to separate these factors. For example, to have in the lead, the marchers stated, "GM foods give you cancer" is, on the face of it, a neutrally stated factual statement about the motivations of the marchers. However, by giving an extreme fringe claim high prominence within the article, we give it publicity and credibility that it does not merit. I do agree that we should give the marchers' motivations but not in a way that promotes them.
    I do not think that giving the mainstream science view along with the marchers' claims is the solution. For example, having something like the marchers stated, "GM foods give you cancer" although this is contrary to the mainstream science view has several problems. It shows a fringe view on apparently equal terms with a mainstream view, it invites arguments and sourcing battles between editors, and it slightly glamourises the marchers position as 'freedom fighters'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ah well, that's what I've just done since (after kicking this issue around a bit) I now think it's fairly clear that this is what WP policy requires, since WP:PSCI states that fringe views "should be clearly described as such". I don't think there is a false equivalence here, since we're showing that one view is a fringe view, the other is scientific consensus. What a reader chooses to favour between these is really beyond our control as editors! Alexbrn 09:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    Tryptofish, thank you for your careful consideration of this point. I really should not have to clarify my position on this particular point, but I will do it anyway. In my opinion, Misplaced Pages's position is correct when they say that currently there is no evidence that GMO foods are not safe. On the other hand, my mind remains open since current science has also shown that (surprisingly) sometimes genetic ill effects do not show up in the first generation, and sometimes even show up in the third generation. Furthermore, current science also shows that some chemicals, which apparently are not harmful when exposure is single, turn out to be toxic when in combination with other chemicals, which could apply to GM products as well. And of course, the problem that an industry peer reviewed study can be made to say anything that a manufacturer wants it to say. Even so, none of that should, or does, have any bearing on this article. The article stated that the protest's views are what WP calls fringe and they have been countered with what WP considers the scientific stance. That should be enough. It should not be necessary for WP to hound the protesters and put WARNING!!! signs throughout the article as though readers are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that trying to neutrally paraphrase their views rather than letting the article become a soapbox. The worst example is allowing their description of the law via it's affect on a non-existent hypothetical situation "even if they are shown to be unsafe". That's like describing the diplomatic immunity law as one which excuses the diplomat "even if they personally murder 1,000 Americans". North8000 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    Specifically about the health claim, I'm going to make a WP:BOLD edit along the lines of the third option that I described in my previous comment. Please see if it helps, and if not, please revert and comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I took that one phrase out. I'll be mostly off wiki for over a week. With Tryptofish being an objective expert person "in the middle", I give them my support and if I had a "proxy" I'd give them that too. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    In anticipation of the predictable reaction to that, no, there is no cabal. And no, I reject the role of speaking for anyone other than myself. But thank you for the compliment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    And this is a very minor observation, but I think it's kind of ironic that the sentence I rewrote about Canal's motivations has now been removed (but I'm OK with the removal). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

    In terms of fringe science, we're basically okay in its current incarnation except for the Concerns section. Once we address that, it appears the article will meet what policy demands. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think my answer here is really the same thing as what I just said in the section immediately above. I think that the science consensus information in the GMO background section is essential to keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • We need minimal science in the article. This is not a science article. The science is covered better and more fully elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

    • Actually, I think that Viriditas was partly correct (note!!), and we should not simply blow this issue off. Go back to the earlier discussion for the details, but I think it's very relevant that the protesters said that the signing of HR933 by President Obama was something that played a big role in motivating them to protest. We are going to have to be careful about how we write about the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, because many of the protesters' assumptions are at least partly in disagreement with other source material – but the issue is actually very noteworthy for the purpose of explaining what led to the protest. What Viriditas and I were disagreeing about was his stated plan to make a dedicated section of the page (probably after what is now the Positions section), going into the bill in a lot of detail. Per WP:Summary style, I strongly oppose doing that, because we already have a main page about the legislation, and that page includes the controversies about the bill. What I recommend instead: in the background section of this page, we already have a sub-section about a bill in California. We should expand that a little bit, to cover both the California law and the Obama signing of HR933. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    This sounds sensible, Trypofish. As you seem on top of this, I reckon just trying to add it would be fine. That might let us also alter the formatting of the last bullet point of Positions, which has good content but poor format/style. DanHobley (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Do I understand correctly, that you are referring to taking it out of the Positions section (as opposed to adding it there)? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Expand the Background Californian bill section, and move background type material out of positions and into the background as appropriate? (but not all of it?) Certainly let's not decrease our total coverage of this issue, just reorganise it. DanHobley (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed, good. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

    This one is a guideline option. I think the guideline may be changed to include more links. Some readers like to link to the subject websites. The guideline was written based on one main website. Now many subjects have Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a main peacock site. Twitter is probably the fastest updating and the peacock one the slowest. What we should be including are at least two. The peacock one for extreme detail showing all of their feathers and the faster social one that they are most active on. We have a bad double standard now with one site as the minimum and 8+ as the max. I think talk pages get consensus on the count on a case by case basis. Two should be fine for this article. I assume they post regular updates on Facebook and the main page is just a database. I haven't looked at either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm ambivalent. If you look back at the earlier discussion, I argued for putting it back (again, please note that I agreed with Viriditas about it!), on the grounds that the statement reflects the views of the subject of the page, but I also see that some editors felt that Facebook fails WP:V because we cannot really know who posted the comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2 Million and how often it is reported

    See also: § 200,000

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

    As I wrote on the "200,000" section, we have indeed added that the numbers came from organizers, but even that was unsatisfactory to the editors here. Be careful about cherry-picking and unsubstantiated claims concerning Tapper.
    Repeat:
    This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times July 25.
    I've never seen editors argue so much to exclude widely accepted RS such as Guardian, CNN and RT. it's baffling to me. petrarchan47tc 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    WP:SODOIT? Sounds good to me. (Clarification - add the refs) DanHobley (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    No thanks. I have enjoyed the 3RR noticeboard twice now, both in relation to perfectly justified changes to this article, but unacceptable to editors here. I have no desire to immerse myself in this again, but have at it!. petrarchan47tc 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I've tried a new compromise phrasing, widening the refs we use as you suggested. DanHobley (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    I removed the highly POV Miami source and the sentense stating the obvious. I say obvious, because we couldn't even report the 2 million claim if some sources had not reported on it. Plus it was grammatically incorrect, because as worded it implied that those organization reported "their" own estimate, when they simply reported what the March organizers claimed. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am not comfortable the source used to make the "estimates began at 200,000" claim. This article was printed at 5:00 PM Eastern time, while the march was only half-way through. I think if we are going to base a claim on one single source, it should be better than some local newspaper that happened to cite the exact number that was previously estimated for turnout, rather than wait until the dang thing was over. How can use of this source be justified? Why don't we go with WP:RS in this, and as a compromise we can add the disclaimer, "according to event organizers"? petrarchan47tc 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. We should just stick with who presented what numbers, where they are reported as explicitly coming from somewhere else, and if they made comment on them (redundant, as they didn't in the sources I read). Given how contentious this article has become, we need to remove as much editorializing as possible, as it does look very synth-y. DanHobley (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    This change needs to be considered for the similar content at Monsanto in their section about MAM, as well as Genetically modified food controversies, in their "protests" sections - the same sourcing was used there for "range" claims. petrarchan47tc 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Most of the sources are engaged in churnalism and just repeating claims from other news sources. We know that the organisers self-reported 2 million and then the sources covered that, and later sources reported just 2 million without any apparent verification. On wikipedia it isn't "Verification not truth", it's verification and truth. By the way the editorial stance of the guardian is Anti-GMO. I suggest you have a look at some of their environmental blogs. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think I agree with everything of substance here - and I think this is what the article currently says, no? The 2M figure certainly needs to be there, as long as it's noted as self-reported, which it is. TBH, I've kind of lost track of what the problem now is in this section. IMO it's decent. DanHobley (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    None as of current version, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents in that I agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

    Possible resolution to contentions: Removal for being non-encyclopedic

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

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

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

    It was nominated for deletion yesterday (by me). It was closed keep per SNOW. Thus this is not likely to be a fruitful discussion, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict w Wolfie...)Strongly oppose discussion on the deletion. An AfD was placed on this article not 24 hours ago, for the second time, and there was a snowball consensus to keep on all sides. Here's the record: . Please, please, please, let's not have that discussion again within 24 hours in yet another venue.
    As regards your general thesis, I'm not sure I agree that this is an insurmountable problem. I would contend that a good fraction of editors in this dispute are perfectly able to set aside their personal feelings and edit dispassionately, counting myself amongst them. In fact, this is why I'm here, after the first RfC on this (as I know are several others). If there is a minority here who can't be dispassionate about this (on whichever "side"), then that is their problem to address - by which I mean, step aside personally, and let clearer heads prevail. It's surely totally against the ethos of this site to not cover material because it's hard to do, or because people have strong views. Should we not cover climate change? Holocaust denial? The US government? Political parties? DanHobley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Damotclese, I missed the deletion discussion, but had I been involved I would have voted to keep. I can see why some users would like the article to be deleted because it has become a soapbox for anti-Monsanto and anti-GM views and a general topic battleground. I agree with DanHobley above though, this is not an insurmountable problem. The article should simple be about the march, written in encyclopedic language. This is not the place for pro/anti gm food or pro/anti Monsanto debate or discussion of scientific topics of any kind. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well, that's true that we're seeing a religious battlefield develop here, yet my primary suggestion for deletion still remains, the article is not very encyclopedic. If we were to crack open a printed encyclopedia prior to the advent of the Internet, we might find footnotes about protests such as this one, but historically encyclopedias would not bother to include anything like this march. As you note, the non-encyclopedic nature of the article is not insurmountable, true. Damotclese (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Immerse yourselves: "March Against Monsanto was among the largest global efforts in history". petrarchan47tc
    But Petrarchan47, that's one of the problems. :) AlterNet is not a legitimate reference for determining any scientific issue any more than Fox "News" is. AlterNet is highly biased, catering to a progressive political position which, I would agree, cleaves strongly to scientific principles yet is biased nonetheless. That article you reference fails on any number of fatal logic fallacies, not the least of which is the begging the question claim that there were "millions" in the protest, nor the begging the question supposition that the movement is "gaining steam."
    Immersion in to the scientific literature is what the other Editors suggested is the most reasonable avenue of contention resolution on this article, not diving in to highly biased blogish web sites that cater to particular political and social world views. No offense intended, please understand. :) I appeal to science and the Scientific Method which AlterNet just aint no part of.
    The whole article here is badly un-encyclopedic. The article is strewn with unsupported suppositions. It totally fails to meet even rudimentary High School level reporting of the event leave alone reach what I would consider to be good encyclopedia work. Damotclese (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am working to make this article more encyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    This may not be as hard as people think

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

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

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

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

    Viriditas is only one of the more outspoken editors who wants to include the actual perspectives of March Against Monsanto at this article. It's completely outrageous that they have been blocked.
    Please stop asserting that the science is settled when it is not. Numerous studies have linked GMOs to cancer and other health risks. Editors should not be allowed to disqualify these studies simply because they don't like them. As we have outlined at this page, there is no consensus on the safety of genetically engineered foods. groupuscule (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    (added later) I did not assert any such thing above. I was jut trying to define (both sides of) the big questions. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Reliable sources show that the scientific consensus is that GM food is as safe as "traditional" food. Your essay is just that, and does not reflect the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that the concerns of the protestors should not be "blocked", but you are quite wrong to state the science isn't settled: it is. There is no evidence, fit for use on Misplaced Pages, that GM food poses a risk to human health. The guidance for biomedical information is WP:MEDRS and we have nothing in line with that that supports the protestors' concerns. Until and unless we can get consensus that the protestors' health claims are unscientific fringe views, there is no prospect of making sensible progress on fixing this article. Alexbrn 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's a fair summary, North. DanHobley (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

