Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 8 June 2013 (→Message for DGG: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. –Dhammapada (1:5)

Message for Buster7

User:Buster7, thank you for helping Petrarchan47. Your kindness and support will not be forgotten. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Her determination is exemplary. And I understand getting so wound-up in my WikiWorld that it effects my Real World health. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  User:Buster7, I have found an obsolete spelling on your use page. Search for the word "develope" under the "WikiWorld Membership Statement" section. The "e" was dropped a century ago. Are you the Comte de Saint Germain? :) Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  I am discovered. Actually, I am Count Jean de Tromp, son of Bart van Brugge. I would be in your debt should you choose to refrain from declaring this news in the public square. TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• BTW...This is an ingenious, engenious great way of using the new notification program to discreetly contact another editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Thargor Orlando

Right now, we have a bit of an undue weight situation where Thom Hartmann's claim that the media ignored the protest is the key point in the section, but does not reflect the coverage given by the mainstream press, especially in the United States. Has anyone found a counterbalance to this?

User:Thargor Orlando, that's not we use the term "undue weight". The claim that the media ignored the protest is properly attributed to Thom Hartmann. There is no "undue weight situation", nor do we require a counterbalance to any claim to provide NPOV; that's a common mistake. Further, your comment that Hartmann's claim "does not reflect the coverage given by the mainstream press" makes absolutely no sense. Why and how would Hartmann's claim that the media failed to cover the protests be reflected by the media that failed to cover the protests?? If the media didn't cover the extensive protests, then their lack of coverage demonstrates his point! And if you took a moment out of your day to do the most basic of research, you would discover that newspapers throughout the U.S. have published letters from their readers asking why their papers didn't cover their local protests. You aren't actually commenting about something WP:BEFORE doing the research are you? Please take a moment to actually review the NPOV policy and look at the strange claims you are making. Hartmann is a mainstream source, and his radio show is broadcast around the world in 100 countries. And as a matter of fact, Hartmann's claim was echoed by the mainstream media, you just have failed to do the necessary research. Joseph Bachman wrote a 600-word story in his bi-monthly column for the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune covering the same points as Hartmann. There are many more. To summarize, there is no undue weight situation here and Hartmann's material is used appropriately. If you are going to complain about the NPOV policy and our sources, at the very least, learn how we use NPOV and try to find out what the sources actually say on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect. We are not at all required to give publicity to fringe theories or false claims. We should remove the Hartmann claim based on factual inaccuracy alone, but I'm trying to find a compromise. There is heavy evidence of news coverage throughout. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And you are completely wrong. We are required to write articles about our topics using the best sources on the subject, representing the most prominent views. Hartmann is a notable and prominent source, and as editors we don't remove any claims we personally feel are "factually incorrect", we represent those claims using good sources. Your interpretation of NPOV is wrong. There are no fringe theories or fringe claims in the above statement, nor does this topic cover any fringe theories or claims. Further, your misapplication of our guideline on fringe theories does not take precedence or supplant our policies on verifiability and NPOV. Your personal, pet theories on GMO belong to you, and you need to stop letting your personal beliefs interfere with this subject. What you consider "factually incorrect" should be kept to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for DGG

I think there's sufficient new coverage to justify an article. But the article should be about the protest as such, not about genetically modified foods. Our articles on he subject provide enough coverage. With that done, the article need carry no fringe label &there is no need to consider whether the opposition to genetically modified foods is fringe.

User:DGG, I really don't understand your comment. How could a protest against GMOs ("March Against Monsanto") not cover information about GMOs from both a background perspective (reasons for the protest) and in a description of the platform of issues under protest? I have used Zotero to collect all of the sources on this subject so I am quite familiar with what the sources say and the issues under discussion. Exactly what part of this article is considered "fringe" under our Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories guideline? I can see no part that is covered by it, and the overzealous editors who are repeatedly adding the fringe tag either don't understand how we use the tag or are deliberately using it in a disruptive manner. The labeling of GMO's is not a "fringe" topic. A discussion about the safety risks of GMO's is not a "fringe" topic. And an article about a protest against Monsanto is not a "fringe" topic. There is nothing "fringe" here at all, and we cite reliable secondary sources about the protests and the primary claims by the protesters per policy; none of these things require a "fringe" tag of any kind. What we have here is a deliberate case of intentional disruption by User:IRWolfie- and others, who appear to be violating multiple policies and guidelines in order to push their pro-GMO POV. Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination. These questions form the basis for the entire protest movement against Monsanto, a company which has a long, sordid history of lying to the pubic about their products and for lobbying and colluding with government regulatory agencies to thwart public policy. There is nothing "fringe" here at all, this is documented historical fact, supported by thousands of reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The background is covered adequately by a link to our article on them, possibly with the mention of specific Monsanto products and links to the articles on them. As for fringe, in the discussion, people argued over whether the topic of whether the harmfulness of GMO was fringe. I wouldn't call it that myself, but my point was that the refocussing of the article would avoid the entire issue. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:DGG, we are talking about a different kind of background. The background I am referring to is about the protests themselves and their platform. This includes the following:

1. Monsanto must meet consumer demand for health, safety, and labeling of GMO products. Protesters are concerned with the unknown side effects of GMO foods, pesticide use, and control of the food supply by a single corporation who is actively lobbying against labeling laws to prevent consumer choice in the marketplace.
2. Protesters demand that governments recognize reputable mainstream surveys that show that more than 90% of consumers support labeling laws and that democratic governments act on the will of the electorate
3. Protesters are concerned that political lobbying by Monsanto threatens democratic institutions and regulatory bodies who are tasked with protecting public health by the electorate
4. Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false. According to protesters, Monsanto's products have a history of human and ecological disaster, involving omission, fraud, evasion, and pollution. Based on this history, protesters question Monsanto's claims about GMO safety, and protesters have asked for evidence proving Monsanto's products are safe. To date, protesters observe that there are no long term human studies demonstrating GMO safety, nor has any regulatory agency asked for one.
5. Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. This includes unelected appointees like, Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto executive now at the FDA. Protesters want the revolving door to close; Monsanto executives and consultants who leave Monsanto to work for the EPA, FDA, and the USDA, often create regulatory policies that benefit Monsanto and harm consumer choice and food safety.
6. Protesters want governments to stop protecting Monsanto with legislation like the Monsanto Protection Act against the will of the electorate. Protesters want government to protect its citizens and act as a watchdog, not protect corporations and limit their liability. If Monsanto believes their GMOs are safe, shouldn't they stand behind their product with confidence?
7. Protesters want all governments to focus their efforts on sustainable agriculture, and to lessen their reliance on conventional agriculture and GMOs

DGG, none of these issues are "fringe" in any way, shape or form. They are the essential, core issues targeted by the protesters, and they must be covered in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to cover the GMO science, the article will have to state that the scientific consensus is one of safety for GMO foods. I don't see any evidence that you want that, instead pushing a fringe theory regarding the claims of the protesters as fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "GMO science" in the above, there is simply good source coverage of the reasons behind the protests and the article must cover them. Your claim that I am "pushing a fringe theory regarding the claims of the protesters as fact" demonstrates that you still don't understand how we write Misplaced Pages articles. The claims of the protesters are considered verifiable facts, and we cover these facts with good reliable sources. You are totally confused. Do you even know which website you are editing? This isn't monsanto.com. Your interpretation of a guideline on "fringe" theories does not supersede our policies on verifiability and NPOV. Finally, your edit here is evidence of deliberate disruption. There is nothing on the talk page or in the current article indicating anything "fringe" of any kind. I'm looking forward to bringing your edits to the attention of the wider community for closer scrutiny and analysis as it appears that you are waging a campaign of intentional disruption. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are blocked for edit warring, and you are sitting on your talk page trying to argue with people with your unreliable sources and while accusing them of being shills, meanwhile you are trying to direct people the way who agree with your POV. And you are talking about campaigns? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Message for Nightphoenix90

User:Nightphoenix90, you recently added Category:Flora of North America to plants found in the U.S. state of Hawaii. However, Hawaii is not geographically located on the North American continent nor do the majority of its flora originate from that continent. On the other hand, Hawaii is a political entity that is part of the United States, the majority of which is found in North America. Until 2011, our Misplaced Pages article on North America made this clear. However, in June 2011, an editor by the name of User:Northamerica1000 confused this issue by adding Hawaii to a section on the Geology of North America without sources. Please notice, that unlike this editor, our main article on the Geology of North America does not include Hawaii. More to the point, according to Dieter Mueller-Dombois, the majority of tropical vascular plants in Hawaii are Indo-Malayan and temperate plants are Australian, not North American. Mueller-Dombois writes that "the most successful invasions came from the southwest in spite of the greater distance to major landmasses in that direction". In other words, most plants in Hawaii did not come from North America. Because Hawaii is not part of the geographical region known as the North American continent and because the majority of its flora do not originate from that continent, please revert your addition of Category:Flora of North America to all Hawaii-related flora. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation requested

Need de:Dieter Mueller-Dombois translated into English and created at Dieter Mueller-Dombois. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)