    ...which, if you'd read WP:MEDRS, you'd know were not reliable sources for biomedical information. Alexbrn 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    This source and many others available at the userpage I linked conform well to the MEDRS guidelines—more than any that you have presented. Which sources do you consider higher-quality? groupuscule (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The ones cited in the ongoing RFC. The consensus on this is solid. Alexbrn 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thought: We may be able to cut the gordian knot here if we can find an appropriate, notable, 3rd party (i.e., not Monsanto!) source criticising the protesters' aims specifically. This would remove possible objections that attempts to counter FRINGE are SYNTH in themselves. I'll see if I can find something, but who knows if such a thing exists. DanHobley (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The dailyinterlake.com piece (which we use) takes care to quote an oncologist stating "there is no real mechanism in GMOs that could even cause cancer" ... but even that isn't RS for medical claims. How about we get some expert input here by taking this specific issue (of health claims) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine ? Alexbrn 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The Reason.TV link does this specifically.Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    It's a plan, but the risk is that by "dialling back" we present an untrue/unsourced image of the protest. Some of the views expressed in it were pretty extreme ("Monanto killing millions" says the placard at this source we use), and Misplaced Pages should not get into a situation where it's spinning their views into more reasonable positions than in fact were taken. Alexbrn 16:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Good points. I was speaking only in vague terms. What I intended was less coverage of anti-GMO talking points, and doing so in a way that is more "reporting on what they said" and less looking like the article is used to actually make the anti-GMO case. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh yes it's hard! I'd prefer to discuss these things in terms of specific items of content, instead of broad concepts about the page, and I've done so in the section that Dan created above, with the numbered questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I guess I'm always looking for shortcuts that move things forward. My main effort here was just towards a good process rather than any particular end. And IMHO the main person who was warring/dominating it away from a good process is now gone, and a normal process appears in place, albeit mired down. So what I was doing is not so needed at the moment. Secondarily I was giving my advice/ outlook on the article. Third I was trying to find a shortcut to resolve the toughest issue (in general terms). So I was trying to help out but really not interested in the article. Certainly not enough to match the level of participation of folks willing to have substantial discussions on individual sentences. So I might step back from active participation here, but still watch it in case the barn catches on fire again or if someones feel I can help on a particular issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I didn't mean that as a criticism of you, and I certainly don't want you to scale back your involvement here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Of course I didn't take it that way...we know each other better than that. Other than a teensy influence from being an indicator that my vague compromise idea probably isn't going to go anywhere, your post had no effect on what I wrote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Just clarifying, in short I'm reducing, not eliminating my involvement here. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    "GMOs are safe"

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

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

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

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

    Please, again, look at our policy on neutral points of view and on fringe theories, in which claims about GM foods not being safe or causing cancer and such fall under. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Quick solution for your complaint: ask Alexbrn not to add "claims about cancer and such". Problem solved! petrarchan47tc 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    To save some time for future readers, the appropriate section of the fringe guidance for this particular case is Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories#Quotations. What this means for our situation in the Concerns/Positions section isn't totally clear cut, as it comes down to whether this section is clear enough that this quote is an opinion. As noted above, no quote may prove easier to justify. DanHobley (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The back and forth here reminds me so much of this exchange between a MAM activist and the confrontational tv host. He tries to push her into sounding wacky, so the movement is more easily discredited (his obvious goal) while she makes claims no more wild than "But let us choose - label GMO food; please do more long-term studies", etc. This is a good reflection of what I learned by studying the topic-related RS, the views were not far out, and frankly I saw no wild claims about health effects, rather a unanimous request for labels, and a great concern for the yet unknown outcome of using GMOs. petrarchan47tc 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    You may not consider the views "far out," but when talking about the safety of GM food, they are fringe, and we must, per policy, include information that expresses the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I would argue that some of the protesters' claims fall under "3. Questionable science" at WP:FRINGE/PS - a substantial following, but some critics allege as pseudoscience. The text advises us to take "a bit more care". Helpful. Also, not to describe as "unambiguously pseudoscience", but this clearly does fall under the broad advice for WP:FRINGE. Some information on the mainstream scientific position is clearly appropriate, but as a community here we need to decide how much. Given other of the protesters' complaints do not fall under fringe, perhaps adding balancing views only to the ones that are would be a good way to go. Only the human health claims seem unambiguously fringe to me. DanHobley (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    You'll note that we're not seeking a point/counterpoint on every claim made by the protesters, only the ones that are significantly outside of mainstream scientific consensus. Balancing viewpoints are all we need, and we have it in the early section but not yet under concerns. My personal issues with fringe claims are satisfied once we address the concerns section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Since US opinion is not the only opinion in the world, something that US residents sometimes forget, what do you think of the fact that the EU countries limit or ban GMOs? I would hope that you are not suggesting that they believe in what you call fringe science? Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    The bans certainly aren't based on the scientific consensus, no, but this isn't the place to discuss geopolitics. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Considering the science is done only by industry and are no longer than 90 days, your excitement about the results seems strange.
    The statements claiming we need science to counteract protesters' claims are not in keeping with what the administrator I first consulted had to say. DDG said it was not needed (see early talk records) and no one disagreed with him. Now the drum is continuously beaten that we must - and that the scientific consensus is a sure thing, based on a past RfC by jtydog. I am seeing RfCs being abused a lot. Large groups show up and subtly or blatantly support a certain pov. For instance, at BP, where in the talk one will see many of the same editors as here, we had a new person show up when deep discussions about the coverage of the gulf spill where taking place, and start an RfC - it may have been his very first contrib to the page (he never touched the article) which asked if the BP page should mention the gulf spill at all. A ridiculous starting point resulting, after tons of newcomers showed up to vote, in a ridiculous result, which the latest RfC shows no support for. People can call their friends and tip an RfC so fast and easily, I've lost faith in them.
    Groupscule made a list of references which bring the 'scientific consensus' into question. But that is another issue - for this article, we do not need to discuss the science of GMOs. It is enough to link to the related articles. This has been agreed to by other admins and editors as well, though we need this to be more clearly stated - we need someone to take the reigns on this. I hope those found abusing this project are topic banned or banned altogether. And soon petrarchan47tc 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    I wrote the comment below before having had a chance to read what you said here. I like DGG, but he was speaking as an editor, not as an administrator. (WP:No big deal and all that.) The most applicable survey of consensus is the RfC I just linked to, below. As for warning about bans, etc., the place to raise that is WP:AN. Just because editors disagree with you does not mean that they are abusing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I added this question to the numbered list above. Please see: Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus", where the exact same statement and sourcing are being discussed by a large cross-section of the community. The RfC will close in a few more days, and it looks to me like the overwhelming consensus there is that the statement and the sources are valid. The only question that then remains for us here is whether it is somehow WP:OR to take the sentence from Genetically modified food controversies and apply it here at March Against Monsanto. That happens to be the same question behind the now-closed thread at ANI that Viriditas started, and I don't have to remind anyone how that ended. It would be WP:SYNTH if we used those sources to say something about the March itself. But we don't. It's a sentence about the scientific consensus. It isn't synthesis. Should we delete that sentence? No, for the reasons already being discussed in the numbered list above. If we do delete it, then WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:POVFORK will all require us to have a sentence refuting the protesters' views every time we state the protesters' views, a never-ending point-counterpoint. Better, and more efficient, to state the facts in the background section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

    As this line doesn't reflect the scientific consensus, I cannot agree to it. If it said "Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment, although the scientific consensus is that genetically modified food is safe" or something similar, I could be okay with it. I'm just one person, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Petrarchan47, I don't think you have consensus for that. It would seem to have the effect of putting the page in your preferred version, and it would undo the effects of a lot of discussion since then. Although it's true that there are multiple disagreements, you still have to work with the other editors here. You might want to consider joining in the discussions above about the specific content points. In fact, you might even want to engage with the reply that I gave to you yesterday, where I listed point-by-point some of the concerns that I had about your group of edits. As for your accusations about other editors, you are getting dangerously close to where Viriditas was. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    And I, in turn, find it concerning that I have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over again, just because a few editors disagree with it. Please see: #8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section?, and my summary here: , in the part where I start by saying "Let's get specific about this claim of WP:OR." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    ...the true problem is that editors here are NOT immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article...
    Oh I expect that some of the Editors do examine the extant literature, but that they pick-and-choose which sources they're willing to accept as factual. As was noted, fixing the article so that it is encyclopedic is not an insurmountable task, but it may take decades. :) Damotclese (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    Petrarchan please do not claim my last edit was original research, it came from a reliable source. You claimed it was cherry picking, however you removed the information from the New York Times because it wasn't about an article specifically created about the march. So I picked a source that was specifically about the march and how ludicrous it is to say 2 million people marched. The source I stated also mentioned how the 2 million number came into being and the AP backed off the number later. After all the other articles had copied the AP article. I also don't like the assumption you make that people are not immersing themselves in the literature about MAM to build the article. I have search for hours and hours. 90% of the search results are from RS are just the AP article as originally created. I do have a list of sources with numbers of each of the marches that had numbers attached to them. I think it would be good to attach those to the article as well so readers can get a sense of how many location were included along with the number at each location, which is not WP:OR becuase they are all cited. VVikingTalkEdits 22:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Policies and guidelines; What they mean.

    Please set aside personal feelings and focus on improving the page. Please raise concerns about other editors' actions with them at their talk pages, but not on this article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

    I'm in favor of editing according to policies and guidelines. But I rather suspect that all editors, no matter what their perspectives about this page, will say the same. And some will swear that anyone who disagrees with them either doesn't understand policy and guidelines, or is willfully ignoring them. And I'm strongly in favor of vomiting (just checking if anyone is reading this). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    But, I think that putting aside one's personal feelings about the subject matter is an excellent suggestion! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Excellent suggestion? I sure think so. Will it happen? Wishful thinking...!TMCk (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    More: There is a clear agenda about even "censor"/remove opinions of the article's subject. Should that be seen as a precedence to remove faulty opinions of politicians or else if they're not backed up by science??? I'm sure you get my point.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Specifically on that last point, about editors wanting to remove or tone down the opinions of the protesters, I feel that I have to point out that there are also editors who have wanted to include comments of people not associated with the March in order to buck up the protesters' views. If you are in favor of everyone on both "sides" setting aside their personal feelings, I'm with you, but if you are implying that it's just people on one "side", then I have a problem with what you are saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Given that you nominated the article for deletion a second time a few days ago, IRWolfie, do you think it might be understandable for others to question your neutrality when it comes to this article? Jusdafax 00:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    No I do not think it would be understandable and do not see what connection you are trying to make to any issue I have raised. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    I disagreed with the AfD and commented "keep" there. I think it was a bad idea. But if we attributed bad faith to everyone who started an AfD that didn't get consensus, we'd have to drive away much of our editor base. I remember the first AfD that I started. The page was kept, and I got an earful about it. Deletion discussions are polarizing by their very nature. This is as good a place as any to point out the value of setting aside one's personal feelings on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    The first nomination had merits; The second had "point" written all over it and was not in the best interest of WP. That of course is "just" my personal opinion. Unlike some unnamed editors on this page I disclose what is my personal opinion (...vs. facts and policies...). The problem on this page is clear w/o speaking it out again even more clear than some others have already done in the past. And it's not "science vs. fringe".TMCk (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    As to the deletion nominations, I agree. I nominated it the first time when it was poorly formatted and the work of people with no experience in Misplaced Pages, and there was no evidence of collaboration. I then requested a speedy closure four days later when it looked like a Misplaced Pages article. The second nomination was a threat to throw some other child's toys out of the pram. What I still don't see enough of is willingness to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Now I'm going to log out for the night, and vomit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Is that because you've eaten too much GM food? ;-) Alexbrn 07:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry but what is the purpose of this thread? If you wish to make vague insinuations can you please do that elsewhere, preferably off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    The purpose is to get the page back on track even if it is not very likely to happen.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Apologies

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

    This is first one. The others seem to have been either corrected or have consensus. This is the diff between the others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's OK, I think everything is fixed. Stuff happens! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's one of the few times that the Someone Else Did It defense, also known as little brother defense, actually is plausible, because Canoe1967 actually reverted the edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for believing me. I wish it was me as I thought they were good edits. I would have done similar myself but now I can't.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    Obvious nonsense

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

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

    Let me draw your attention to #7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint. No it isn't vandalism. It's a disagreement about POV, but not vandalism. I assure you that I am reading the material, including the first paragraph of the Media coverage section of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't know what you're calling a "false viewpoint", but where are the refs proving these claims? And when I say material, I am not speaking of the Misplaced Pages article based on the material, i'm speaking of source material. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    The words "false viewpoint" come from the header of that discussion section; they are not my words. You should follow the link and read what is there. Yes, I do understand that you were talking about the source material. So let me draw your attention to the source material in the first paragraph of the Media coverage section of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I do hope you aren't insinuating that this minuscule list of media outlets - sans context such as, what percentage of media this represents, the amount and type of coverage, etc - this list that essentially constitutes OR (if indeed it is trying to 'say something' that is not found already said in RS, ie "lotsa coverage fer that MAM thing") - refutes Alternet and Thomm fricking Hartmann. And yes, that first para that you now point me to was indeed created as OR refutation of the Thom Hartmann claim, which for whatever reason has been under heavy attack since the very begining of the article. A thorough review of the edit history will show that the first paragraph, which is just weird, was created in a struggle to remove uncomfortable claims, to prove them wrong blatantly using OR whilst claiming to be the ones who are really here to follow guidelines and build a proper article. A review of the history will show that no one ever tried to remove Monsanto's rebuttle. I put it in there. There is only one "side" being attacked here, no matter how convoluted and spun the retelling of this story gets. At some pont, an intelligent truly NPOV lover of the wiki will do a review of this whole situation, and all will be seen. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not insinuating anything. Please feel free to raise any issues you want at the appropriate notice board, but please stop casting aspersions on other editors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am AGF, so I do wonder why you would point me to an example of OR/SYNTH. How am I to respond? Now I go to a noticeboard? Why isn't this upsetting to anyone but me? This is obviously against the guidelines, yet we are editing on account of it. I cannot imagine another article where this is acceptable. And every editor here is responsible for letting this slide, which is confusing to me. I know that the editors here understand basic wiki guidelines, and this paragraph has no business being on wikipedia. I am wondering why am I the only person who sees this. petrarchan47tc 01:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Is there something I'm missing here? Why would we presume an activist news service is reliable exactly? Particularly about something so demonstrably false? (i.e this statement stands in contrast to the fact that the event is notable purely based on the media coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Is this first paragraph of the media section the best example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH ever, or second best? We have already been over this, the event wasn't much covered by mainstream media and Alternet is considered RS, in a case where we have little to go on, it is fine. We quote directly from Monsanto press releases and industry as well, where appropriate. petrarchan47tc 01:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Sources are never declared de-facto reliable. Reliability is case by case. I'm still not sure what you are basing calling it reliable on. It is a news service with a set agenda, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    VE

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

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

    'GMO controversy' section.

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

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

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

    2012 is not out of date. Since we have stepped away from a need to use protest-related sites for the scientific position, it is also reasonable to use a poll to show that 9 out of 10 Americans question it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    The quoted poll was 2010. We cannot try to balance a general scientific consensus with a poll of the public. Firstly they are about two different subjects, the scientific consensus is about the safety of the foods but the poll was about labelling.
    I have no strong opinion either way on labelling but this article is not the place to discuss the subject. All we need to say is that the marchers want labelling of GM food and some others do not. It is not our job to decide who is right, or to present evidence for either side here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree Martin. However, if in this article we include sites to contradict their position, sites where the protest is not mentioned, we must also include information that supports their concerns in a similar manner--thus the poll is reasonable. My preference would be to remove any information that is not directly related to the march. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Which sites are you referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    I am not aware of any consensus. The quotes serve no useful purpose and only make the writing less encyclopedic. There are no issues of plagiarism (the quotes are far too short) or of attribution (both views are clearly attributed. Quotations like this encourage 'quote wars' instead of a proper encyclopedic writing style. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    A while back, you removed a lot of quotes, and the now-blocked editor made a big deal about it. I commented that I felt that most of your edits then were helpful, but that I would prefer to restore direct quotes from the people who were behind the protest. Subsequent discussion seemed to indicate that there was at least some consensus, including no objection from you at that time, for putting those quotes back as direct quotes. The drama on my user talk page about supposed plagiarism was about one of those two quotes. Taking those things together, I would have preferred that if you now wanted to de-quote those quotes, you would have discussed it here in talk before, rather than after, doing it, as we are doing for so much else. I am optimistic that the battles over quote wars are going to quiet down now, so I think the best way not to reignite them is to not make new changes that could reignite them. There is nothing un-encyclopedic about having quotations in an article, whereas it's a little dicey to have passages as long as those presented without quote marks, with one unchanged from the source, and the other only changed from "can" to "could". Really, these two direct quotes should not be a big deal to you, so I don't see any reason to tone them down. Let's leave the quotes, and, in "return", let's leave out the poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Can you at least explain to me the encyclopedic purpose of having direct quotes. There is no possibility of misunderstanding if we paraphrase or even use the exact words in our text. The use of a few words of normal English cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called plagiarism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I can explain that. As I just said above, there "is nothing un-encyclopedic about having quotations in an article". It's an article about the March Against Monsanto. People have said things about the March Against Monsanto. We report some of the things that they have said. Maybe there's a slight difference in tone, compared to some old-fashioned print encyclopedias, but that is because we are not an old-fashioned print encyclopedia, and we report a wider variety of topics than anything that has previously been produced in print. This article is about a present-day controversy. We sometimes quote what people said during the controversy. Previously, I agreed with some of your edits about quotes, but I do not see the issue as extending so far that, every time a quote appears, we have to run from it squealing "eek! eek! it's a quote! I'm so scared! save me!". These particular quotes are not going to set off a quote war unless editors on both "sides" decide to make it a war. I didn't say that you plagiarized, but I said that "it's a little dicey", and that's what it is, no more, no less. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    California Proposition 37 and the Farmer Assurance Provision section

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

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

    Let us start at the beginning then:

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

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

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

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

    I don't see a problem with either of those. The first is a statement of fact, and it was very widely reported in connection with these protests. It's clearly part of the background to the protests. The second reports what motivated Canal, and it's properly attributed. We cannot purge this page of the reasons for the March. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I changed the wording about Ms. Canal and Proposition 37, as proposed by Martin, but, upon consideration, am reverting it back, because it is an accurate quote as to what she said. (Does anyone question that she said that?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    No, I do not in any way question that fact that she said that but I do question WP giving her a soapbox to promote her views. We need to state her motives in neutral and encyclopedic language. The use of the word 'credits' is not even a quotation it is in the voice of WP. Words like 'credits' suggest support for the stated view, why not just 'stated' or 'said'. The use of "opening her eyes" suggests that the revealed facts were true and that they had been kept secret. Please, have a read of a printed encyclopedia like Chambers or Britannica. You well not see the kind of language used in the article there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 17:16, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

    @Martin Hogbin

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

    I second this. DanHobley (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is not just the content but the language used. We should not be staging a quote war, as in X says "GM foods are bad" Y says "GM foods are good" we should be neutrally stating the views and motivations of both parties once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Martin, I'm going to third what Robert said. He's right. I'm all in favor of WP:BLPGROUP, but not to the point of, in effect, watering down the subject of the page. I think I can see how you might see some of the language as being aggressive and confrontational, and it's not entirely unreasonable to wish that we could make our language here more, well, civil. And I'm in favor of doing that when we write in Misplaced Pages's voice. But this is an article about a controversy that was very confrontational at times, and, however good your intentions are (and I am convinced that they are good), it's a mistake to try to make the reliably sourced quotes "nicer". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that edit wars over quotes are bad, because they are edit wars. I am not sure what is meant by the staging of quote wars. I agree that there should be no more quotes than are needed to present the point of view of the protesters. However, we should focus more on the views of the protesters than of opponents of the protest, because this article is about the protests, not about genetically modified food or Monsanto. I agree with User:Tryptofish, because this article is about the protests, and the protests are controversial, and we need to be careful to present their views and motives neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think "quote wars" refers to having one quote from one "side" followed by a quote from the other "side", over and over again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. If so, I agree that we should not stage quote wars, and should not try to provide an equal number of quotes to both sides. This article is about the protests, not about people who disagree with the protest, or a company or products that the protesters disagree with. The protesters are entitled to reasonable but not excessive explanation, including in their own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Please see below. There is absolutely no entitlement for any group to have their own words in WP see WP:soap unsigned
    Encyclopedic Style

    I am not demanding the removal of all quotations, just that we try to write in an encyclopedic style. This is not the same as that of a news source or an essay. We are here to give the plain facts. Where there is a dispute amongst reliable sources as to what the fact are we must adopt a WP:NPOV but that does not apply to scientific topics, were we should present information in the light of the mainstream scientific opinion where there is one. I am no expert on GE but I can see from the articles in WP that, although there are issues and concerns, currently licensed and available GM foods are not considered to present unacceptable risks to humans or the environment. Anyone who wants to challenge this view should go the the main GM articles rather than trying to sneak their opinions through a back-door soapbox here.

    The marchers have absolutely no right to have their words repeated here. We do have the duty to state the views of the marchers clearly and accurately but in the language and context of our choice, as writers of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Comment by Canoe1967
    • This article doesn't need to be balanced with every point made by the protest. We have pro-life and pro-choice articles that each have their own POVs stressed without countering. If Monsanto has a POV then create Monsanto March Against Protesters.

    Their POV can be stressed there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    (And that's all I have to say!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. The failure to understand WP:NPOV is so basic that beyond this statement, I am left speechless. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Is that a rant or is it something helpful to the article? If not then expect it removed as a rant.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that IRWolfie, an editor with whom I've probably never agreed, is entitled to have his say and that the comment should not be removed. I followed this conversation a while back and have totally lost the thread of things. Can someone sum up the issues outstanding? They would be helpful not just for me but for anyone else passing by. Coretheapple (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Hey, Canoe1967 - stop deleting other people's comments, no matter how strongly you feel about them. This is a flagrant violation of the guidelines (per WP:TPO) - and this is the second time you've done it in the past week. The guideline reads: "Never (bold in source) edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Please restore the comment. DanHobley (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Basically this article and talk page are both full of personal opinions about the subject. It is a content and source war about inclusion/exclusion of those opinions. Few seem to care about our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Coretheapple: The most recent précis of what's outstanding in terms of specific points can be found above at Talk:March Against Monsanto#Dan's attempted list of outstanding issues. A slightly broader interpretation can be read under Talk:March Against Monsanto#This may not be as hard as people think. However, in one sentence, the crux of it is that 1. there are major misgivings over the extent to which including the arguably (see above, repeatedly) dubious opinions of the protesters is inherently in need of framing statements to eliminate concerns of POV/FRINGE, how much of this there might need to be, and 2. there is a fairly entrenched battleground mentality, shading repeatedly into some pretty disrespectful statements and actions, from a number of editors. I hope those are fair statements. DanHobley (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is an article about a protest. POV/FRINGE should be expected from the protesters. We don't go to Christian articles and balance them with the views of atheists, history, and science.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the links and comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes we do AIRcorn (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I was thinking of Evangelicalism or Catholic Church. I don't think either article has POV that tries to debunk their beliefs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    These are articles which are not related to science, so this does not make sense. Aircorn's examples are where religions make statements about science, and the mainstream scientific position is given clearly there. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Canoe, strangely I agree with most if what you say. Of course we should expect fringe views from the protesters and we should state them in the article, but in an encyclopedic manner and in a way in which WP does not appear to be promoting or supporting those views and indeed in a way in which those views are taken to be plainly contrary to mainstream science. If that is done correctly there is no need for a detailed scientific refutation of the the marchers' views in the article.
    There are valid concerns about GM food and crops and these are discussed properly at Genetically modified food controversies. Anyone who disagrees with the arguments put at that page should argue their case there. The point is that the marchers did not go around with banners saying "We must be wary of horizontal gene transfer" they wend round spreading overblown opinions like "GM foods are poisoning our children" and accusing Monsanto of organising a worldwide media blackout. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Perhaps I should clarify while this is a fundamental failure to understand WP:NPOV. Every article is expected to be written from the neutral point of view. No wikipedia page is expected to give a POV. The pro/anti abortion articles are expected to conform to NPOV. What you have described is a POV fork (WP:POVFORK): "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Seriously, sit down and read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Evangelicalism or Catholic Church. I don't think either article has POV that tries to debunk their beliefs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    WP:NPOV is essentially irrelevant here because it only applies when different viewpoints are expressed in reliable sources. The marchers stated views (GM foods are poison etc) are not supported by any reliable sources and are therefore WP:FRINGE and thus we have no requirement to represent them here. We have a duty to tell our readers what the motivation of the marchers was but from a mainstream science viewpoint. We have absolutely no obligation to give fringe views a fair hearing or to show the marchers own words, indeed we must not do that in any way that would give them the authority of WP.

    I might add that neither is this the right place to debunk their views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    This article is not about the controversy of their views though. This article is about the march. If a group of Christians march against the government we don't include NPOV about their religion. We include the religious reasons for the march. The religion de-bunking should go in articles about the religion. The de-bunking of this march's views are de-bunked in other articles. To de-bunk them again here is simply a WP:COATRACK but inverted. Instead of this article covering the POV of the subject it is being forced to NPOV of other articles. This article is not about the debate. It is about the march and the debate is hanging coats all over it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that Canoe1967 has a valid point. Even assuming that the marchers against Monsanto are totally espousing a fringe viewpoint, I don't think it is necessary to provide balance to their views every step of the way, as long as the article does state the scientific consensus in a prominent way. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I also broadly agree, although following CtA I also feel some framing comments on the science are necessary (though probably not throughout the text). I strongly disagree with Martin (above) that we have no requirement to represent the fringe viewpoints at all in the article, on the basis that they are fringe. Especially given that these kinds of fringe views are widely held, and thus notable in their own right. DanHobley (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's a good analogy. Even articles that are about fringe movements, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, don't go into extravagant rebuttals. There is a criticism section, and a reference to them in the lead section. But there is no effort to make the entire article NPOV, in the sense of making it even-Steven between the accepted view of 9/11 and the conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    As I have said before, we should include the marchers' reasons and motives for for the march; that is not what I meant by 'no requirement to represent the fringe viewpoints'. However we must not promote those fringe viewpoints here, either directly by saying things like, 'GM foods may be extremely harmful to health', or indirectly by giving excessive prominence to the marchers emotive wording of their fringe views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    We don't want to state anyone's opinions as fact. However, I do think that we have to state their opinions, and be careful not to censor the article out of a view that we are promoting their positions. If there is any particular, specific wording that you find objectionable, please do specify. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see how we can be promoting their views simply by inclusion. We include material. We don't voice an opinion on whether we promote it. Some don't like IE9 but we have an article about it that lists all its features in detail. We aren't listing all of the claims that Firefox may be a better browser. Those issues go in controversy or comparison articles. If one article on a browser is 10x the size of the other then expand the smaller one. Article size and content are not promotional of either browser.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    In my opinion, quoting the marchers' emotive words in the article does promote their views unduly. For example, just having, ' X said, "GM foods are poisoning our children"' in the article is unencyclopedic and gives undue weight to a fringe view. The use of "double quotation marks" in particular draws the eye to the words and the use of 'children' is purely emotive; we presume the marchers believe that GM food will harm adults too. I think we should word this more along the lines of 'X believed that GM foods were seriously harmful to health'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    Removal of Comments?

    Am I to understand that one of the editors of this talk page has been known to remove comments? Even if they are rants, removal of rants makes it hard to deal with the user conduct issue of ranting. Going through an article history to find removed comments is tedious. I may be mistaken, but I thought that the only talk page comments that were supposed to be removed were those that had to be actually backed out by oversight or revision deletion because they were grossly offensive, libelous, or otherwise blatantly improper (as opposed to merely improper). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    Then I suggest you take a look at the history of this page toot sweet. I was shocked. Roxy the dog (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, one comment was removed and was promptly reinstated. I think it would be better to deal with the ramifications thereof with the user directly. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    See WP:TPO. I considered the comment off-topic as well as a little trollish, bite, POV, NPA, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    And you were rebuked because you utterly misjudged the comment which you removed here: . When I say you fundamentally misunderstand NPOV, that is not a rant, it is pointing something out; you have not read WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE and appear disinclined to do so. Yet, here you are continuing to refer to my comment it as "a little trollish, bite, POV, NPA". It was on topic because it was directly related to what you had just posted. It was not "bite" which refers to newcomers, you are not a newcomer. It is not POV, because it does not espouse a POV, it is a comment about your understanding of NPOV. It is not an NPA, because saying someone doesn't understand NPOV isn't a personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Please, take it to this user's talk page, or someplace else, or better still, let it rest. This is for discussion of the March Against Monsanto article, not your disputes with other editors. Just to be clear, your comment was a rant, and it was uncalled-for. However, I reinstated it because talk page guidelines are broad, not because your comment was proper. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    Positions

    Just wanted to point out that "positions" of the protesters has less content than Monsanto/industry response, which is imbalanced it seems. The positions sections could really use expansion, as could the intro to the "background" section. petrarchan47tc 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    There is definitely more from Monsanto than is necessary. This is an article about a movement and why so many hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in this activity. There is no need to be even-Steven and tit for tat, or to create an "equal time" situation like they used to do on TV. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    The media response section should also go before the Monsanto section. Chrono order is march, live coverage, reaction to coverage. And where did that extreme POV Hawaii statement come from? "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming." My bold. How did we get from broad consensus to overwhelming? This is just her opinion and I don't know if she can cite sources or not. We need to cite sources, so should she. She sounds like a PR person. Are we including their hyped up spin phrases now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's a trip, isn't it? What has happened to this article is all in the records. But i bet it isn't too hard to guess where that POV stuff came from...21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Case in point - check out this recent edit to the page:
    The Washington State Wire criticized the 2 million number that was oft quoted in news articles. They didn't say they did an exhaustive search and maybe 1.9 million people marched in Timbuktu. Since there would have been an average of 4587 people per location if there were actually 436 locations. The largest list of locations the State Wire could find was a list of 250 locations meaning the number of people per location jumps to 8000. Portland seems to be the high mark of the number of participants with organizers claiming 10,000 and the Oregonian citing 2000-3000 people. The Associated Press started with reporting the 2 million number, in a second iteration the AP went with Organizers say two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto…”. Finally in a third version they played it safe and didn't even mention a number. source
    Keep in mind, we have quoted the biggest media in the world for the number used in the article, which is in accordance with my understanding of RS. "Washington State Wire blog" deserves an entire paragraph for its questioning of the numbers? We have already stated "according to protesters", so all of this effort, which has gone on since May 28th, to question and knock down this number is against the guidelines for RS, a huge red light that a certain POV is still governing some edits here, and most importantly, continues to divert the editors here from getting this article written. We have spent 3 or 4 months arguing about how to apply the most basic Wiki guidelines to this article, but we have not been able to get past these minor issues to expand on what the protest was all about: the protesters had much to say with regard to Monsanto's pull in DC, concerns about bee population decline, and other things. I am not saying the arguing here was meant to keep other issues from being discussed/expanded, but it is certainly a result! petrarchan47tc 21:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    We don't just parrot the biggest newspaper. We look at the ones most reliable for the claims, and that involves using common sense as well. If a number sounds completely crazy, and illogical, and some of the sources say that everyone just parroted the AP number, which was later revised anyway, then its important to note that. I think we should be mentioning some of the analysis. That WSW source provides an in depth analysis of the number claims, and also what occurred at the AP. Clearly this is more appropriate to use than merely just parroting the claims of the organisers and leaving it at that. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    RfC for number of participants and proper use of RS

    I've moved these comments from the "positions" section to make the new topic more clear. petrarchan47tc 22:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    This really isn't an RfC, and my moved comment was made in direct response to the section that it was in. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • So it appears that this talk page is now two different talk pages. One is where editors discuss content before making changes that might not have consensus. The other is sections of the page such as this one, where editors who have POV disputes with other editors ignore discussion elsewhere on the talk page, and pat themselves on the back after making edits that clearly go against consensus. I've reverted all of it; please feel free to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Trypto, please support your recent edit using the source from CVT to counter claims from major media sources, thank you. If you are unable to cite proper grounds using the guidelines, I would suggest your self-revert. If this is not an option, an RfC is in order. I am so sick of this nonsense.22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) petrarchan47tc
    Note: I hadn't noticed Trypto reverted much more than the numbers, including my careful work to include a simple introduction to the protest origins, details about its founder, etc. This is vandalism, pure and simple, and to say i need consensus for simply following the guidelines about how to build an article is disgusting. petrarchan47tc 23:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Someone disagreeing with you is not vandalism (WP:NOT VANDALISM) and please do not refer to it as vandalism. You made substantial edits, and they were reverted. You clearly need consensus for bold edits (per WP:BOLD). That is how collaboration works. You believe you were following the guidelines, others do not. Sometimes people disagree, but poisoning the well doesn't help. If you continue to refer to the good faith actions of other editors as vandalism or the act of needing consensus after being reverted as disgusting, I will take the issue to ANI, but I'd prefer if you just stopped doing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Observations: 1. "Vandalism" is manifestly not an appropriate description of TF's edit. Tryptofish has been a notably moderate voice here. 2. Your preferred version of the lead is not more neutral; it actively excludes lower estimates, and info that most of the protests were in the US. These problems (information removed, rather than altered) appear to extend to all of their substantive reverted changes. 3. Editors clearly have differing interpretations of the guidelines. TF is totally right when he emphasises the need to discuss here. 4. Per the numbers specifically, of all the issues in this article, this I thought we at least had some kind of consensus on! 5. I am gradually more and more of the opinion that some sort of community intervention is necessary here. This manifestly isn't working. (NB- this is not a specific criticism of you, Petrarchan. More of a general observation.) DanHobley (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't have time to keep up with nine different questions or long lists that I'm expected to respond to and I've never worked on an article where editors were expected to do so. You seem to think that it is OK for you to take over this talk page and run it according to your expectations, but it is not working for me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Gandydancer, there are some problems with what you are saying there. I am sympathetic to how difficult it can be to follow all of the discussion points on this talk page. However, the reason that there are so many things being discussed is that there are so many specific issues about the content of the page about which editors disagree. Other editors have conscientiously taken part in the numbered list of questions – started by another editor, not by me – so it is possible to do so if one so chooses. I'm not asking anyone to consider themselves required to take part in those discussions, but I think that it is entirely reasonable to say, that if someone is going to make edits to the page that are directly related to those discussion points, they would be well-advised to make themselves aware of those discussions and to demonstrate respect for what other editors are saying. If you or anyone else do not have time to follow those discussions, that's fine – but if you make an edit unaware of those discussions, you really cannot complain that you had no reason to know that someone else might object. I never said that you need to make a list in talk of your edits. I said to Petrarchan in #Post ANI commentary - where do we go from here?: "Given how everything on this page has been contested, you would have done yourself a favor by making a list like this and discussing it in talk before making the edits. You don't have to, of course, but bold edits risk WP:BRD reverts. After all, look at how long I've been asking other editors' opinions about changing a header from "Concerns" to "Positions" without actually making the edit. Just saying." If you think that that is "taking over" the page, then you are incorrect. Just above, I noted that they did not follow that advice, so I repeated it, but more firmly. Again, that is not taking over this page. Therefore, your comment about what I supposedly think is OK really is inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tryptofish, I do not consider it appropriate for an editor to arrive at a page and list every problem that s/he sees and expect all of the editors to make yes/no etc. comments and to refer back to the list before making edits to the article. That is all I have to say here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Gandydancer, neither do I, and you would know that if you had taken the time to read what I said. It appears that you are making negative comments about me without knowing the facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    The same group doing the exact same things isn't going to end the warring and nonsense at this article. There is nothing difficult about building an article based on related, reliable sources in context and with due weight as evidenced in RS. There is no reason so many editors need to spend so much time at this article - it is a simple story, and the guidelines for applying RS are simple too. I can't fight this group anymore, and I don't know how Viriditas lasted so long. I am now arguing that this article be turned over to ArbCom. petrarchan47tc 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I actually sort of agree with you that ArbCom is eventually going to have to deal with this dispute. They will examine the conduct of all parties, on all "sides". They will do so only after the community exhausts all other avenues of dispute resolution, and only if someone makes a formal request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, so a comment on this talk page that it should be turned over to them will not result in them doing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Arbcom do not resolve content disputes and I do not think that anyone has acted terribly badly here.
    My main complains are 'quote wars' (meaning too many direct quotations from the marchers and Monsanto) and unencyclopedic language, which gives undue credibility to fringe views. If we removed this I do not think there would be any need to overstate the mainstream view. I have a suggestion below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    A suggestion

    Would anyone object if I were to go through the article and tone down the language and try to make it more encyclopedic. This should also remove the need for excessive mainstream science in the article too.

    I am not going to edit war anything so we could list all reversions for future discussion and, if necessary, an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    It's hard to know how to answer your question, because I think it's pretty likely that someone, somewhere, is likely to object. I think you can see that although you are concerned that direct quotes from the protesters come across as unencyclopedic, other editors have disagreed with you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is not just direct quotes it is language in general.
    Earlier I removed some direct quotes and you reverted. If that continued to be the pattern that would give us a topic for further discussion or an RfC. Arbcom are not going to resolve this dispute for us. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I agree that ArbCom isn't going to resolve what language to use on the page. As long as you understand that editors, and it's not just me, have objected to too much watering down of the pro-March perspectives on the page, you don't need anyone's permission to make the edits you want (notwithstanding the claims made elsewhere in this talk that I said otherwise), but it seems to me that you started this section of the talk page in order to get feedback, and I gave you feedback. To be clear: I do not want to see a watering down of reliably sourced information about what the protesters have said that they believe (and that is also contrary to claims about me made elsewhere on this talk page). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am not sure what you mean by, 'watering down of the pro-March perspectives'. If you mean we should give them some kind of voice on this page then I disagree and, if it were the consensus to give the marchers a voice here, I would support clearly stating mainstream view more positively and frequently within the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's the crux of the problem here, which is the attempt to be even-Steven and quote the anti-protester point of view "frequently" in the article. I don't believe that NPOV requires that, as long as the Monsanto point of view is prominently mentioned. Otherwise, articles on non-standard interpretations of events, ranging from 9/11 conspiracy theories to even more fringey subjects, would be twice the length than they are now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Core, I said that I would want be even-Steven, as you call it, only if editors insisted in giving the marchers' a voice in WP. By giving them a voice I mean promoting their views or stating them in a favourable way. We should tell our readers what the marchers' motives were; we should not try to sell them to our readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I agree with that, in principle. That is more or less the approach I've been trying to take on this page. I just don't agree that presenting their views or motives, properly attributed, constitutes selling those views to our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    People are given a voice in Misplaced Pages all the time. Sometimes lengthy quotations are used. I don't see anything remotely similar to that in this article, and if there were such things, so what? It doesn't change the general principle that we should not be even-Steven in articles like this. It isn't necessary, and it doesn't violate NPOV as best as I can ascertain. Clearly, this being about a bunch of activists marching, we want to learn why they are marching. It isn't necessary to continually smack them upside the head and point out what utter fools they are, that they are contradicted by science. Yes, we want to say what the scientific consensus is. :We have that. Nobody (to my knowledge) wants to take it out. But if we keep saturating the article with "on the other hands," it turns this into an article about the controversy and not an article about the march. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is good to see that we are coming to some kind of agreement.
    I am making the essential distinction between 'stating views' and giving people a voice, by which I mean 'promoting views'. As an example the Socialism article starts, 'Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy'. This is a simple statement of what socialist believe. A promotional version of the same might be, 'Socialism gives everyone equal ownership of the means of production and provides co-operative management of the economy for the overall benefit of society'. Not a great change but one is strictly factual and the other is promotion, simply by the use of different language. One is encyclopedic; one is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that making language neutral is not objectionable. My concern is with tit-for-tat, "equal time" placement of views. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    When I said "watering down of the pro-March perspectives", I was thinking about things such as taking a quote from one of them, and changing it into a slightly softer paraphrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    I just went through the entire page, looking for things that might be there now, where there could be concerns about encyclopedicity. I'm honestly not seeing much, but of course, other editors may disagree. The only thing that leaps out at me is the last paragraph of the Media coverage section, about the Alternet piece. I had previously deleted it, but another editor reverted me (and it's back because I put it back myself, because otherwise I would be reverting a revert of my own edit), so I'll leave it to other editors to decide what if anything to do with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    You do not see anything wrong with:
    Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced healthy food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children.? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Not in the least, unless we don't have a reliable source indicating that she felt that way. I can readily see how some readers and editors might feel differently about the issues than she does, but that does not make it contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia to report that she feels that way. Indeed, once we have an article about this subject, it is the obligation of an encyclopedia to report that the principal person behind the subject feels this way. Please rest assured that if you take that out, I will revert you. (Editors who accuse me of being anti-March, please take note.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I do not think we are under any particular obligation to report that Canal was angry or frustrated, this is hardly information of encyclopedic interest, but that is not my main objection.
    What do you think, 'reasonably priced healthy food' is referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not a mind reader, but I would guess that she considers organic food more expensive than non-organic, as it sometimes is in the US. (That does not mean that I consider organic food to be more healthful, but we aren't writing a page about what I believe.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    By the way, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth is quite applicable here: we don't remove verifiable content simply because we disagree with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Surely she means non-GM food, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense? Why would she start a march against Monsanto because should could not buy organic food? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, probably. Where I am in the US, one pretty much would have to buy organic if one wants to avoid GMOs. And I'll anticipate the objection that GMO crops can actually make food production less expensive: right now, in the US, it is very common for food sellers to charge extra for products labeled as GMO-free. That's probably got more to do with capitalism in the marketplace than with the real costs of food production, but if Canal doesn't agree with me, then my opinion about her opinions does not matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    But, having said all that, I'll also say thank you, Martin, for discussing the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Note that the statement I am referring to is not a direct quotation. We use 'healthy food' when it is clear from the context that we mean 'non-GM' food. This equates the two in our readers minds and suggest that WP agrees. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, if you had said that earlier I would have agreed with you earlier! I just changed it from "healthy" to "non-GMO". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    That is a start but we also have, 'she was also concerned about the health of her children'. What important and encyclopedic fact is that telling us? That a mother is concerned about the health of her children? There cannot be many mothers who are not concerned about the health of their children.
    The point being made is that Canal believes that GM food are harmful to health. Her mention of concern for her children is an appeal to her audience based on the emotive value of children. This is not the way an encyclopedia should be written. We could possibly interpret her words more sympathetically to mean that she believed that there might be long-term health risks in consuming GM foods but this is moving towards OR, although I would fight that point
    So I think we should say 'because she believed that there were potential (long term) health risks in consuming GM foods'. Because such risks are not generally supported by the mainstream scientific opinion, I think that we must say 'she believed that' rather then 'she was concerned about'. By using encyclopedic language like this throughout the article we reduce the need for continual repetition of the mainstream view on the subject and make the article more about the march itself and less adversarial in tone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I'm very open to possibilities, but I think there are problems with that exact wording. It says that she "believed" something that is actually not what she believes. Maybe there's an approach based on "she was concerned" about "what she believed to be...". I understand your point, that she is expressing concern about her children's health, in spite of the fact that mainstream science says that there are no significant health concerns about GMO foods. But, as long as we are attributing her views to her, it's OK for her views to be incorrect in the opinions of some editors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I think that Martin basically has a "tone" issue and frankly I don't think that's terribly unreasonable. We can tone down some of these statements. However, what I don't like about this article is far more substantive. We're making it into a coatrack for a back and forth between Monsanto and its critics, with a striving for equal time. This is about a grassroots movement, and stating what the organizers thereof say is perfectly acceptable and there is no need to provide a countervailing view from Monsanto on every major or minor point. The article is far too "even-Steven" at this point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    It seems that we agree to a considerable degree. To try to make clear exactly what I am saying let me use the specific example above. If we have in the article, as it was, 'Canal said that she was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced health food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children', I think we need to balance this wording, which promotes an anti-GM view, with something promoting the mainstream view like, 'The currently accepted scientific consensus is that there are no health issues resulting from the consumption of GM food'.
    If on the other hand we state the same concerns of Canal in more encyclopedic language, as in, 'Canal proposed the march because she was angry with the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced non-GM food, which she believed was harmful to health', I would see no need for any counter argument. So my suggestion is to express the marchers motives fully, but in non-promotional language which also indicates we are talking about their beliefs rather than accepted facts and remove much of the counter argument, although we should briefly describe the response from Monsanto, in equally encyclopedic terms. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, like I said, I don't see fixing the tone as a problem. However, I do think that this unnecessary balance thing needs to be rectified by an editor with more background on this than I. Last time I was here I recall making some edits and immediately being reverted by Viritidas, who apparently viewed me as some kind of hostile entity. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Something about tone occurs to me, and I want to point it out. We have some direct quotes from our sources, where Canal et al. say things that have an assertive tone that contradicts mainstream science, but those quotes do reflect the positions of the subjects of this page. Sometimes, we paraphrase those quotes, instead of presenting the quotes directly. When we paraphrase, we are writing in Misplaced Pages's voice. When we write in Misplaced Pages's voice, we need to reflect mainstream sources rather than fringe (or whatever word one wants to use) views. But that can lead to a problem of WP:OR: if we change a strongly-worded direct quote to a moderately-worded paraphrase, we end up replacing what the subjects of the page have said in reliable sources, with something that is different from what they actually said. That's why, increasingly, I am becoming uncomfortable with paraphrasing what the protesters have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    What to attribute to Canal

    (edit conflict) I removed the disputed information because the source actually does not state that she expressed concern about finding non-GM food. And, the "children" statement is redundant because we just included her concerns re her "family" (she's a single mom). I replaced it with concerns about honey bees. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have reverted. Please see the discussion between myself and Tryptofish above. If we are going to add Canal blaming Monsanto for killing all the bees we need to add some balancing statement, which would be very much against the current consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Your edit summary says "Monsanto alone is not responsible for these insecticides." The fact that other firms are involved is immaterial. This is a march against Monsanto, and it doesn't seem to be in dispute that Monsanto is involved in the controversial bee-killing compound. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I thought you were beginning to want to avoid the adversarial wording here. If we add Canal's somewhat irrational blaming of Monsanto for the use of neonicotinoid insecticides we must balance it with statements saying that Monsanto were not the originators of the compounds, neither are they the only company supplying them (if indeed they do supply them), neither are they responsible for their licensing or use by farmers, who have a free choice in the matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm in accord with you on tone, and I don't see a tone problem here. The article needs less tit-for-tat, not more. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I don't know how you would think that I can figure out which conversation above you are talking about. Quit dramatizing this--she did not blame Monsanto for killing all the bees. She expressed concern. Hundreds of researchers have as well, and the EU and some other countries have put a 2-year ban on them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    You may have noticed that this article is called the 'March against Monsanto' not the 'Random thoughts of Canal'. If you look up neonicotinoid you will see that Monsanto are not mentioned. Please remove this irrelevant edit and restore the current consensus wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "which some studies have linked to a recent severe decline in honey bee population". That's a scientific claim, and would need a standard scientific source. Do people seriously think "cityweekly" is reliable for that sort of claim? Do people think that is neutral considering the cause is not yet known? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If Gandydancer is concerned that my wording did not accurately reflect the source, I'd be happy to be corrected about that (because, unlike some other people, I don't insult other editors who want to discuss getting the content right). But I think it's a very bad idea to add something about honeybees, because, as other editors have just said, it leads us down the path of having a never-ending point-counterpoint. The bulk of source material about the March that I have seen reflects concerns about things other than bees (although if we find something about it being a stated concern during the March, we really ought to add it, instead, in the Positions section). So, let's get our account of what Canal said about food and family right, rather than trying to add a counterpoint in that section. But that said, I think Martin's rationale that there are other companies besides Monsanto is a badly flawed one, and deserves some push-back. That's the kind of thing that gives ammunition to the on-Wiki conspiracy theories about editors working for Monsanto. Anyway, I think we have to be precise about direct quotes, attributed, versus paraphrases, in Misplaced Pages's voice, and I thought that it was an accurate paraphrase. I'm confused by the concern that Canal did not say that, about "non-GMO foods". It seems to me that it's very much what she said she was concerned about: she wants to feed her family GMO-free foods, and she said she was concerned about the costs of being able to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      Well you know, there is a great deal of concern about the bee population, and that feeds into the March Against Monsanto. Just a few weeks ago I saw a major theatrical documentary on bees in which the Monsanto insecticide was mentioned. The title was "More than Honey." So it does seem to be a significant source of concern. I think that, concerning tone, there are limits to what we can do. Since this is an article about a grassroots, naturally there is or should be a large quantity of material about why the people are engaged in this activity. An analogous situation is the Tea Party. Again, we don't harp on giving the opposing point of view in that article either. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      That's helpful, thanks. Can we find sourcing that would support putting something about bees into the Positions section? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      Answering my own question, yes there is! Here: . It's a news story from a TV station, covering the day of the March, and emphasizing the position that the marchers were concerned about the bees. I think we should make it a short entry in the Positions section of the page. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      Yes, and just to respond to a point that was raised earlier, we do not need a peer-reviewed source in a situation like this. We are writing about a protest, and news stories are sufficient as sourcing for any aspect of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Trytofish, unless she was looking for seed corn, sugar beets, etc. she was not going to farmer's markets looking for non-GMO food--that besides the fact that she would not know for sure if they were in a loaf of bread or jar of jam she might buy anyway, since it is not on the label. People go to farmer's markets to find fresh organic food produced by local farmers for several reasons, including the belief that buying American is better than buying from foreign producers and that transporting food for thousands of miles adds to needless increases in greenhouse gases. These issues all enter into the protester's basic problems with what some consider a takeover of our democracy by mega corporations. There used to be hundreds of small seed companies, most of them have now been bought out by Monsanto. It seems that some editors want to dwell only on the fact that science disputes the idea that GM foods are harmful (I tend to agree with the scientific stance), because we can then call them a bunch of fools, but the Monsanto problem goes far beyond that. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yes, thanks, I understand better now. I increasingly think it gets difficult for us to try to say what she was thinking. I went and looked again at the two sources at the end of that sentence. The first source, from the Salt Lake City News, goes into a lot of detail about Canal said were her motivations, and I think that the sentence probably paraphrases that pretty well. The second source, from the NY Daily News, does not really have anything to do with that sentence. It's mostly about celebrities criticizing Monsanto and GMOs and not really about them commenting on the March, and a brief part about Canal at the end doesn't amount to much. So – let me make a "modest proposal": let's just delete that sentence entirely. I don't want to do that without discussion, because I don't want it to be seen as removing the protesters' point of view. But it summarizes three things: the failure of Prop 37 (about which the section already has the first paragraph), the cost of buying the food she wanted (already covered in the quote directly before), and the concerns about her children (covered in the following sentence, where she is quoted about cereals) – and all three things are already discussed in the section. This one sentence is really just a summary sentence, and it's redundant with everything else in that section. Given how difficult we are finding it to paraphrase successfully, why not just delete it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    Is there any interest in deleting that sentence, or have we moved on? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    No. Quite frankly newspapers have never been acceptable for medical or scientific claims. There is nothing new there, consult the standard wikiprojects and ask them, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I hope I'm reading your indent correctly: I think you are saying "no" about that source about the bees. I agree with you with respect to saying in Misplaced Pages's voice that GMOs kill bees. However, please take a look at the edit I made to the positions section, where the opinion is attributed to a protester. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's fine, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    It is now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Bees

    I think we can take it that everyone here is 'pro-bee'. It is also true that Canal did make a statement about bees in connection with the march against Monsanto. The problem is how, if at all, should we include her statement in this article. In my opinion the statement is somewhat misguided, for the reasons listed below, and therefore cannot be stated here without context or comment.

    • There is no clear evidence that neonicatinoids are connected to the decline in bee population although precautionary measures have been taken in the EU and likely soon will be in the US.
    • These compounds generally have beneficial ecological characteristics.
    • Monsanto were not the originators of the suspected compounds
    • I have not seen evidence that Monsanto are one of the major manufacturers or distributors of these insecticides
    • The main pressure to continue their use is coming from the farmers rather than the manufacturers.

    All the above points are, to some degree, debatable but overall it is hard to see any logical rationale for linking Monsanto to the decline in bee population and thus Canal's words must be regarded as fringe and unfair. This fact must be clearly indicated in the article if we are to include her quotation. We are under no obligation to report every word that Canal said in relation to the march and, in my opinion, the simplest solution would be to omit this comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    So it is now all down to GM crops killing the bees. Who cares, so long as it is Monsanto's fault. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC) You can read what Misplaced Pages says about the subject here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    I've been on airplanes all day today, so I'll come back to discuss this more tomorrow, but I figure that I'll let you know that I intend to discuss it some more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm back, and I'm now ready to disagree with you. Every one of your bullet points seems to me to be scientifically and logically correct. And as I've said earlier, it doesn't add much to dwell on what Canal said about it before the March, because it really wasn't a major part of what I see her being quoted as saying. But it was a part of the marchers' positions, and I was disappointed that you reverted my addition of what marchers, not Canal herself, said during the March. All of the science that you quote is true, but it has ZERO bearing on whether or not the marchers said what they said, and there was a secondary source that placed a primary emphasis on bees in their coverage of the march that was in Utah. Looking back, what I did wrong in my edit was that I didn't provide a balancing link to where Misplaced Pages tells the mainstream view about GMOs and bees. But you just made it easy for me by providing the link to the colony collapse page. I'm going to make a new edit now, to try to put that, as well, in balance. But I see no good reason to try to leave out what the marchers said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    That is exactly the kind of source that I feared editors would try to add to this article. Monsanto is not mentioned at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    I can't access the Time article either, but aren't we again falling into the trap of treating this as an article about the controversy and not an an article about the march? Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Not at all, but we must present a balanced view based on mainstream science. We must not state directly or indirectly that Monsanto are in any way responsible for the decline of the bee population when there is no justification for this.
    We could state that the marchers blamed Monsanto for killing the bees but, if we do, we are obliged to state the generally accepted fact that there is no justification for this claim. I would be willing to word something on that basis but the problem would then be that other editors would find crazy claims published by unreliable sources and add them to the article. We have an article on Colony_collapse_disorder and Monsanto is not mentioned. The marchers' claim is so absurd that it is easier just to ignore it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    The issue with the decline of bees is that no one knows why the bee populations are declining. Some have argued that from the precautionary principle neonicotinoids should be banned (this is being done in Europe afaik for a trial period). I haven't looked at the specifics of this Times article, but these sorts of popular press articles aren't what you use for science coverage on wikipedia. This goes off the topic of the march, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    But that gets us back to the central problem, which is a tendency to treat this article as about a controversy, when it is about a movement caused by that controversy. The end result has been a tendency to cut back on material that is necessary concerning the march, its motivation, out of a misguided effort to treat this as an article about the underlying controversy. (My edit summary said "movement," when I meant "controversy") Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Core, that has been said again and again on these talk pages, but it has been ignored. @ Canoe, the CCD article (unlike this one which about a march) is largely about science. The opinion that you are proposing re Roundup will not be acceptable for that article unless you can produce several peer reviewed studies to back it up. We can discuss it at that talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    How do we know that the Time article doesn't mention the march? This bee professor seems to think Monsanto could be the cause. He may be in the Time article as well. If that is the case then we could finally include his input in the CCD article where many editors seem to be trying to keep him out. He is also notable enough for his own article, I would think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    So it is not neonicotinoids or GM crops now but Roundup. This gives me the the strong impression that some people are motivated more by a dislike of Monsanto that by reality. Just think of everything that Monsanto does, or maybe even does not do, and then use it to blame Monsanto for some random bad thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    There is a whole list of possible causes in the CCD article. Sources have Roundup as one of many. To not list it as a possible cause is not fair to our readers. I am not sure what you mean by 'random' bad thing. This discussion should actually be happening in the CCD talk as well as Prof. Ingram's article when someone creates it. I would except my previous article creations seem to be put in AfD within hours of creation which I find rather frustrating. I may bring it up at the bug science projects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Let's go with an article written about the March and use what it says about bees, refencing Harvard: from City Weekly article about Canal: "The company’s use of neonicotinoid pesticides on its crops has been challenged by numerous studies—including researchers with the Harvard School of Public Health—who argue that the pesticides imperil bee populations, which, in the long term, could jeopardize the global food supply." This could be used to flush out the minuscule mention of bees in the "issues" section. I am assuming that good deal of protesters supported this as an issue, given so many marchers are pictured in bee costumes. Right now the mention minimizes the issue by saying one protester thought we should fight for bees since he lives in the bee state, or something like that. Also, someone keeps removing the image showing protesters in bee costumes, replacing it with a very poor quality, grey, grainy image, which is against guidelines and verging on vandalism, IMO. petrarchan47tc 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    Go to RSN, they will confirm that "cityweekly" isn't reliable for making scientific claims of this sort, which is what you appear to be proposing if you want to make claims about "numerous studies", IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    My suggestion to everyone who went from here to comment at RSN is that you are less likely to get help from uninvolved editors if the discussion from here just gets transposed to there. Anyway, I did add back some bee material, if anyone wants to take a look at the Positions section where I added it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    You additions seem fine to me. They talk of claimed problems and link to a section of an article where these claims shown not to be supported by any peer reviewed research. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks! That's exactly the approach that I want to aim for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If we had an award for Facepalm of the Year, I would give it to this edit summary: , which I have reverted. It now appears that if there is not enough information on the page about what the protesters have said, some editors complain that we are trying to make the protesters look bad. And if someone adds what the protesters have said, directly quoted and reliably sourced, some editors complain that we are trying to make the protesters look bad. I want to make something very, very clear: the reason that sentence was added to the page was to present more content about the March itself, reflecting reliably sourced material about the March itself, in order that the page not be slanted towards criticism of the marchers or of their beliefs. The idea that it was motivated by a desire to make the marchers look "loony" is entirely a figment of the reverting editor's imagination. If anyone believes that the marcher who said that sounded wrong in any way, please take it up with that marcher, not here. Wow!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

    Media coverage paragraph

    But I would have no objection to anyone taking a look at the last paragraph of the Media coverage section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

    No problem, I have deleted it. There is no reason that we should state what Alternet, a 'progressive/liberal activist news service', thinks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yep, it is a political activist news service, I would not consider any of such generally reliable no matter the political sides they represent. IRWolfie- (talk)
    Thanks for that! I agree entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    You agree! But what is important are the guidelines:

    Biased or opinionated sources

    Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

    Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

    Let's go with guidelines not the opinions of Wiki editors. Seems like there is a lack of building the article but a focus on tearing it apart. petrarchan47tc 00:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    WP policy requires us to present a neutral point of view. Giving the opinion of one political activist source does not do this. The conspiracy theory suggested by the source is on a par with the moon landing conspiracy theories (I am perfectly willing to discuss and justify that comment with anyone) and therefore so must not be repeated in WP without independent authoritative reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    We don't just stick in activist sources for no reason at all. The onus is on you to provide a justification. Just because we can use unreliable biased sources doesn't mean we should. I like how it is exaggerating the attendance figures even further by claiming over 2 million people attended. A source claiming " mainstream coverage has trickled in here and there, but has been sparse" flies in the face of the fact that this article has been kept at AfD purely because of the amount of mainstream coverage. This is what leaves me confused, the very sources you guys want to include say there wasn't significant coverage in mainstream sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    That is a misrepresentation of why your last AfD failed. MAM was both a large global event and barely covered by corporate media. But I get the feeling you have a certain position on this and other "anti Monsanto" issues that isn't swayed by facts. petrarchan47tc 17:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    "barely covered by corporate media". Perhaps you might want to read the keep comments at the AfD. They claim "significant attention and coverage", a "well-reported international event", and they say WP:GNG has been met (i.e significant coverage in reliable sources). Yet here you are saying it has not received much attention in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    The passage relates to the "live" coverage of the event by the media--or lack thereof, to be precise. That would seem to be significant as it appears to be incongruent in light of the globalized scope and other characteristics of the event.
    There is nothing unduly self-promotional or the like in the passage, which is purely factual and easily checked. In light of that, it would seem to me that those labeling it an "activist source" are claiming the source is unreliable because they don't like it, and should bear the burden of seeking to have it disqualified. There appears to be nothing prima facie "unreliable" about it.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 11:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ubikwit, actually the coverage was pretty scanty. AP ran a story that a few outlets picked up on and a very few covered it on their own, but all in all the march rec'd little attention. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I undertand that, and was under the impression that the significance of the following passage was primarily to be found in the portion I've bolded as it relates to the portion I've italicized

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

    --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 14:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I see it now--I was not reading as closely as I should. Thanks for pointing it out. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    It seems to me that what the Alternet source does is add only the issue of live coverage. There are plenty of news events that get coverage in the mainstream news media, but that do not get live coverage. It's unclear to me that there is really a reason for Misplaced Pages to give weight to the opinion that coverage of the March was so important that it needed to be live while the March was ongoing. On the other hand, maybe a compromise approach would be to have a short sentence or part of a sentence, focusing only on the "live" point, without making a big issue of the claim that the non-live coverage was so unfair. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    It seems to me that the edit Martin just made accomplishes just that. Thanks. Now the Alternet source is back in there, and the text communicates the point that there was no live coverage, but it does so without becoming a talking point for a POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    I have posted a query to WP:RS/N#In March against Monsanto. Alexbrn 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    By all means go ahead with that but there really is no need. If all we want to do is state the degree of media coverage, we should just do so, I am sure there are plenty of sources we could used.
    The problem with the disputed quote is that it appears to support the crazy conspiracy theory that Monsanto somehow censored media coverage. That is a different thing altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Thanks for doing that. I think it's very helpful to ask for additional opinions about content here, using the mechanisms that Misplaced Pages has in place, and we should be doing more of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune

    I have removed a sentence on this local newspaper. The march was a global affair and the opinion of one local newspaper on the level of media coverage is WP:undue weight. There must be many opinions on Monsanto and GM crops expressed around the world, some for, some against. Why pick this particular one? Only because it seems to support a crazy conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    Please see the edit summary of my subsequent edit, in which I added it back in shorter form as part of another sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    A sentence in the Background

    A few days ago, there was a lot of disagreement in this talk about the sentence in the California Prop. 37 section that says: "Canal said that she was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced non-GMO food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children." I suggested here that we might want to simply delete that sentence, and I explained that everything in the sentence repeats content that is already covered in the same section. I also said that I wouldn't want to do the deletion without discussion, because it might be seen as deleting content about Canal's views. The issue seems to have gotten lost in subsequent discussion, so I'm re-raising it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    User:Gandydancer, I don't know whether or not you read what I said here, but thank you for making the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

    One encyclopedic section now.

    The 'Positions' section now reads in a neutral encyclopedic manner, fully stating the marchers' motives. Now we need to write the rest like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    I disagree.
    There is actually a good case to be made that, for the article to ultimately be in good, encyclopedic shape, we need to get that section out of a bullet-point format, and into regular paragraphs of text. After all, the Monsanto and industry response section is written in normal paragraphs, and a well-balanced page would really need to do so for the marchers' positions as well, especially since the March is the main subject of the page. Viriditas said that before his block, and at the time I agreed with him. Robert subsequently pointed out in talk that we need to have more sources to properly expand the bullet points into paragraph text, and that, too, is a valid point. That's a good reason why I disagree with you about where you reverted my adding of a sentence about what a marcher said about the bees, because we can now at least start down the path of making the Positions section better by improving some of the bullet points from one sentence each, to two. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I was referring to the content rather than the presentation style. I would be quite happy to rewrite it in plain prose if no one objects.
    If we expand the points we are then faced with a problem though. We have to make sure that we expand in a proper way giving the correct weight to the mainstream scientific position for every point. This would bring us back to a confrontational style of writing, which many people are trying to avoid. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Does anyone object if I rewrite the 'Positions' section in plain prose with no change to content?

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 20:55, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

    No problem that is exactly what I was proposing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have done it. It is pretty well just the original words with all the original refs made into sentences. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks! I've made some copyedits, not particularly major. I'm pleased to see that we now have a very reasonable balance, in terms of weight on the page, between the positions of the marchers and the industry response. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

    Questioning the "scientific consensus"

    It is important to note the closing statement of the RfC at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus", establishing that, on Misplaced Pages, the editorial consensus is that this is the scientific consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

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

    I am afraid that Misplaced Pages is pushing a line that may be out of step with global consensus - which is that there is no consensus. From the Canadian paper The Globe and Mail, "many industry experts believe genetically modified crops negatively affect our health".

    From Fox: GMOs have only been on the market since 1995, but they’ve recently sparked a national debate over the potential impact they could have on the environment – and our health. Dr. Michael Wald, of Integrated Medicine of Mount Kisco in New York, said more research needs to be done in order to prove that genetically engineered foods are safe to eat. “The studies that have been done on different animals – and also reports from farmers – seem to suggest health issues, including intestinal problems, inflammation of the colon…and problems with the kidneys, the liver, the lungs,” Wald said.

    From AgWeek " Most studies show GMO foods are safe for human consumption, though it is widely acknowledged that the long-term health effects are unknown." (Our reader is given the idea there is no question and that the protesters are quite full of it).

    There is a further problem that should bother any scientist working on this article, when we quote consensus, is it coming from truly independent scientists, or should we specify to the reader where these studies originated? From Food Science News: "Anyone who buys GM seeds is required to sign a technology stewardship agreement that says, in part, that they cannot perform research on the seed. Without express permission from the biotech patent-holder, scientists and farmers risk facing lawsuits for conducting any studies. “Any study you want to do with these engineered crops, you need to get the company’s permission,” Hansen said. “Could you imagine if tobacco research was only done when the tobacco companies had the final say?”

    From US News (Opinion) Potential harms to human health have been identified by the World Health Organization as including direct health effects (toxicity), tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), specific components with toxic properties, the stability of the inserted gene, nutritional impact and any unintended effects that could result from genetic modification. Harm to the environment has already been documented with the development of "superweeds" that are resistant to the herbicides embedded in the GM crops. Several incidents involving contamination of non-GM crops have also occurred, which were further exacerbated by the fact that these GM seeds are not labeled or segregated in the food supply chain.

    From the American Academy of Environmental Medicine: Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3 Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.

    From Grist regulation of the safety of GM food is virtually nil, and research is scant and largely industry-funded. In a 2010 paper PDF in the journal Food Policy, researchers looked at all the papers on the health and nutritional effects of GM foods published in English between 1996 and 2009. Of the 94 studies they identified — not a large number, given the surge of GMOs into our diets over that period — 80 delivered “favorable” conclusions about the novel foods, while 10 had “negative” views and two were neutral. That sounds at first glance like a positive near-consensus around GMOs. But then the researchers dug deeper and looked for industry ties. In 44 of the 94 total papers, one or more of the researchers had a financial or professional tie to the agrichemical industry. Of those 44, 43 had “positive” conclusions and one turned out “negative.” Meanwhile, 37 of the studies were done by independent researchers. Of those, 27 came back positive, eight came back “negative,” and two were “neutral.” In other words, near-complete consensus reigns among industry-linked scientists as to the safety of GM foods. But among independent scientists, the issue is much more contested.

    This calls Misplaced Pages's GMO "scientific consensus" into question, and highlights a need for more context about the science. Our readers deserve this. petrarchan47tc 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    • As has already been explained to you and should be bloody well self evident, newspapers are not reliable for controversial science since they have a history of misrepresentation on nearly every science topic. If you were to judge climate change from cherry picked newspapers you'd think we weren't experiencing global warming, or if you were to read about vaccines you'd think we were all about to drop dead, if you were to read about diets you'd rush out to try the latest one etc etc. Go look at some science articles on wikipedia and tell me how many newspaper articles you see in the good ones. And picking the Anti-water flouridation, anti-vaccination AAEM is a complete joke (or did you not read about them before cherry picking what they say?). The largest general society of scientists in the world, the AAAS, says the consensus is that it's safe, that's good enough for wikipedia. If you want to know what the WHO thinks, get it from the horses mouth: : "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods." Do you seriously learn what you "know" about science through newspapers? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    The AAAS statement is not "good enough for wikipedia", especially when higher-quality peer-reviewed sources are available. As Michele Simon has written, that statement you continue to quote comes from the AAAS Board of Directors, acting in response to a political issue. It cannot be construed as a referendum of the world's scientists. For you to continue representing it as such is (a) original research, (b) incorrect, and (c) dishonest, given information you have seen to the contrary. It's very hard for me to assume your good faith under these circumstances. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I can't see what good it's going to do to bring the "scientific consensus" argument to this talk page about a protest and I'd like to see the author of it collapse this discussion. While most people are not aware that chemical-related industry does its own research and then governmental agencies base their policies on that research, this is not the place to conduct an argument about the chemicals that are legally being introduced into our bodies and into the environment. As has been said time and again, lets stick to a discussion about the protest and leave the "scientific consensus" arguments for other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    I second all of Gandy's comments (with proviso that some summary statement is probably necessary). DanHobley (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's fine if people don't want to have the "scientific consensus" discussion here, but then at the same time we should not include a questionable statement about scientific consensus within the article. The "scientific consensus" claim is heavily contested at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, so it's not appropriate to include it here without discussion. Considers how strenuously some editors have objected to sources that don't explicitly address the March. Why, then, do these editors feel comfortable including the "broad scientific consensus" sources, which were mostly crafted for political reasons in advance of California's Proposition 37 vote? (I have presented a lengthy argument that these sources do not support the claim being made.) How can IRWolfie reject petrachan's sources as unscientific, when they themselves favor these (non-peer reviewed) institutional statements over literature reviews published in scientific journals? How can they promote an undated, authorless section of the WHO website (which, from context, seems not to be more recent than 2007) as more reliable than recent journalistic sources? The double standards are clear. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Are you kidding? Of course the WHO is more reliable than newspapers. Newspapers are garbage for science reporting, and that is hardly new or a startling revelation. Newspapers are not reliable for controversial statements about science. To draw a comparison, see Scientific opinion on climate change where institutional statements are exactly what they note. The AAS institutions represent tens of thousands of scientists. And Petrar herself picked an institution in here list, it just happens to be one with no scientific respectability at all and is anti-vax anti-flouridation and promotes bogus science. And can you please stop promoting your unqualified original research, it was rejected then and its rejected now, cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    @IRWolfie, I would suggest you stop trashing sources and focus on article improvement. IMHO your own opinion is reflected far too much in this field. An RS is an RS. Your opinion of those RS is not valid, nor improving the articles. Focusing on one field related to your opinions will have you labeled as an SPA very quickly. This may cause your input to be ignored altogether. We go with what RS states, not your opinion of RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    IRWolfie is not trashing sources and he has just as much right to his opinion as you do. I will say again, this discussion belongs on the GMO controversy page, not here on this protest movement page. It is hard for me to understand why editors do not seem to understand that just because they do not agree with the present position of every major body of science that speaks to the question of whether or not GMOs adversely affect health, they, un-named Misplaced Pages editors, should have the authority to adjust WP articles to suit their beliefs. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agree. This discussion is out-of-order here, and after the RfC on the GMO Controversy page attempts to replay that discussion in other forums begins to feel a bit disruptive. Alexbrn 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have ten thousand more edits than you Canoe, nearly all unrelated to this topic area. Are you seriously going to argue I am a SPA? A cursory glance at my contributions would make it obvious that I'm not a SPA. And no "An RS is an RS" is not true. Reliability is and always has been dependent on the context, see Misplaced Pages:RS#Context_matters, see WP:MEDRS etc etc, read WP:NEWSORG "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context ... Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.". Basically, go to WT:RS and tell them "an RS is an RS" and tell me how far you get, because it is just not the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with numerous editors above who have expressed the view that this talk thread is simply rehashing earlier talk threads in the hope of getting a different result, even though there is no new information and no change of consensus. That said, I will stipulate to the fact that the scientific consensus is not the same thing as the political consensus, the cultural consensus, or the societal consensus; indeed, science may be finding itself at odds with all of those. But Misplaced Pages is within days of having an editorial consensus about what we should report as the scientific consensus, at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus". Someone said above that the discussion there is very contested. That is only true to the extent that a small number of editors who do not have consensus feel strongly that the consensus is wrong. But the overall direction of the discussion there is unmistakable to an objective observer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    If there is more than one consensus then why is only the un-quantified scientific consensus included in our articles. The EU seems to have a legal consensus, the above trashed newspaper polls seem to have a social consensus, and the Vatican may even have a religious consensus. To only include one consensus is POV. This reminds me of the scientists arguing with the romanticists. Love cannot exist because we can't measure it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Wow. Just wow, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Or, to put it another way than IRWolfie did, I'm very much in favor of this page reflecting the fact that the protesters and others express the views that they express, but we should not present those views as being science. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    That is my view too. This is simply not the place to discuss the controversy itself. Those who want to argue the toss should do so at Genetically_modified_food_controversies where there are probably people who actually know something about the subject. Our 'scientific consensus' should be based on what is written there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Why is scientific consensus even mentioned in this article then? If we wish to include that consensus then the others should be included as well. Anything else would be POV of science and not the protestors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    You must be joking. When it comes to questions of scientific questions, the scientific consensus is what matters. If you want to consult the religious or social consensus about health issues that's your own issue, but there is no reason why it would have weight in a scientific question. This is a serious encyclopaedia, and serious encyclopaedias aim to summarise and respect the scientific consensus on scientific questions, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Most scientists don't even know which needle points south on a compass. Only electricians and pilots need to know that. This article is not about a scientific consensus. It is about a social and political consensus. If we sourced a bishop in the march then we could probably include a religious consensus as well. Since we didn't source any scientists as protesters then we shouldn't be including their POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    The compass points to ending this discussion thread. There's no need for endless debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm off the grid right now Tryptofish, but strongly concur with both your last two comments. DanHobley (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More Monsanto censorship

    Why are we edit warring of the media coverage now? If mainstream press is claimed to be censored by Monsanto then we should reflect that here. Not be guilty of the some whitewashing and censorship.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    There is a section where this was discussed, use it. Stop opening new sections willy nilly on an already bloated talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    The opening post of this thread asserts that editors are acting on Monsanto's behalf to censor what Misplaced Pages says. If that assertion is made again by Canoe1967 on this talk page without evidence, I will bring that editor to WP:ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Canoe, you make a rather strange assertion, that the mainstream press is claimed to be censored by Monsanto. There have indeed been such claims, but only local TV stations and newspapers. On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence that any censorship has actually occurred and it is very hard to see how such censorship could be possible, thus any mention of it would require solid evidence.
    So, yes, there are sources that claim there was Monsanto conspiracy to suppress media coverage but that does not mean that we should mention them here. It would be akin to saying in the Moon article that some sources had claimed that there was WWII bomber on the moon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    If mainstream media didn't cover it well and a smaller media outlet reports this as a blatant lack of coverage then that is noteworthy. If we don't include it here then we are just as guilty as mainstream media for trying to censor and/or whitewash Misplaced Pages. This article is about a protest. Protests like media and Misplaced Pages attention. If there is an obvious lack of attention in Misplaced Pages then we could be considered as part of the problem and not part of the solution. I am not saying that editors are acting on Monsanto's behalf but readers may see this differently if we don't provide them with complete coverage. This may have been discussed on the talk page before but I didn't see mention of a talk page consensus in the edit summary. We could take it to RfC or other drama boards but they will probably end up as endless discussion going nowhere as they have before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    There actually is no agreement as to whether mainstream media did or did not cover the march well. In the AfD discussion the claim was made that the march was notable because it was well covered yet those same editors want to say here that it was poorly covered. I have absolutely no problem in sayinq that the march was well or poorly covered (whichever we decide is correct) but I strongly object to the insinuation that there was a Monsanto conspiracy. At the moment we refer to a 'concern'. What on Earth is that meant to mean? Either it is utterly meaningless waffle or it is an insinuation of something sinister. Either way we cannot say it if our aim is to write a serious encyclopedia. Please will someone remove this nonsense. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Aren't you simply conflating the time frames of the coverage being addressed in the various statements?--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 19:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    I really do not know, but it is far from clear to me what the news coverage was. However I a have no strong objection to stating exactly how strong, or weak, the media coverage was at various times, although I find it hard to see any encyclopedic value in this information. What I strongly object to is giving any credibility whatsoever to the conspiracy theory that Monsanto orchestrated a worldwide media blackout. 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Hands up, anybody who thinks canoe's links are reliable and suitable sources for our use? Roxy the dog (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    These sources are utterly unreliable, and Canoe should know better. I always find the sources people show give a little insight into the garbage they read. For example, the first source has an article saying you can get rid of cancer by not eating refined sugar. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    What on earth does this have to do with this article? This is a discussion talk page for article content ... IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Those refs are entirely unreliable. I am excited about the sugar thing though. Heh. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Can we first be clear what we are talking about

    Canoe, what you are asking us all to is to add to Misplaced Pages text that says that there was a conspiracy by Monsanto to prevent media reporting of this march. Is that correct?

    Your links say, 'Corporate Media Blackout of Anti-Monsanto Protests Exposed', 'Media Coverage Blackout Over Anti-Monsanto Protests', 'A Total Censorship Blackout by Corporate Media News on the March Against Monsanto as Millions March Worldwide'.

    Regarding Roxy's poll my hands stay firmly down. This is moon landing conspiracy material. The links are not the least bit reliable. Since when was YouTube an reliable source? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    This site should be reliable. It was win two webby awards for news. How can anyone expect the major news sites to actually report that they failed to cover the story adequately. YouTube is a fine source if it isn't a copyright violation and published by the true authors. In the case above it is.Monsanto accused of having propaganda accounts on the internet. Monsanto accused of dirty tricks. Corporate censorship of any independent studies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    I tried to follow the links. There may be something wrong with them, but I didn't see any confirmation that we should state that Monsanto was censoring the media. I think that the argument that Monsanto has been suppressing coverage of the protests is nonsense. Of course Monsanto is doing what any corporation does, and that is spinning the news, but I see no evidence that they are censoring it. The fact that they are providing their own spin is simply a matter of the corporate response. The arguments about censorship or a conspiracy are wasting our time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    Seriously, what on earth does this have to do with this article? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    Categories: