Misplaced Pages

Not answering my question. Why does it need review articles in the field to establish noteworthiness as to its existence and basic content in the context of Controversies? --Tsavage (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Famous person X who knows a lot about A says strident, ignorant things about B. It will never effect the actual field of B. That is why we use reviews/major statements, not popular press. If you want to make a claim that what he wrote is relevant to B, please bring a review from the field of B discussing it. This is not a video game article. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Still no answer. Expert in A publishes an Analysis of Field B within the framework of A. The Analysis receives significant popular media coverage. That should be sufficient for noteworthiness as to its existence. If there is insufficient reliable secondary source coverage, that's an argument against inclusion. Otherwise, where does a requirement for reviews from Field B come in (I assume you are referring to WP:PAG)? Under WP:WEIGHT, as a view held by a tiny minority, it could be excluded. However, in terms of describing controversies, which include a wide range of issues made relevant only by their popular discussion, this seems like a reasonable candidate (as an example of, from the Controversies section, "the effects on health, the environment"), if the secondary sources are sufficiently widespread. This could also be proposed via the secondary sources. This probably ends up as yet another editor consensus issue. --Tsavage (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've answered you three times. We need secondary sources in the field, not from popular media. This is a science-based argument (from an expert about X writing about Y) - we need to hear from experts in the field of Y to decide if this should have any weight at all. In the former conversation at the Controversies article, in the absence of any secondary sources from the relevant field, we opted to give this zero weight. I have seen no secondary sources from the relevant field that would change that. Let me say this again - this is not an article about video games - this is a science-based article and we use the science-based literature. Your push to base this article on popular media will turn this article into a barnyard - a Gamergate II. We need to keep source quality high. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, you would need to show the article has been picked up in review articles in order to determine its contribution to the scientific debate. If you merely want to claim that the position has attracted notice among the general public, then widespread media coverage would suffice. A brief mention in Business Insider, which does not even explain Taleb's article, is insufficient. The article in fact discusses the tone of tweets sent by him. TFD (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: Thanks for the clarification. I was quite clear on that, the point being the difference between your brief and directly relevant replies, and Jytdog's obfuscating approach (matched, to be sure, by my replies to him). I'm trying to see a way through this overall gridlock... As for Taleb, I'm not sure there is enough secondary coverage that would meet everyone's standards, but there is significant coverage online, mostly tirades against his PP paper, and on pro-GMO-y sites. Some:

• Black Swans, Frankenfoods and Disaster Fairy Tales Bloomberg dedicated editorial
• Is Nassim Taleb Right About Monsanto Company and GMOs? Motley Fool - dedicated column
• Renowned Expert: GMOs Pose More Risk Than We Think Motley Fool - dedicated column
• “Imbeciles” on Twitter Continue to Distract Nassim Taleb Discover dedicated column discussing the PP paper
• Is Nassim Taleb a “dangerous imbecile” or on the pay of anti-GMO activists? Genetic Literacy Project - dedicated column
• Nassim Taleb, The Precautionary Principle, and GMOs Neurologica a blog by Steven Novella, founder of the Science-Based Medicine blog, a popular source in some circles here - dedicated column
• Nassim Taleb And Josh Barro Went At It On Twitter And Things Got Unpleasant Business Insider - dedicated column (covering combative Twitter exhange with NY Times reporter concerning PP paper)
• The trouble with the genetically modified future Japan Times - dedicated editorial
• Another ‘Too Big to Fail’ System in G.M.O.s New York Times - op-ed co-authored by Taleb on same GMO-PP core themee

I'm not pushing for inclusion here, I am questioning Jytdog's deletion and subsequent argument, which seems inappropriate for collaborative editing. --Tsavage (talk)

We already have this in article:

• Opponents such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.

Why is the bar so low for inclusion of this content (no source at all), but Taleb is silenced? This type inconsistency in editing at GM articles can be seen as biased. If there is another explanation for it, I haven't figured it out yet. petrarchan47คุก 01:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the edit summaries for the 3 reverts of this content were not helpful. They referenced (loosely) some archive at another page. I'm sure this isn't how summaries are to work. I went looking for the elusive TP section to no avail. Please be kind to fellow editors and don't make things harder and more time consuming than need be. petrarchan47คุก 01:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, those are mostly op-eds which are not considered reliable sources, even when they appear in respected newspapers, except for the opinions of their authors. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source based primarily on secondary sources, which you would need to establish the significance of Taleb's article. TFD (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is sufficient support to establish that the Taleb paper was significantly brought to the public's attention. Among the sources listed, there are five regular columnists from two business news publications (Bloomberg, Motley Fool) and one science (Discover), who discuss and review the paper in fair detail. The publishers are well-established, and since the sources serve only to establish the existence and recognition of the paper, not to draw facts from, they should be reliable for that purpose. The paper itself is a reliable primary source for its title and brief description (for example, based on the abstract). Just one opinion. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, columns are not reliable sources and weight requires coverage in reliable sources in order to establish significance. If you disagree with these two policies then you should argue to change them rather than to make an exception here. If the paper were significant, then there would be actual news stories about it. Journalists would then consult scientists and determine its degree of acceptance which we would then mention in the article. Until they do that, any mention of the article provides it with greater weight than it has in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, if the paper were a significant contribution to the field of risk management of GMOs it would be discussed in secondary sources in the relevant literature - we don't use popular press to judge the WEIGHT to give to science-based matters. Misplaced Pages doesn't respond to science by press release - we ignore it. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The PAGs are generally fine, it's how they are interpreted that can get problematic. Rembember, we're talking about a Controversies section, where it has been argued that a "scientific consensus" statement is necessary to balance all sorts of unscientific claims. Taleb's paper is both well-publicized and controversial, yet somehow our rules can be interpreted to exclude it from Controversies. The columnists cited are journalists, analyzing the paper, much as a film or theater or fashion or automotive or food or health reviewer analyzes products in their field, and they are reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG) for those views.

We have multiple citations supporting hard science facts from an article in the Atlantic: What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food has no citations, just a byline, and prominently incorporates findings from at least one primary source scientific study. Is this the author's opinion on the subject? Has the science been vetted by the Atlantic biotech editors? It seems we interpret PAGs as we wish to suit the desired outcome: include one general media source for hard science information in one place, but require MEDRS-grade sources somewhere else; include a press release because it's from a prestigious organization, and exclude a paper because it has the wrong kind of reliable source coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Taleb brought a novel analysis to GMO risk assessment; so far there it is being ignored in the relevant secondary literature. The stuff from Atlantic is rehashing stuff that is very well documented, like the scientific consensus. You are comparing apples to oranges. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

1. This is not argument for argument's sake, it is in the context of the Controverises section and article that have been vigorously argued for: RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? and Genetically modified food controversies. We have controversy section and article with little to no actual controversies described.

2. "The stuff from Atlantic is rehashing stuff that is very well documented" To the general reader, without benefit of your background understanding, it's a general interest magazine article being used to verify things like the percentage of GM DNA remaining in processed food products. Like I said, PAGs interpreted to fit the outcome. --Tsavage (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

With a little more looking, it turns out we do have academic citations for Taleb's Precautionary Principle paper:

• Fear of principles? A cautious defense of the Precautionary Principle
• Vulnerability Analysis Of Interdependent Infrastructure Systems
• Managing complexity in the public services (book)

--Tsavage (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

hm! First is some essay (written in the first person even); 2nd is another primary source that just cites Taleb. 3rd looks potentially useful - checking it out. thx for digging them up. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd get a lot further with less pain and text if if every seemingly anti-GMO proposed change was actually treated in good faith, and the energy used arguing about it was instead directed towards thoroughly checking it out. Those citations were not difficult to find with Google Scholar. And now, why with more non-useful criticisms?:

• "First is some essay (written in the first person even)" The folks at Springer must be out of their minds charging 40 bucks to read some essay by Gloria Origgi. And if writing in the first person in an abstract is grounds for downgrading or dismissing a paper, then we need to look again at the Pamela Ronald support for the scientific consensus safety statement, she makes the same grave error, writing in her abstract: "In this review, I describe some lessons learned,..." (We should look at that source more closely regardless.)
• "2nd is another primary source that just cites Taleb" - for these purposes, a paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP12 Vancouver, Canada, July 12 - 15, 2015 seems to indicate some acceptance in the Taleb's field

The precautionary principle paper is about a "non-naive" version of the PP, and uses GMOs as an in-depth example, so there is the method and the application. On what grounds do we dismiss the method by criticizing the biological assumptions made in one specific example? All we're talking about here is incrementally improving a GM foods controversy section by listing noteworthy examples of controversial views. --Tsavage (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (my emphases) So columns cannot justify inclusion. As for the academic sources, two does not mention Taleb's article on GMO and while three does, it does not mention GMO. Those authors are interested in Taleb's writing on the precautionary principle, rather than GMO. TFD (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No scientific facts are being asserted. The content entry named and gave a summary description of a paper, which can be sourced from the paper itself, a non-interpretative use of the primary source. Noteworthiness is established by the various RS columnists. The academic citations, further establish the noteworthiness. The context is controversial views. How are other controversial views established in the section and in the controversies article?

"two does not mention Taleb's article on GMO" - It does, check the citation, it is just using an earlier title of the same paper (there is a 2014 updated version). Please see the cited link. Also, the last paragrpha of my previous comment: Taleb has proposed a "non-naive PP" and GMO is a sample application. --Tsavage (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness can only be established by being written about in reliable sources. And even if two does cite Taleb's article it says nothing about GMO. TFD (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no sourcing issue: by policy, opinion pieces are reliable for quotation or direct paraphrase with in-line attribution (and they are by definition secondary sources for the topics they cover).

Weight is the only possible question: Taleb is notable, distinguished and well-known in science and to the public. When he produces material in his field that is directly relevant to a topic, simple mention of that material in coverage of that topic should not be a problem. If editors question Taleb's level of prominence, for discussion purposes, we can point to the multiple citations and columns from reputable publications to indicate that the item itself is in fact out there.

A simple descriptive mention in a Controversies section, where noteworthy contrary views are recorded, is fine with a citation to the paper itself. (This use of "primary source" as a magical eraser stick is unhelpful; primary sources are used in many routine cases - see this article's References - they're just not what most of the encyclopedia is built on, because we don't draw interpretive and summary material from them.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the book source you brought this weekend; besides WEIGHT and FRINGE there is also the question of what article this would be added to. Controversies seems the most apt; Genetically modified crops seems next most apt since Taleb's focus is agriculture, not food. Seems least app here - this article is about food. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Weight is a critical issue. You mention that Taleb is notable, which is true and his views on the precautionary principle may be significant to that article. But being notable does not mean that everything one writes, regardless of whether it has been reported in reliable secondary sources, is significant. David Icke for example is a notable writer who claims that the world's leaders are secretly reptiles. By your reasoning, we could add that claim to countless articles. TFD (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD: "being notable does not mean that everything one writes ... is significant" That is not what is being suggested. Work produced by an expert in his field can't be equated with any old extemporaneous comment about anything from anyone, just because they're notable. From Taleb's paper:

"The aim of this paper is to place the concept of precaution within a formal statistical and risk-analysis structure, grounding it in probability theory and the properties of complex systems."

From a renowned expert in statistics and risk analysis, that's a far different proposition than that of a well-known self-proclaimed "Son of the Godhead," with no other relevant qualifications, writing that politicians are in fact alien lifeforms - I'm surprised you'd make that comparison.

In this case, we have a Controversies section and spinoff article that hardly describe any controversies. Taleb's is an expert viewpoint that speaks to food safety, it's existence merits at least acknowledgement in a Controversies section and article, areas dedicated to minority views. If there is a problem with determining weight in the context of controversies, it's because there are no controversies to compare it to - this would be an incremental improvement, one minority view actually described and sourced. --Tsavage (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE. not minority. we don't cite every expert spouting about things outside of their field. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: It's one thing to cry FRINGE whenever you like, but to seriously claim anything as FRINGE - "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" - you have to be prepared to illustrate with specific examples and sources, whether in discussion or content.

I'm not arguing for Taleb's GMO PP, I am questioning your use of FRINGE.

In this case, what is the departure from mainstream in risk analysis? And what is the departure in biology/biotech? For instance, Taleb's paper states:

"For the impact of GMOs on health, the evaluation of whether the genetic engineering of a particular chemical (protein) into a plant is OK by the FDA is based upon considering limited existing knowledge of risks associated with that protein. The number of ways such an evaluation can be in error is large."

Can you state that that is categorically wrong? From what I've read in NAS and other comprehensive reviews of GM from the early 2000s (and I can quote), targeted testing for substantial equivalence is considered robust and adequate at this time (for food safety), however, the reviews also clearly acknowledge that tools and understanding for broader testing - non-targeted assessment, looking for the unknown unknowns - are currently not well advanced and need to be developed: there is lots that science can't yet measure and doesn't yet understand in this area, but what we have now may be sufficient to proceed with only reasonable risk.

In other words, unless I'm misunderstanding this entirely, Taleb is considering the systemic effect of the unknown and unexpected. This doesn't sound like a significant departure from the mainstream, instead, isn't it simply feeding mainstream biology into a particular risk model? You can argue specifics, saying his assumptions show a lack of understanding of the relevant biology, but isn't that more in line with, for example, a criticism of poor experimental design or faulty data, than with a wild departure from the mainstream? FRINGE has to be demonstrated. --Tsavage (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, even if someone is the top expert in their field, it does not mean that every thing they write is significant. Their various theories are only significant to the extent they are reported in the relevant literature. If you think what Taleb wrote about about global warming is so significant it should be mentioned in this article, can you please explain why not a single expert has mentioned it? Do you think they are all wrong? In any case, the policy of weight is clear. This article is supposed to summarize what one would find in most mainstream sources and not provide weight to views never reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD: The context here is "controversies," which hasn't been particularly well-defined by example, but seems to be widely inclusive: "key areas of controversy are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, objectivity of scientific research and publication, and the effects on health, the environment." Taleb's PP has been in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. We're supposed to represent all relevant views with due weight, this in my opinion clears the bar for mention here.

"can you please explain why not a single expert has mentioned it" What type of expert are you referring to? I can guess that anything to do with GMOs and the precautionary principle is a scientific and political hot potato, it's hard to argue risk and uncertainty, when the risks are difficult to quantify and ultimately unknown. By publishing the Taleb GMO editorial last month, the NY Times made a statement, giving it wide play without having to take a position. Motley Fool, a popular financial news outlet, evaluated life sciences companies' exposure in light of Taleb's position. Common sense says, when we're devoting thousands of words to Controversies, this fits in for a mention. --Tsavage (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

The size of this talk page recently grew to an utterly ridiculous 758,895 bytes - that makes it impossible for some to edit. I have therefore set the archiving to occur after 30, rather than 90 days, with an exception for the three most recent threads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that's an unwieldy size. On the other hand, there are related ongoing issues that are now spread across THREE archives, beginning with WHO source. This obscures the debate, and would seem to make it more difficult for newly-arriving editors to gain an overview. Subjecting things to endless argument seems to be the standard operating procedure for this article, which makes it difficult enough to propose changes, without current related discussion being hard to find. Perhaps manual archiving, to split archives into more useful sections, would be better in this case.

RSN, NOR and NPOV noticeboards are maxarchived at 250k. --Tsavage (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It would help if people wrote shorter comments instead of WP:WALLS. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen a 903-word single paragraph replying to an editor having problems with this same scientific consensus. Impressive but not too user-friendly. --Tsavage (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is archived unless the section has not been edited for (with present settings) 30 days. That's not "ongoing". At 632,073 bytes, this is by far the longest talk page on Misplaced Pages - over 20% longer than the next-biggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, wow (20% longer), that's crazy. With that much text, I guess in practice it doesn't matter if it's accessible at a glance, who's going to read it all from scratch? I have no argument with settings on this page; the archive page size could be bigger. (FYI, re "ongoing," I think all but one of those sections going back to the WHO section (linked above) three archives away are directly connected to a current dispute about the scientific consensus statement and how it relates to the rest of the article, that is...ongoing. It's kinda ridiculous, but I guess that's the process - you should read it all!) Thanks for the reply. --Tsavage (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed untrue statement

I removed an untrue statement from the page (diff). The actual fact is that 98% of soybean meal is used as animal feed. A lot of soybean crop is processed into oil for human consumption, and the meal is put into animal feed. So i removed the untrue statement. Here is a source on that. SageRad (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Prokaryotes in this set of difs you added a bunch of content about glyphosate. Glyphosate is not an herbicide; it is not genetically modified food. I reverted here. This is a very controversial article. Please do not edit aggressively. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (fix stupid drafting mistake Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

Yes G indeed is a herbicide (further context Herbicide#Classification), and there are many parts which overlap, i.e. the modification to tolerate various herbicides, or the history section begins with "Food biotechnology is a branch of food science that seeks to improve foods and food production." Hence, why the mention of glyphospahte is relevant in the article of GMF. Vote below:

• Include Per above.prokaryotes (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Include - The material is authoritative and well-sourced. Jusdafax 11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This is a small part of the GMO controversies rather than about GM food in general and the sources barely mention GM food and it's therefore not appropriate to include the section as it was unless better sources are available which show that this is a major part of the debate over GM food. Even then, it would be only worth a brief mention rather than a whole section. SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphospahe is currently 4 times mentioned in the article. Where do you suggest we should add it? History section? Notice here are current news on the topic of GMF and G.Current news Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite 'flawed' U.S. regulations - New England Journal of Medicine article calls for GMO labels on foods This all underlines why the content belongs in the article.prokaryotes (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog are you still against inclusion of The Lancet study, since your above argument is not valid? I suggest we could add this under a section named Herbicides, maybe move some other content there and add some more sources (New England Journal of Medicine) which call for labeling based on recent developments. prokaryotes (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, if by "the lancet study" you mean the announcement of the new IARC classification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", I was very involved in adding the content about new IARC finding to the Glyphosate article, which is where discussion about it belongs. The announcement came out way back in March; you are apparently just catching up with that. Please note that one of the leaders of IARC team said. "'Probable’ means that there was enough evidence to say it is more than possible, but not enough evidence to say it is a carcinogen.... It means you ought to be a little concerned about glyphosate." The sky is not falling, and at this point no major market has changed its regulation based on the new IARC classfication - the full report has not even been pubished yet, and it is unlikely that anyone will take action til they can see the whole thing. In any case, this article is about GM food per se; herbicides are not GM food.Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If the article is not about herbicides, why then is the word mentioned 5 times? The lede begins with "These have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides.. " The point is that these foods are sprayed with G, and that is a concern when a governmental organization labels the herbicide as "Probable human carcinogen". Anyway consensus will now determine if we include the content or not. prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say that glyphosate is a separate topic from genetically modified food, but it is so intertwined that it's an integral part of the story of genetically modified food, and it is found in most genetically modified food. I would like to see a way to tell the reality as it is, which is that the most common genetic modification of food crops presently is tolerance for glyphosate, and that glyphosate is in most genetically modified foods (as it is also in some non-GM foods as well, though typically in lower amounts). I think we can find a way to integrate glyphosate's position and role in genetically modified foods, and then link to the glyphosate article for all things specific to glyphosate. The topics are related but separate. Herbicide use dependent on genetic modification is definitely part of the story and dynamic of genetically modified foods, though. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a RS article "GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer." for the connection.prokaryotes (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece by a well-known advocate for organic food and a well-known advocate against pesticides. Not a surprise; says nothing new that many people have not said before. I get it that you are riled up Prokaryotes but please slow down. The things you are raising are not new. Please review the relevant talk pages and you will see lots of ongoing discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog i notice that you use various labels and frame certain positions in a way what appears to fit your point of view. I looked at the page of the author and can read, a highly credible evidence-based advocate for public health - now compare this to your view, "a well-known advocate against pesticides". However, your personal opinion of the author is in fact irrelevant in the discussion, because his article is published in The England Journal of Medicine, and cited by what appears to be a reliable secondary source. Please try to be more objective, thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

opinion piece, not article. Editorials have limited use per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. He is also a well-known advocate for children's health, which is a great thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The only opinion i can read are your frequent posts on talk pages, which when i follow them normally turn in circles, just take this article talk page here. You have added nothing to the discussion actually, above you claim G is not a herbicide, now you change your argument, but RS is reporting on the editorial and there is a published study. prokaryotes (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said that G is not a herbicide... that is just kooky to claim that. There are two questions here - should this article about GM food have a section on glyphosate; and if so, what do we say about it? I say no to the first, and you haven't given a good reason as to why we should include content on it. If we do say anything, that content should reflect the current best sources (which would be the IARC study and the recent German review), and should be about glyphosate residues. As I mentioned the IARC has not published their full report, but it appears that they are emphasizing epidemiological studies about farm workers who are exposed to glyphosate while they are working, which is a level and duration of exposure that has nothing to do exposure you would get from eating food derived from GM crops, almost all of which is highly processed (e.g. corn or soy oil) Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (i did make a drafting mistake Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

You wrote above: G is not an herbicide... DIF. Maybe you meant to write something else idk. Look it is very simple, the question is where we add the dif content we discuss in this section. IHMO under a section on Food production or Herbicides. This could be extended with the mention of calls for GMO labeling, but since that is very fresh maybe not exactly right now.prokaryotes (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So I did. stupid drafting mistake that I just fixed. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that you put your evaluation of the science above those of the experts from The New England Journal? We go with the published sources. If you can add something great, but otherwise we have to use the sources mentioned, not what you think is or isn't relevant.prokaryotes (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not putting my opinion above anybody's. I am describing what the whole range of sources says. I get it that you are passionate about this because of one thing you just read, which is an advocacy piece - it is not a "study" or a review article - it is an advocacy piece. It is a reliable source for what those two guys think. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that was my impression for a moment but anyway we discuss The Lancet study here not the editorial from TNEJ. I suggest you add something pointing out that the findings are about the food production process then, "spraying wast amounts of chemicals -- which are probably cancer causing, on food crops but lesser amounts are then later consumed by humans". This should go under a section called Food production, for further reading then See also etc. prokaryotes (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The piece in the Lancet is also not a study. It is a summary of a forthcoming monograph by the IARC on glyphosate. Their conclusion of "probable carcinogen" (see again the quote from one of the IARC committee members as to what that means) came out of left field (no other major health authority has said anything like that - they are standing all alone out there with that classification) and nobody understands how they got there; we won't know until they publish the full report. We've gone ahead and included content about that in the glyphosate article, with appropriate context around it. The full IARC monograph will eventually come out (when last I checked they were very behind in publishing them (something like a year) and things will get very interesting when that comes out. So far, no major market regulatory agency has taken any action based on the announcement of the classification and the summary - all the MRLs for glyphosate are unchanged. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what your definition of major authority includes, for me this study comes from a reliable source Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. I saw the lede from G article and i think it appears well written.prokaryotes (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I will come out and say this since you don't seem to understand how this worls. Pesticides cannot be used on crops unless they are cleared by regulatory authorities with regard to environmental effects, effects on workers while applying and handling them, and effects of food residues. The regulatory authority of every major country in the world has approved glyphosate for use on crop and has established MRLs. The role of the IARC is to provide opinions on things, but what they come out with as zero regulatory authority. No regulatory authority in any major market has changed its MRLs or other glyphosate-related regulation in light of the IARC's announcement of the new classification and publication of their summary. Nothing has changed in the real world. Advocates who hate pesticides and GM crops have been going crazy since March when the announcement was made (you are way behind the curve), but nothing has changed in any major market (yet) in reaction to the new classification. No other major scientific or medical body has come out in support of the IARC finding. Things are up in the air right now. Two things are clear - the IARC is away out there on its own, and advocates continue to make hay. So there is nothing - nothing - new in the NEJM editorial. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a nice synopsis, but doesn't change the facts of coverage in reliable sources. If you do not want to include the content here on this page, then just say it, or say what you consider acceptable. Above is everything in those regards, no need to create more wall of text. prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that above you claim that no other authority made similar claims. However, there are other authorities, i.e. American Cancer Society or the EPA. prokaryotes (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are calling "a nice synopsis" is summarizing the reliable sources, which is what we do to determine WEIGHT, per the NPOV policy. You don't edit in a complex topic by picking up on a single source and running around Misplaced Pages shoving it into every article you can find. Of the sources you bring there, ACS is just reporting the IARC classification. The EPA site is reporting their finding of not carcinogenic. Please read the sources you bring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Perspective article in NEJM is a good source to use to include a very brief statement in the controversies section that explains the connection between glyphosate and genetically modified food, as that is the main point of that NEJM Perspective, and i think it is a reliable source to indicate that it is a controversy. Note that i don't consider it a reliable source to establish any facts on the controversy itself, but only to establish that there is controversy surrounding it. Note that there has also been a lot of backlash against that letter in NEJM as well, and one of those could be cited perhaps. SageRad (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I count 4 editors who are for a mention and 1 who does not say so explicit. Therefore i ask you as uninvolved in this edit so far to go ahead and add a mention. You can use above dif which contains the main reference and i do not object to the mention of the TEMJ addition, seems to fit very well. Maybe Jytdog wants to add his addition about the findings.prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not determined by counting "likes" Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So what do you think then, what is your opinion, i.e. Where, how and what should be included? Notice that we need DRN if you cannot answer these questions or object to a general brief mention. If you object, you object to a reliable source with enough coverage in secondary sources. Also if you cite MeDRS, it would help if you could point out how food is applied to MEDRS.prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding to the sentence in "Controversies" that begins "Other concerns include..." the phrase "... and changes in exposure to pesticides brought about by herbicide-tolerant GMO crops." I'll hold off from adding that in, as i think it's better to discuss it here first, on an article of this nature, especially given that Jytdog seems to have some concerns about it. I think that the brief mention of this as one aspect of controversy would be prudent, and citing that Perspectives letter in NEMJ seems like it would source that as being a concern. Other sources would argue in the other direction, that glyphosate is less toxic than herbicides it may have replaced (such as the article titled "Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide") to provide a counterpoint if desired. I notice that there is a breakaway article called Genetically modified food controversies that should contain this topic in more depth if it's deemed important. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I second and fully endorse SageRad's proposal and evenhanded approach. Bravo! Jusdafax 23:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• The editorial does not appear to meet WP:MEDRS and therefore dserves no WP:WEIGHT because it is not a high quality source for including in this article for any medical-related commentary (i.e. suggesting or implying GMOs may not be safe for consumption, etc). Certainly we need to find higher quality sources for any health related claims or implications. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The NEMJ letter would not be used as a source for any health claims. It would be as a source to show that this is a controversial aspect of the topic of genetically modified food. I just wondered, myself, how other controversies are sourced in the Controversies section and i see that some are not sourced, while others are sourced to statements or documents that -- like the NEMJ letter -- voice the view that there is something to be concerned about. SageRad (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice 1) We discuss here primary addition of G is carcinogenic 2) TNEJ editorial indeed fits into the C section since it is about labelling based on the carcinogenic finds 3) The argument with MEDRS here is not valid, since most of the C section is sourced differently. Indeed most references of this article don't use MEDRS sources. There is an editorial we speak of which wants labels and a study widely discussed by the most reliable sources we know. prokaryotes (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yobol reverted the addition of the WHO study and the TNEJ article we discuss, here. He wrote that the mention of this in the controversy section is Undue weight . So first he claims it is against MEDRS, now he cites UNDUE. Since i do not want to edit war over this, maybe someone else will readd it. Notice that i will post RFC/DRN if we can not resolve the content dispute here. prokaryotes (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this today. We mention pesticide residues in the Controversies article, and I think that discussion could use a bit more fleshing out, there. Once that is done, we can see if it rises to the lead of that article. The Controversies section here is basically the lead of that article, per WP:SYNC, so then it would come over here. I will work on that over the next few days. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont see this source in the discussion ], but I might have missed it. Perhaps it might be helpful in some way since its from the WHO. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, back in March, the IARC announced that they had classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen". They did that two ways - by publishing a summary of their forthcoming monograph in the Lancet which is discussed above, and they put out a press release. You linked to the press release. The full monograph itself hasn't published yet, and probably won't publish for about a year, based on their backlog. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• WHO Study Notice above Jytdog mentions farm workers. Here is a secondary source, "This decision on glyphosate was based mostly on research done in animals, with studies finding links between glyphosate and tumors in rodents. Some studies have also suggested that people who work with glyphosate may be at higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision on 2,4-D was based mostly on studies done in lab dishes and in animals; this research found that 2,4-D could cause oxidative stress, which is thought to increase cancer risk by damaging DNA." -- Jytdog's version above "..it appears that they are emphasizing epidemiological studies about farm workers who are exposed to glyphosate while they are working" Thus, the editor claim doesn't hold up to secondary sources. prokaryotes (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Updating stats on U.S. acreage that is GM

Jytdog, thanks for noticing the apparent inconsistency when i added the stat on the glyphosate-tolerant trait in corn, that you removed in this diff. The 90% figure was from a 2010 source, and my stat was from the USDA 2015 data. I changed the first stat to specify 2010 as the date, as this data changes annually, and then i added back a breakdown of GE corn acreage in the U.S. by different traits. I think it makes useful information and explains the current state of corn growing in the U.S. very well now. Thanks for noting the inconsistency before. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding WHO study

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 list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Recently a study by the WHO found that the herbicide glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. This is also covered at the glyphosate article, now there are new calls for labelling GMOs (Secondary source in the mainstream media) based on this study. Since this article here is about GMOs and controversies -- including labelling, it seems perfectly fine to include the info. User Yobol removed the addition and claims it is WP:Undue (Weight). Above 4 editors agreed to include the findings, 2 (Jytdog and Yobol) cite that the source does not meet WP:MEDRS, however as pointed out the content is unrelated to MEDRS, doesn't gives any health advice, and is covered by reliable secondary sources. (Nature Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, in the mainstream media). prokaryotes (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Summary We discuss this edit. prokaryotes (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion - per Prokaryotes. Claims of Undue Weight are unconvincing and in my view approach disruptive. The material is factual, relevant to the article, and frankly, long overdue. Jusdafax 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Premature and aggressive RfC. This article is not about the controversies. This article is about GM food; it has a WP:SUMMARY section on Controversies taken from the lead of the Genetically modified food controversies article, per WP:SYNC. OP seems to have read one article today and is now on fire to force content about it into WP, but appears to know almost nothing about this topic, or this article, or how the related WP articles are knit together. A section on glyphosate per se is not appropriate in this article which is about GM food per se. Further content on glyphosate and other residues in/on GM food is probably relevant in the associated Genetically modified food controversies article; if is rises to the importance of being in the lead there, it can come into the WP:SUMMARY section on Controversies that is in this article, per WP:SYNC. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of perception issue by editor Jytdog, in the past hours he frequently makes claims about my edits, calls them passionate, aggressive, threatens me with a ban on my talk page now. Ironically the only aggression i can observe comes from this very editor, who is very active on this and similar pages. He seems to be very close attached to the topic, maybe to close to make an objective judgement. prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that today you broke 3RR and are trying to force content into this highly controversial article without consensus. If everyone edited this article as you have done today, this article would be a war zone and we would have been at arbcom and under discretionary sanctions ages ago. Your editing is wildly inappropriate on a controversial article like this. So far it is just one day and I hoping that you will calm down and slow down - there is no deadline here. And you barely understand what you are editing about. It is bad on many levels. Please slow down, read more, and talk more. I threatened you with nothing - I told that people who edit aggressively on controversial articles tend to get topic banned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (I did not bring the 3RR case and am striking since this has become a distraction Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

Maybe i should just ignore someone who obviously is not even able to count. prokaryotes (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, could you specify the 3 RR's you allege occurred? I am wondering, as i don't see it on first glance when looking at the article's edit history. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to see diffs supporting this charge of a 3RR violation, a blockable offense which Prokaryotes has denied. Charges of this sort should not be cast lightly. Jusdafax 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jytdog has an ongoing history of inaccurate counting - see here]. Perhaps this is a competency issue?DrChrissy 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems Jytdog struck the 3RR claim, and added some text saying he did not threaten anyone but only commented on Prokaryotes' talk page to the effect that "people who edit aggressively on controversial articles tend to get topic banned", which sounds too much to me like someone receiving a note that says "People who cross certain lines tend to be found in the river with concrete shoes" -- and Prokaryotes seems to have perceived it as a threat, and communication involves the sender and receiver of a message, so at the very minimum, the intent of the communication did not reach the receiver as intended. I've had a similar history of what i would also characterize as threatening language from several editors including Jytdog in the past months. I don't find it helpful. I find it, to the contrary, to be unfriendly and to create a hostile environment. I think that principles and practices can be explained in a positive way, to show an explain how certain ways of editing can be helpful and constructive here, and others are not. I try to do that as well. I try to encourage good dialogue and general civility. I don't think the contentious nature of dialogue on many talk pages is necessary. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc, you present a disturbing diff that confirms that a serious problem exists with Jtdog's editing behavior. Jtdog's attempt to squelch this Rfc as seen above troubles me, the denial and then retraction in the "Glyphosate" section above that they had never claimed glyphosate was not a herbicide, and the edits made by Jtdog at Prokaryotes' Talk page in the past few days reinforce that. SageRad, I agree that Jtdog uses rhetorical threats that are designed to intimidate yet be plausibly deniable, so much so that I asked him some time back to stay off my Talk page. I have also sought for some time to avoid Jtdog altogether. My patience is now exhausted per WP:BULLY. It's time for some accountability and a discussion of sanctions. Jusdafax 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I make mistakes sometimes and acknowledge them when I do. As an experienced wikipedian I look for you to be tamping down dramah, not ramping it up. If you cannot see the swarming and aggressive editing going on here in the past few days, I don't know what to tell you. But it may finally bring this suite of articles to arbcom. We have avoided wasting the community's time with that to date, as editors have shown reasonable self-restraint. That seems to be going out the window at this time. I am hoping this bit of storm will pass, however. But again, I look for experienced editors to be tamping down dramah. If you want to open an ANI which would have to be the first step, knock yourself out. I am thinking of doing so, but am hoping we can work things out here and on user talk pages as needed, and get there through reasonable discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reply to my expressed concerns is a masterpiece. On one hand you speak with the calm voice of reason while at the same time mentioning ANI and even ArbCom. So be it. I'm putting you on formal notice to stop the type of bullying that includes attempts to quash this Rfc, above, and the abusive "warnings" you dispense, including the job you and Kingofaces have done on Prokaryotes' talk page. That stops now. I am warning you with the strongest possible intent. Jusdafax 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reservation. I hear Jytdog when he says that the Genetically modified food controversies should lead the Controversies section of this article, but on the other hand, i think it matters not where we grow first. What matters is to grow -- to grow more mature, more complete, more measured, more balanced. I think that the labeling of the Organic Consumers Association and the other groups as "advocacy groups" is accurate but uncalled for in this text. They may be advocacy groups, but calling that out in the text seems tendentious to me, as if when we mention Monsanto, we said "the for-profit company who has deceived the public in the past, Monsanto..." It seems to be a loaded epitaph, in other words. As to the inclusion of the IARC monograph summary, it may be WP:UNDUE here in terms of level of coverage in this article, but may be more reasonably integrated as part of the Genetically modified food controversies article, and if it makes it into the lede of that article, then it would be suitable in terms of weight here in the Controversies section of this article. Indeed, i do concur with Jytdog on the recommendation to slow down. Let us frame the relevant questions, and then make the edits after discussing. Let us all be here in dialogue with integrity. SageRad (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Reject. It belongs in Genetically modified food controversies (and Glyphosate). This article is about food. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The current article version mentions food labels, this article too http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660 (based on the WHO find). I too think that the mentioned articles are the main articles, but recent developments as we do with other data (AAAS directors board opinion) should be part of the article, especially when it comes from an authority such as WHO:prokaryotes (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. This article is on GM food, so going into glyphosate potentially being carcinogenic is a WP:COATRACK and hence undue weight. We've already got the content in the glyphosate article where it belongs until we get the actual report to look over. I still cannot see why there is now such a rush by certain editors to push more advocacy into these articles. I agree that this RfC is extremely premature considering the content was just inserted only a few hours ago with an almost immediate RfC with no discussion about the specific edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion GMO foods and glyphosate are intricately related, and this finding has been big news - as JusDaFax notes, mention of it here is long overdue. Content can be discussed in greater detail in the daughter article (GMO Controversies). petrarchan47คุก 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support The article mentions in the lead that GMO foods are not any more riskier than non GMO. But a total picture of risk cant be shown without the risk from the pesticide that is used for GMO plants. It comes from one of the highest rated sources we have, the WHO . While a long section may not be appropriate, a few sentence or a small paragraph can be included in the article and a sentence in the lede, once in the article, is appropriate. AlbinoFerret 03:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say a paragraph at the very least is required for balance. The arguments against inclusion are looking increasingly strained. Jusdafax 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A small paragraph sounds about right. The risks of GMO food cant be separated from the pesticide that they use when it is found that it is probably a carcinogen. There is no safe level of a carcinogen to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret 05:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The WHO source has indicated briefly that the potential carcinogenicity is at worker level exposure, not in consuming the food itself. We'll know more on those details when the actual report comes out, which is why the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE are being mentioned here so much. Additionally, there is no "safe" level of anything. Water is technically a carcinogen, so it's all a matter of relative risk. We don't know if the carcinogenicity is equivalent to say 1 minute out in the sun or 12 hours a day for your whole life. Again, we'll find out more later, but that's for the scope of other articles such as glyphosate specifically with the information we currently have. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I linked directly to a WHO document above, not a news story. You cant separate GMO food, from the pesticide that is the main reason GMO's are used. There is still a risk. A mention of the available information can be included WP:DEADLINENOW and WP:NOTPAPER. AlbinoFerret 05:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I was commenting directly on that link. By saying there is a risk from the food perspective, that is WP:OR at this time as explained above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There is still a risk even if its to exposure during the farming and harvesting of it. This article is titled "Genetically modified food" not "Genetically modified food when eaten". AlbinoFerret 06:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is original research on your part again as described above. Please stick to sources and discussion of content and sources. As for article scope, it sounds like you're looking for Genetically modified crops. That article is more about the crops themselves and how they are grown, while this article is about them after they are harvested and switch from crop to food product. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The History and Process section cover food production and lab development. Herbicide is mentioned 5 times, and Glyphosate is mentioned 4 times in the article. Hence, this article is not only about the foods, but also about the growing of foods. prokaryotes (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here again I agree with Prokaryotes and AlbinoFerret and support their statements. Jusdafax 13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per arguments made above by those who have called for supporting inclusion. David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. This is an article about general issues about genetically modified foods as a whole. It is more appropriate for glyphosphate or the more specialized genetically modified food controversies. It is not appropriate and WP:UNDUE to discuss all level of s controversies of specific GMOs here, as a proper, duely weighted, discussion would take up a disproportionate area of this article. Put another way, if we are to discuss the WHO report, we would also have to discuss every other major study on glyphosophate for due weight as well, as well as every other major report of every other controversy because to include the one WHO report here without including the others would be an attempt to highlight just one side of one small part of the GM food issue. Yobol (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. To cram in material on every topic that is tangentially related to any aspect of an article, when that topic has its own article, is characteristic of novices and is categorically unencyclopaedic. For references to such topics we have a facility called linking (which in this case would be entirely appropriate and informationally adequate wherever glyphosate tolerance is mentioned in this article). This article is about Genetically modified food; Genetically modified food controversies and Glyphosate are separate and different topics. Otherwise, why stop here at the glyphosate controversy? Put in a section on glyphosate, its chemical structure, history, and pharmacology, in fact generally duplicating the glyphosate article; add a section on WHO and another one on cancer. Surely everyone reading an article on Genetically modified food will be far too impatient to see data on those topics, to be willing to click on a link? And maintenance of all the articles that contain duplicated data will be no problem at all every time there are changes or new material, right? JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the article has a controversy section, it seems odd to not mention the WHO study. The thing is that the current controversy section and the new content overlap, per secondary sources. Hence, readers will just wonder why we don't mention it here. prokaryotes (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as this article is articulate and is suitably and logically linked there is nothing in the least odd about not wandering off into externalities such as WHO studies concerning controversies (which you will note, are dealt with in Genetically modified food controversies as opposed to matters concerning Genetically modified food), nor what you imagine readers might wonder about. Such concerns have nothing to do with the topic of the inclusion of material that patently belongs in Genetically modified food controversies, a coherent article that is clearly, adequately, explicitly, and even conveniently, linked at the head of the current section. The rest of that section seems to me to be fairly well constructed to give some perspective of the sorts of controversy to be expected, and where to find more information, such as at the linked article in question (which is precisely why that linked article exists at all, and why it is linked to. Personally I think that section on controversies is already overdoing it a little, but why quibble about details?) A reader who cannot read anything as helpful as that is not likely to wonder about what might be included or excluded, nor about much else. If desired, a few more links might be inserted in the section, such as (thumbsuck warning!) contamination of the conventional food supply which would enable readers who wonder about why anyone would want a controversy about "contamination of the conventional food supply" to consult details quickly, conveniently, in context, and in up-to-date form, rather than wondering why we do mention it here in so unencyclopaedic a manner. JonRichfield (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this reasoning, as has been noted in detail in earlier recent discussions on this Talk page, is that Genetically modified food controversies is a poorly formed article, a spinoff that fractured this main article, and relocated material that is central to this topic, elsewhere. Much of the controversies article addresses non-controversial aspects of GM food, and serves as a rebuttal to vaguely stated controversies. An argument was made that, now that a GM food controversies article exists, we are bound by WP:SUMMARY to only edit certain topics there, then only reflect them here if they percolate to the lead of that article. This isn't efficient or constructive, and is not policy-based, it's an arbitrary and overly restrictrive application of a general editing guideline. Articles should be improved independently, and not bound by the definciencies of other articles. --Tsavage (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You have made it well known that you don't like the current structure, as have a few others. While "we should be free to do whatever we want" may sound attractive to you and a few others, there is a practical need to keep content in WP:SYNC across Misplaced Pages. You will find few experienced editors who favor chaos with regard to subject matter that spans several articles. And I remain open to discussing concrete, actionable proposals for different structures to keep content in WP:SYNC, and to define reasonable scopes of articles within suites of related articles to keep them all from bleeding into one another. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, please stop injecting your interpretations of an alphabet soup of policies, guidelines and essays, speculating about editors thoughts, and providing unsolicited opinions about how Misplaced Pages works. It's unwanted and usually hyperbolic and misleading. Which few experienced editors DO favor chaos of any sort? Where have I indicated that I might find "doing whatever we want" attractive? What are you talking about, and to what end? These off-point replies only serve to disrupt the discussion, and you do this continually. At least in replies to me, please comment on content, not editors. --Tsavage (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, this is not the only example of this tactic. There is an article Foie gras and a separate article Foie gras controversy. This is the only example I know where this dichotomy exists for a farm animal - controversy is usually kept within the main article. Alexbrn, a well known "friend" and tandem editor of Jytdog, is insistent on placing material he apparently does not like on the Foie gras controversy page, or placing information such as bans in a "controversy" section. The Foie gras controversy page, for whatever reasons, attracts lower grade edits, and as such, appears less encyclopaedic than the main article page. However, there appears little effort to remedy this by those who might be in a position to do so. It is therefore easy to form the opinion that Foie gras is edited by sensible, educated level-headed persons and must be "The Truth", whereas Foie gras controversy is edited by radical, fringe persons and is therefore far less likely to be "The Truth". Material which might be "uncomfortable" is therefore dumped into the "controversy" article where it is automatically, but mistakenly, viewed as dubious. Subtle - but effective.DrChrissy 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, please stop abusing the article talk page. This is not the place for personal vendettas to distract from the goals of an article talk page, which is some of the behavior that led to your current topic ban, not to mention that you are entering into a discussion that's content is squarely within your topic ban. You have no place in this conversation on the WHO study as it is relating to human health. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not abusing the talk page and I resent you posting that. The thread at the moment of my posting was discussing the problems which occur when an article is split into a main article and a controversy article. My comment therefore, was entirely relevant to the project as a whole. This talk page is about Genetically modified food and as such, posting here is not in breach of my topic ban.DrChrissy 12:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

To prepare articles dealing with separate topics that refer to certain common elements, only linking them where there are

relevant references, is in every way beneficial, helpful and encyclopaedic. WP articles are not self-contained books covering entire fields, and to permit them to expand into formless monstrosities is destructive and disruptive. If Tsavage doesn't like the form of Genetically modified food controversies, then let him by all means improve it -- by editing Genetically modified food controversies, not Genetically modified food. That sort of thing is what relevance is all about, please note, prokaryotes. JonRichfield (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@JonRichfield:: This RfC doesn't come out of the blue, nor do my comments. Have you familiarized yourself with the discussions here over the last three months? Have you compared this article immediately before and after Genetically modified food controversies was created? Have you read both articles in their current state? There are fundamental problems with how content is distributed across the two articles. As several editors recently noted, sections like "Public Perception" and "Health and Safety" naturally belong in this article, not hidden in a long and rambling Controversies page that at times goes on for multiple paragraphs without mentioning controversy. The Controversies article essentially discusses almost everything about GM food, while this article is left with context-less molecular diagrams, tedious descriptions of things like how soy flour is made, and a contentious scientific consensus statement, propped up by 18 citations, and repeated twice. Your comments don't indicate that you are aware of any of this. --Tsavage (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, the effort of caring less about the history of the RFC would unreasonably strain my capacity. No matter how many times the advocacy has been repeated, remasticated, or regurgitated, it remains nonsensical to put material into inappropriate articles. An article about food is about food, whether it be Foie gras or GMF or Fatback. An article about controversy is about controversy, whether the controversy is about food or not, and whether the article is to your taste or not. If you think Genetically modified food controversies is a lousy article, stop posturing and fix it, instead of messing up other articles as well or instead. There is no way on Earth, given the existence of the controversies article, that "Public Perception" and "Health and Safety" belong here instead of there. If you think they are hidden there, why not fix that uncontroversially instead of wasting a lot of time here? JonRichfield (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@JonRichfield:: You seem to have an extraordinary ability to determine what is controversial and what is simply factual information, without need for actually consulting the material. If we decide that GM food as a topic is generally controversial, which is not unreasonable, then by your reasoning, the entire article is a controversies article, and all information should be included there.

This, it turns out, is in good measure what has happened. We have the "controversial" aspects of Public Perception, Health, Economy, and so forth in one place, with no information on those topics, controversial or otherwise, in the main article for the subject. In the case of Regulation, we do seem to have recognized the concept that a subject area can be in two places at once, yet when we argue that, for example, "Health and Safety" is a logical section that readers would expect to find here, and not have to ferret out from a Controversies article, that is met with boondoggling resistance. Oddly, Detection is apparently not controverisal, and we can learn that, "Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as PCR and bioinformatics," before heading off to Detection of genetically modified organisms for more.

This only begins to describe the larger problem. Hopefully, your abilities to discern from afar extend to the differences between GM food and Genetically modified crops, part of the overall fragmentation of GM articles into a web of subtopics and side topics. So if we want an easily accessible table of available GM foods - y'know, apples, corn, potatoes,... - we have to go to the Crops article; here in Foods, similar information is mixed in with overly detailed descriptions of animal feed and textured soy protein.

The web of articles is so complicated, sections as like as not point to two or more main articles, and multiple articles have links to the same article, in one size fits all fashion, like having Regulation sections point to Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms and Regulation of genetic engineering. The logic behind this approach is clear, but the application leaves much to be desired, which is why editors are trying to improve it.

Given this unfortunately user-unfriendly situation, it is all the more important in this particularly confused set-up to have at least the highest level articles, like Genetically modified food, be reasonably self-contained, so readers are not sent on an inefficient, possibly maddening and unsuccessful, fact hunt through the GM article web. That is why all of the main subjects associated with GM food should be covered to a reasonable degree directly in the article about GM food. --Tsavage (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage thank you for your generosity with your evaluations and revelations. I am happy to inform you that I have nothing to add to what I have said, explained, and reexplained. Sadly, I am disappointed to observe that you in turn were unable to find anything to add. And I am busy. JonRichfield (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: You're welcome. I guess you did what you could, and what more could we ask of anyone? --Tsavage (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• See also WP:POVFORK petrarchan47คุก 20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment What is so difficult to understand about the concept of relevance of material to the topic, especially when other, linked, topics deal explicitly with that material? We have an article on (remember, anyone?) Genetically modified food. If that were the only article concerning the field, then it could go into sordid detail about its pharmacology, both therapeutic and toxicological, its politics, whether fiscal, nutritional, or commercial, its propaganda, both denigratory and religious, and how to spell the names and disorders of the proponents and opponents. As it happens however, we do have articles on every topic any normal committee could dream up, easily searched and linked in context. To include their content in the current article then reduces to self-indulgent frothing about personal concerns. Suppose for example GMO food product X (say farmed green salmon) is Glyposate-resistant? OK if we are talking about product X. But then we should explain what glyphosate is, in case the reader doesn't know, and doesn't realise that he cannot rely on getting his daily dose by eating green salmon? So we must include an article on the chemical nature and metabolic benefits, because we have legitimately mentioned glyphosate? Get real! We have a new facility in WP; it is called linking! If we mention Glyphosate in the context of GMO foods, then we do not mention details that are covered in the linked material, any more than we describe ploughs and milling in the article on bread, even if we find a legitimate need to link to those topics. We have two main classes of participants here: those with the religious compulsion to drag anything they feel strongly about into every topic that they can cram it into, (you have no idea who you are, do you?) and those who believe that it matters to the encyclopaedic nature of WP that every article should be coherent in itself and that wherever it mentions a concept that could be taken in context as understood by the cognoscenti, but that might well demand study and explanation by those unfamiliar with the field, that suitable aids should be employed to empower them to find what they need to know and to do so conveniently and expeditiously in articles that deal with those concepts comprehensively and in context. Such aids are known as links for example. I am new here, but in this controversy so far it already is pathetic to see the juvenile to cram in every possible hot button where there is no matching buttonhole. I have seen better-constructed primary school essays. JonRichfield (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jon. I'm not sure that phrases such as "juvenile compulsion" will help matters.DrChrissy 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood DrChrissy; possibly it would have been adequate in the context to leave it at: "...in this controversy so far it already is pathetic to see the compulsion to cram in every possible hot button where there is no matching buttonhole. I have seen better-constructed primary school essays" and let the reader infer the nature of the apparent compulsion and assess its effect on the quality of the article, which is supposed to be informative rather than exhortational. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually only that which can be proven is admissible in an RfC - editors' motivations are not included in that category unless they've been publicly expressed. As for linking, a review of WP:LINKSTYLE is in order, particularly:

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.

Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.

The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Misplaced Pages content may be encountered in republished form, often without links. petrarchan47คุก 21:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Proven" is a loose term in context petrarchan47, it does not here equate to Aristotelean syllogism; nor are my remarks on compulsion and hot buttons aimed at "proving" anything; they are the natural interpretation of my first reading of the foregoing spit-fight. You might compare them favourably to the unnecessarily wounding application of the term "rhetoric" to my constructive and corrective assessment; in my youth I might have found it ill-advised to characterise the remarks of my primary school teachers in their assessments of my work as rhetoric; in this discussion I would have considered application of the term as merely too high-flown for the capacity of the source, and no doubt kindly intended.
You in turn will be interested to note however, that supplying adequate links to technical terms in all articles is not the same as "unnecessarily making a reader chase links"; in an article of this nature, not only is it entirely reasonable to expect that a reader who has read thus far could infer the meaning of Genetically modified food controversies and that Glyphosate is a substance of which the role is at issue, and it is equally reasonable to assume that such readers might be able to decide for themselves whether they either need to or want to follow the links without having out-of-context views thrust in their faces and breaking the thread of the text. To explain every link "with very few words", whether desired or not, not only would be distracting but patronising; very bad practice on every level.
There is more to linking than explanation of "highly technical terms"; there is amplification of context and connections. For instance, Genetically modified food controversies as a reference is not in context obscure at all, but to discuss its content and explain it in this article would be out of place, and accordingly unhelpful for most readers. IOW, bad writing as well as bad practice.
"As far as possible not forcing a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" is thoroughly meritorious, but as it is common cause, it is hardly appropriate to mention it here. For example, none of the examples of links mentioned here are anywhere near to violating that principle.
The exhortation to use text that makes make sense to readers who cannot follow links is praiseworthy, but only within appropriate limits; WP is an interactive medium -- it is no part of WP principles to distort or devalue content by writing unnaturally at the cost of those who can use links, to indulge users who print print articles or read offline, or republish Misplaced Pages content without bothering to allow for links in the text. Such users could at the least be required to look up the linked text themselves and to paraphrase it to suit their needs -- to take that logic any further would force us to drop the use of links and redirection entirely; two of our most powerful tools, both to authors and readers. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent points, Petrarchan47, and I thank you for making them. I agree with DrChrissy that Jon's rhetoric, using a term like "pathetic," is unhelpful. Jusdafax 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:JonRichfield It is usually considered bad form to edit your own edits after others have commented on them. If you do, these should be marked up according to WP:REDACT. In this diff you deleted the word "compulsive" whereas you would have been better to strikethrough, e.g. compulsive. The reason for this is quite obvious. Your sentence is now nonsense, and other editors can not see what I was commenting on.DrChrissy 12:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to thank Petrarchan47 for that link to links! We should sometimes have more respect for the limited understanding of specialised terminology that the general readership has and how links can be helpful, but need to be used carefully. For me, the term "conspecific" is a perfectly acceptable way to condense "a member of the same species". It took many reverts/editing of my edits including "conspecific" for me to realise that I misjudged the general readership's understanding of the term and their lack of desire to chase the link. Now I usually write "... (a member of the same species)" the first time it appears in the article.DrChrissy 13:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

JonRichfield, you either ignore the content discussed here, or did not read it, when you state, "out-of-context views". We have experts who call for food labels, based on the glyphosate WHO results, and secondary sources reporting on it. The content is precisely on topic. Even without that discussion, food production and glyphosate tolerance are facts that are part of the article, hence why we can have 1 sentence in the controversy section, otherwise the section is not complete.prokaryotes (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

prokaryotes try to understand the concept of context; it is not a matter of what pushes your personal views or presses your personal buttons, nor even what the topic discussed here is all about when that topic material is being forced in by people who refuse to keep it in the context of the article specifically addressing it. Context is rather how material fits into the article. Here it does not fit, as long as there is a different article that does indeed fit. This article is about Genetically_modified_food. It is not about Genetically modified food controversies, which please note, is an article with its own content and contexts. Neither the fact that your designated authorities, nor whether any authorities called for food labels, is relevant to this article. Just because the content you are pushing mentions food does not mean that it is on topic at all; that is what context is all about. Try again. Harder. I see that some participants here say "...Genetically modified food controversies is a poorly formed article, a spinoff that fractured this main article...". But that is irrelevant, whether true or not. The place to fix it is in the poorly formed article, not this one. JonRichfield (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The article contains a controversy section ... Hence, you argument this article is not about controversy is mood.prokaryotes (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that the recent rfc partially addressing the content of the controversy section was archived without close. There were many policy-based votes in favor of moving some safety information out of the 'controversy' section. Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 9. I also see that the archive box on this page is misleading, with the most recent link showing '2011-' and linking to archive 4, when there are multiple archives from the past few months.Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about genetically modified foods, not genetically modified crops. I have seen no evidence that glyphosate is ever present in the harvested foodstuffs, as sold for consumption. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many studies in those regards, i.e. here (61 cites). Though, the point here is more about general findings, which affects both crops and foods. Also see the recent news, Regulators may recommend testing food for glyphosate residues.prokaryotes (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per JonRichfield and Maproom aptly stated. On a side note, this is clearly a WP:MEDRS-related issues, as carcinogens are obviously within its purview. Discussion of glyphosate should remain in said article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Text about conflict of interest study

User Prokaryotes added reference to a study about conflict of interest within GMO research, here. I've never seen that study before, and i'm glad to learn about it. User Kingofaces43 revised the text here with the reason stated "Not quite what the study says if someone really wants to be citing it here" and changed the text about it to:

Other concerns include research outcomes being affected by general conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by financial conflict of interest.

I have an issue with the phrase "there is no evidence", as it implies that there is no evidence in the universe for this. That may or may not be true, but it's not supported by the article in question. Also, i looked up the paper and read it, and found that the results do show COI correlated strongly with outcomes of studies, when looked at through author affiliation with industry. Their sample size was rather small and only 6 of the 94 studies they surveyed had industry financial sponsorship. 5 of those 6 showed favorable results for GMOs but the sample was too small for statistical significance. On author affiliation, however, their results were in fact striking, and showed industry affiliation correlated to positive results with p<0.001. Therefore, i changed the text to:

One study did not show statistically significant evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by sponsorship conflict of interest, but did find author affiliation conflict of interest to be strongly correlated to study outcome, concluding that "articles where a COI was identified show a tendency to produce outcomes favorable to the associated commercial interests."

If we want to truly be accurate about what the study says, this is accurate. They clearly stated the quote as their "main finding".on page 201, directly under the heading "Discussion". The previous text did not represent the study's results accurately. SageRad (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Like in the title, this should be mentioned "conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks".prokaryotes (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good work, SageRad. I applaud the study, the initial post by Prokaryotes, and your careful effort and final text. Given the colossal amount of money at stake in this effort, and human nature being what it is, the results of the study don't come as a surprise, and I support inclusion without reservation. Jusdafax 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Notice that User Kingofaces43 is making false accusations about my edits on my talk page now in regards to my edits here. Maybe the editor should not edit here, when he has obvious issues to understand Misplaced Pages guidelines or study results. prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, please use the article talk page appropriately per WP:FOC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SageRad, we cite reviews in Misplaced Pages's voice barring disputing secondary sources. That is why "no evidence" was used. Also keep in mind we don't engage in original research by critiquing studies.

That being said, the other side of the study is the "professional" COI. About half of those COIs were compositional studies. Those are often products that have already undergone in-house testing where negative results end in the project ending and never going to the independent review stage. That inherently biases the likelihood of positive results in those kinds of studies without some malicious assertion (i.e. correlation doesn't equal causation, especially when you miss important variables). Account for those types of studies and the p values can shift quite a bit towards insignificance. Those are the grumblings I've heard in the scientific community as well about the study. How Misplaced Pages handles this kind of source is interesting though because you can have the scientific community largely not cite it as legitimate, say it's not valid in some aspects, but not bother commenting on it in the literature. That happens in WP:FRINGE topics by definition, but it's an odd scenario for us here when a meta-analysis has potential issues in that fashion since we tend to take them at face value as secondary sources. It's really a higher level meta discussion for elsewhere since we aren't using the source for anything else right now, but just something to be aware of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the study results are speculations. We report the results of the study, not what you allege is a study bias or not legitimate. prokaryotes (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I made no assertion that we would be adding content based on what I said, but they are more than speculations since there is discussion out there on it. Please slow down and read my post again as I very clearly stated "we don't engage in original research by critiquing studies" when it comes to adding content itself. SageRad simply posted part of the criticism out there on the study as background(which you didn't go after as "speculation"), so I provided some of the rest for background and thoughts for things to keep an eye out for as editors in the future (i.e., scientists just not acknowledging problematic studies instead of making big headline sources we can use as editors). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I do personally agree with your concerns about the way that other variables may cause a correlation independent of causation (of funding and affiliation to favorable results for the industry). I hear your concerns about the way that the scientific chatter may not make it into reviews on less noted papers. I would love to see a larger sampling with the issues you mention taken into account. Ideally, similar to the concept of twin studies, a researcher would isolate individual papers on a certain topic, in which one was done by industry affiliated researchers, and the other was done by independent researchers, and put them side by side, and compare results. It would take a great deal of interpretive work, but it would be the way to probe this question more accurately. Correlation is not causation, but it is an indicator of possible causation. So much of science, and especially the social sciences (in which this study falls), is interpretive. SageRad (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of sourcing a statement like "there is no evidence", i think that we cannot state "there is no evidence" unless we do have a secondary source (review article in the relevant field and topic) stating that there is no evidence. We as Misplaced Pages editors are not known to be qualified as experts in the relevant field to make that statement, so including it without a secondary source seems to me not supportable by sourcing standards. Better to say nothing than to say a possibly wrong thing. SageRad (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of article

An editor recently reverted an edit here with the edit summary - "article currently focuses on actual food, not things in the pipeline. edit is also inaccurate; companies not countries apply for marketing approval." I was wondering what other editors thought about this. The transgenic fish already exist, the applications have already been filed, so this is all historical.DrChrissy 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Doc could you by any chance paste the text of the reference here? Since the source is a book, I am unable to assess it. As for the larger question, this topic is clearly within the scope of the article, in my view. Jusdafax 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I also can not get the whole book, but the chapter on Transgenic fish is available in the preview hereDrChrissy 16:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a whole article on genetically modified fish as well as AquAdvantage salmon, which is the actual product for which approval is being sought. There is no doubt about that and it has been discussed in the NY Times and other mainstream sources. Yes, it is real.

There were two problems with DrChrissy's edit. The proposed text was "In 2014, it was reported that Canada, China, Cuba and the United States had applied for approval of transgenic fish as food" Per my revert this is garbled nonsense, as countries don't apply to themselves for regulatory approval; companies apply to countries' regulatory agencies. More importantly, this article is generally about actual genetically modified food. The GM fish may never be approved and may never actually become food. Nonetheless, the article already says " but a GM salmon had been awaiting regulatory approval since 1997." so the content is redundant in any case. I think we included content about this based on some passion in the past... i could do it with it not being here at all and initially forgot it was.

There are zillions of potential GM food products that have been created and developed to one extent or another by university labs and by companies; there would be no end to the scope of this article if we were to discuss all of them.

Again, back when we set up this article and the rest of the suite as it is currently organized (which is under discussion for change), the purpose of this article was to create something that had never existed in Misplaced Pages before - namely one place where people could come and see what food in their grocery stores was actually genetically modified. We can always agree to change the scope, but why anybody would want Misplaced Pages to be less useful to helping people identify GM food, especially in the US where it is not labelled, is quite beyond me. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (redact to fix error i made Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

• Comment A brief mention that GM animals are also used for other things then food is an addition to the article, and your edit made that clear. Also i see no reason to remove the mention of fish, something which have been widely reported in the media, on grounds that there may or may not be other studies. prokaryotes (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Using your logic, we should delete the entire section on GM animals...how would that look to the readership..."Misplaced Pages has nothing to say on what might become one of the most important areas of biotechnology in the very near future". By the way, with reference to finding what GM food is available in the store, why then do we bother with History, Process and Controversies sections - this article should simply be a list.DrChrissy 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Read my comment again, i have nothing against the edit you made.prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Prokaryotes - the comment was directed at Jytdog. I thought the indentation showed that.DrChrissy 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do realize that you are talking "at" me. For pete's sake I just realized that the article already says " but a GM salmon had been awaiting regulatory approval since 1997." So the content you added was also redudant. Which is an even better reason why your edit was not a good one. Yes that section does get a bit CRYSTALBALLy and I think we included it because of some strong passion around that in the past. There is no food from GM animals on the market now. I would actually be fine with deleting it but I doubt that would stick. Since the content is already there, this section is really fruitless. I've redacted my statement above ] (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm wondering if the definition of this page should be limited to those things currently in the grocery store. If i were to come to this article as a non-involved person, i would think that the article, because of the title, would include the scope of things likely to enter the food supply in the future, if they're deemed of interest and significance by reliable sources. We use reliable source to determine significance of possible future events, so we're not operating a crystal ball, as Misplaced Pages editors. If coverage is significant on a topic, and it fits within the article scope as perceived by the public, then i think it merits a mention in the article.

On the topic of genetically modified salmon, i do find some notable recent coverage here:

• NPR story on GM salmon (mentions the grocery store concept in the first paragraph, by the way)
• Genetic Literacy Project article on GM salmon (says that the Biotechnology Industry Association and companies spent $4.1 million this year promoting GM salmon)

If it's noted in mainstream and pro-GMO press, then it seems suitable to mention briefly on this page, so that readers will know about the whole topic of genetically modified food, including what is in the pipeline for the near future with noted significance by mainstream press. SageRad (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material on GM patent issues by Jytdog

Jytdog:

You deleted recently added material on patent issues relating to GM animals used to produce biopharmaceuticals. I think that was a mistake, perhaps induced by your excessive enthusiasm in favor of all things GMO. You said your reason was that this is an article about GM foods. However, there is a section Genetically_modified_food#GM_food_animals in the article about "other GM uses" and it specifically discusses pharming. The deleted material was about that subject (pharming) and immediately followed a discussion in the article of pharming to "produce recombinant antithrombin, an anticoagulant protein drug." It was sourced. It was NPOV (gave both sides).

I think that the deleted material is directly relevant to that discussion. Is the GMO antithrombin and/or the process for it legally protectable or is it open to competitive imitation by anyone who pleases? Only a person so dedicated to Monsanto's view that nobody should ever mention an issue that might impair the furthering of Monsanto's proprietary GMO rights could think that a discussion of whether the law will or won't protect a GMO company from poachers should be quashed.

Rather than start an edit war over this with multiple reverts, why don't we open a discussion on this talk about whether and where the deleted material should be presented in Misplaced Pages? I would be happy to abide by the consensus, but I object to your arbitrary, bullying, unilateral approach to whatever you disagree with. You are just delete-happy. Why can't you talk things over first? You are not the only one in WP entitled to have an opinion. Why don't you see if you are a loner or are in the mainstream consensus before reacting?

I therefore suggest that you or I undo your deletion, that we invite a discussion here, and that we abide by the consensus. If that doesn't suit you, perhaps we should take this further elsewhere.

  PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

here is the edit. Thanks for opening a discussion instead of edit warring, per WP:BRD. Yes, that content is way, way out of scope, and was also wrong, and was also WP:OR. We can discuss scope issues here if you like. If you want to discuss the content itself, I opened a discussion at Talk:Pharming_(genetics). Crazy editing going on here over the past couple of days. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor will just drag us now into another lengthly discussion, where he will explain how competent he is. I just begun looking over recent edits of editor Jytdog and it appears that he edits with a strong POV, additionally he regular shows signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:BULLY, and disruptive editing. Just look at his revert history on this page or similar pages. Not exactly sure how to proceed but this might require admin attention.prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, i think that comment is out of line here. We can comment on behaviors of editors, but we cannot "poison the well" by predicting behaviors of editors in the way you did. I know of Jytdog's tendencies, and of his history with you, but even so, i treat each new discussion with the assumption of good faith, until there is a problematic behavior.

I personally agree with Jytdog here that the topic of pharming should be touched on in this article on GM food, but should not get much weight because it is indeed out of scope. Pharma is not food, in the common parlance, and should be covered in its own article. SageRad (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pharma is currently mentioned in the article and i was referring to that, and i am referring above to the various reverts Jytdog makes. Basically if there is data about GMO food and patents then this belongs in this article. Though, it is not exactly clear from the edit history. Jytdog started another discussion here. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::In continuity with my revert, and per the discussion above that drugs/other things are not food, I removed the mention of pharming. It is off-topic, and is clearly a magnet for yet more offtopic content. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, here you removed all reference to Pharming_(genetics) in this article. I support your position that pharming is not within the scope of this article for coverage, but i do think this article should mention pharming in that section, so the reader will know of an adjacent and closely related field of technology. Articles in Misplaced Pages do benefit from mentioning related areas of interest, and linking to the appropriate Misplaced Pages article on the adjacent topic. I think we need one sentence to mention the concept and link to the article. What do you think? SageRad (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Jytdog thinks the material he deleted is about whether animals can be patented (as with the oncomouse). But it isn't. The deleted material is about whether the product and process of pharming can be patented. Let's get that straight first. Then let's figure out if that is relevant to Wikipedian concerns and if so, where it should be presented. I hope to see some consensus emerge. I also hope Jytdog will get the idea that he should talk things over first before deleting. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the notion to discuss first before deleting against consensus. Though, patent issues about pharmic belong in the pharming article. However, pharming should be mentioned here,, and was mentioned for several month, until now when Jytdog started to delete stuff without discussion, again.prokaryotes (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should simply add back a reference to Pharming (genetics) and call it a day. I'll do it. SageRad (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The content was perfect, brief and explained the term. Just a link is not the best option, readers might think it has to do with farming. prokaryotes (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I submit that both the issue of the content itself, and the preemptory removal without discussion are on the table here. In the Rfc section above, I strongly warned Jytdog just a few hours ago about his abrasive editing style. He chooses to continue editing here with methods that are arguably under the jurisdiction of WP:OWN. A cursory look at the material added and the referencing, along with PraeceptorIP's edit history, gives me confidence that they are acquainted with the topic and the literature. Per an emerging consensus, I support the readdition of the removed material, regardless of Jytdog's issues, which are increasingly desperate and disruptive. Jusdafax 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sage added something very close, but without the references. prokaryotes (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the removed content is not within the scope of this article. The content was not about GM food. It was about GM products, but they were non-food products. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Half the article is about growing and development of the food. Secondary sources frequently report about farming practices and food, because both is intervened. prokaryotes (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the removed material absolutely should be included. Both GM food crops and GM food animals are used for pharming and are therefore well within the scope. Not mentioning this is like not mentioning "milk" in the article. I also agree with Jusdafax that the editing behaviour of Jytdog on this page needs looking at. This "delete first, ask questions later" approach is not limited to this page or related pages, but he even followed me to magnetic senses in animals to make this disruptive edit. He is definitely showing WP:OWN here.DrChrissy 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog is going wild atm, readding his OR material to the lede, again without discussion. This editor is a good example for WP:OWN prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:BRD is an optional editing technique, and is not recommended in some situations. It says, "BRD (bold, revert, discuss) is most useful for pages where seeking and achieving consensus in advance of the bold edit could be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. Bold editing is not, however, a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing." Further, "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow." The essay also lists many alternatives to BRD editing. SageRad (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, you have some good points.

• In my opinion, whether the legal status of pharming biopharmaceurticals should be in or out ought to be determined by the consensus of those following this issue. At the moment, the consensus seems to be tilting slightly to out. It may take more discussion to be sure what the consensus is.
• The issue of Jytdog's editing behavior or style is a problem for all on whom he imposes his views. He should be admonished to forget about BRD, because he does not exercise discretion in being BRD. He should not delete anymore without talking things over with those concerned. He might persuade the others. Or they might persuade him. Or they might by discussion work out a third path that is even better. But this constant preaching and delete first in the name of BRD really ought to stop. He is bringing out the worst in other editors (self perhaps not excluded!). Just look at his history. He has to acquire more common sense and common courtesy, or else take his personal problems or demons, if any, someplace else. If this is off-base, from the consensus stand, let me know. Thank you. / PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of Harper reference

User talk:Yobol You recently corrected a reference I included in the article (Harper et al., 2009) - thanks very much for this. I found this article using Google Scholar and used the "cite" function to copy and paste the in-line reference. The Google Scholar citation is -

Harper, G. S., Brownlee, A., Hall, T. E., Seymour, R., Lyons, R., & Ledwith, P. (2009). Global progress toward transgenic food animals: a survey of publicly available information. St. Lucia (Qld.): CSIRO Livestock Industries. Online verkrijgbaar van http://www. foodstandards. gov. au/_srcfiles/Transgenic% 20Livestock% 20Review% 20CSIRO% 20FI NAL% 2012Dec20031. pdf. Toegang verkregen op, 9.

I can understand why you changed the publisher as this is in the document, but I do not understand how you found the different publication date (2003 c.f. 2009). The date is particularly important because I would probably not have used the source if I had known it was 12 years old rather than 6! (If anyone wishes to delete the source because of this, I will not complain.) Please understand, I am not complaining here, I am simply trying to find out if other tools are out there for checking reference details, and perhaps we should be checking the details provided by Google Scholar.DrChrissy 12:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the document, and noted that all of the references were 2003 and earlier, then googled it myself to see if it had been published elsewhere. Researchgate is a repository, so google scholar may be going off of when it was first placed there, rather than the original publication date. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks very much for this. A warning for all of us that use Google Scholar.DrChrissy 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Readding of OR references

Recently i removed references which are not related to the content, in this dif. There is a opinion blog, a page which requires register/login, and references which do not contain info related to the paragraph. Additional i moved the WHO reference to the end of the paragraph and added the part about crossbreeding from that site. Jytdog and Yobol reverted these changes, back to what amounts to OR. prokaryotes (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"OR references" makes no sense. The link to the AMA report was just broken. I fixed it. Good link is here Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The NRC, the EU paper, both show not what the paragraph claims, see edit summary if you once would care to bother. Also suddenly you except opinion blogs, but elsewhere you do not even except WHO or Jorunal publications. Your judgement is obviously very one sided.prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "scientific consensus statement" and its sourcing has all been under discussion for a long time. We just had a huge RfC over some of this with many, many participants, and no one else - no one else - has edited that as aggressively as you. Your edits are inappropriate on a controversial article. Again, if everyone edited as aggressively as you this article would have been at arbcom ages ago and under discretionary sanctions. You are showing no self-restraint here. Again please read WP:Controversial articles which provides very good guidance. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again read the edit summary or what i wrote above. Unless you specifically address my edits i have to ignore you.prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

there is no edit summary here or here or here. Which edit summary are you talking about? If you mean the edit summary of the dif you link to in your original post of this section, this diff, the edit summary says "rm opinion blog". In that diff you removed a statement by the AMA, the WHO FAQ, the NRC report, and a paper called A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) and moved the WHO FAQ to the end and did something strange with it. None of those are "opinion blogs" and that is an edit summary that misrepresents what you did there. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) (corrected via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC))

This edit here. The references do not match the paragraph, at least not those which i have removed. If the one reference you said you fixed then fine, but the others are either about labeling of GMO food or in 1 case an opinion blog, and 1 study support general safe, but also states GMO's should be judged on a case by case basis. The WHO reference was moved, again mentioned above. I did not checked the last 4 study references. And if you go to the page history and look at the edit summary you see that i commented every single reference i edited.prokaryotes (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again - which ref is an "opinon blog"? If you made a mistake, just acknowledge it, as I have done above. There were no "opinion blogs" cited as references. You gave no reason for removing the AMA source nor the the NRC report, nor the paper called A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010). You did move the WHO source to the end and did something strange with it - you didn't delete it. You are also not addressing the point that the content and sourcing you are editing aggressively has been under intense discussion on this page for something like three months now by dozens of editors, and only you are being disruptive and demanding changes to it now. This is disruptive. But really - what "opinion blog" was there? Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As you can easily access from the edit summary, this dif, to a column at the Washington Post. Generally the WP is a reliable source, but if there are health statements in regards to safety we should use MEDRS sources, something you mentioned several times. But suddenly it shouldn't apply? prokaryotes (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

oh i see what you are referring to now. I don't agree that is some random blog. And your edit summary does not address your removal of the AMA source, the NRC, the decade of funded research paper, nor your abuse of the WHO source. Your edit summary didn't come even close to referring to what you actually did. Anyway enough of the edit summary discussion. Your edit removed signficant reliable sources. Please stop editing the consensus statement and sources and join the discussion. You can see the language I changed it to was suggested by Tsavage above. There was a conversation ongoing before you got here focused on trying to reach consensus. Please join it instead of forging ahead like a lone wolf. 16:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not about the phrase that there is an agreement on safety, but that these reference mentioned, do not back up the phrase. The NRC is about labels, AMA appears also to be about labels, EU paper too, WHO is very broad and contains info on food safety, which you removed. Hence the only source which gives something similar to the phrase is the conclusion from the AAAS board, or update the reference. As it stands, it is wrong, and possibly in violation with OR and maybe MEDRS, when we consider the entire link farm.prokaryotes (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryots is absolutely right; the references that have been used to support the claim of a scientific consensus do constitute OR, and do not meet MEDRS requirements. This claim, and string of OR/SYNTH references, has been splashed all over Misplaced Pages. Only Jytdog probably knows just how many articles host the SC statement, but once we have this sorted out, using proper RS and summarizing the findings correctly, we'll need to find all the claims and correct them (here is just one example). Jytdog is incorrect when he admonishes Prokaryotes for 'aggressive editing'. Pro is simply editing, and making guideline-based corrections that should have been made months ago. There's nothing hurried about fixing gross errors months after they've been pointed out (ex: noting that the AAAS statement is advocacy rather than passing it off as MEDRS). petrarchan47คุก 04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes is a breath of fresh air, though hardly perfect editor. Still. Jytdog has been on quite a tear in the past 48 hours, including his filing a complaint against Prokaryotes at the editwarring noticeboard. His threats are too numerous to mention. I have urged a preventative block for Jytdog, since he has completely come off the rails today at Pharming (genetics) and that article's talk page, where he admits to being an angry editor, and a gratuitous insult to me at the User Talk:PraeceptorIP page. Enough is enough, and your suggestion is noted, and will eventually have to be acted on. I have a bad feeling though, that the grim chore of going through Jytdog's long edit history is going to be like turning over a rock: really scary. Jusdafax 06:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What Pro is saying about sources is correct, as per our recent RfC. Here are snippets from it about the Washington Post source:

• Sunrise: I agree that the Washington Post article should be removed.... relevant for the sourcing of scientific facts."
• TFD: One of the studies mentioned in the UN report was Domingo 2000. Domingo published a review study in 2011 in Environment International, which says there is a balance between reports claiming currently consumed GMO foods are safe and those saying they are not. His report shows 119 cites in Google scholar....Also, per MEDRS guidelines, some of the sources for the wording should be removed. For example, the Washington Post article does not meet MEDRS.

Ensuing discussion:

there are a few non-MEDRS sources in there, I agree. They are high-quality secondary sources that report on the fact of the scientific consensus, not on the content of that consensus. - Jytdog

Why does have less weight than a Washington Post article? - TFD

see above. if you read the reliable sources, domingo has a minority position. the washington post source simply reports on the consensus, as i mentioned above. - Jytdog

If (high quality) news media can evaluate and summarize scientific findings in this case, then presumably that should be so in most cases. Here, the single author of the Washington Post piece appears from her credits to be a food, science and health journalist with no scientific credentials, and the "consensus" she reports on is her own finding, using an "impartiality test" she has devised to determine which organizations seem to have taken sides and which seem neutral, by examining the ratio of risks to benefits each mentions - since explaining her method is central to her article and conclusion, I then have to determine if I agree with that method, and with the exclusions of presumably partisan organizations that she makes in determining consensus. It's all pretty confusing to me, and also illustrates the problem with too many cited sources: how is an editor, let alone a reader, expected to wade through all this - it would take hours? --Tsavage

Not only are crappy sources (per WP:MEDRS) being used, but good ones are being ignored, and it appears that diversionary tactics such as outright lying on the TP are being used to keep these sources from reaching the WP audience. The sources, Domingo and the more recent uber-review from Tufts, say categorically that there is no agreement among scientists about GM food safety, and point to the fact that roughly 50% of studies have found harm. It is upsetting that one of the main proponents for MEDRS and of the larger goals of WikiProject Medicine - to reflect the most recent peer reviewed science in our articles - is responsible for skewing the facts and misrepresenting/squelching MEDRS when it doesn't fit a pro-biotech POV. This is justification for a topic ban, as I have said before. petrarchan47คุก 20:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the summary of the previous discussion. Note that popular media sources are treated in MEDRS at WP:MEDPOP. SageRad (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the mainstream popular media storiies are included to support the claim of the extent of the scientific agreement (consensus, general agreement, whatever), not what they agreeing about per se. The very strong AAAS, AMA, decade of EU studies, etc are there to support the subject of the scientific agreement. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

user of ENSSER source in the lead

Something that happened in the flurry of edits a couple of days ago, was the addition of content sourced from the ENSSER article to the lead of the article. Per WP:LEAD nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body, so I moved it to the body and attributed it, and added back content summarizing the controversies that was somehow removed, in these 2 diffs. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, please check again your references from the lede about general safety, some of them state that safety must be judged on a case by case basis, not just ENSSR. Also check the references per the lede paragraph per the discussion above on OR. Also readd what you have removed about the WHO and food safety (crossbreeding). prokaryotes (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How to refer to ENSSER dispute

I see that Jusdafax reverted Yobol's edit here.

Now, my opinion on this topic is that Jusdafax did the right thing, because s/he removed loaded language, an epitaph really, from the name of a group who made a statement.

If i were to place an epitaph on Monsanto, as "the company who sold PCBs knowing that they were carcinogenic, for forty years, is faced with a lawsuit by ..." then i bet you would take issue and edit this to just read "Monsanto".

Let's discuss this matter and not get into any more edit warring. Thanks gentlefolk. SageRad (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I fully agree, SageRad, and could not have stated it more clearly. Thanks. Jusdafax 01:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the user about POV edits on his user page. prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ENSSER is clearly an advocacy group whose sole purpose is to advocate against GMOs. The analogy above re: Monsanto is hyperbolic and unhelpful, and that editors here think this comparison is apt serves notice to me to not waste my breath on discussing this further. Life's too short to bang my head against this wall. Yobol (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is your opinion (and Jytdog's) that ENSSER is an advocacy group, and it is an error to claim "whose sole purpose is to advocate against GMOs". Notice that NPOV is required if you want to contribute to the page. prokaryotes (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, of course not, their sole purpose isn't an anti-GMO advocacy. I'm sure it's just a huge coincidence that every single press release they've ever made in the existence of the group is anti-GMO in content. /rolls eyes. Yobol (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Anti-GMO is a label, and framing them as an advocacy group is opinion - both is not neutral, see also WP:OR. Another example, we could call them Award winning researchers concerned with food safety, but we don't make this claim neither, hence why Misplaced Pages articles are written in a neutral style. prokaryotes (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Yobol, eyes do roll. They are an advocacy group. But so is Monsanto, and we refer to them as just Monsanto. We need to use neutral language and not polarize the article. SageRad (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, I am going to ask you nicely... Leave out your eye rolling. I also ask you to try and make your edit summaries better than a one-word "better." Thanks. Sage Rad continues to brilliantly express my thoughts. Neutrality is the goal here. Jusdafax 02:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Under NPOV we call a spade a spade especially when dealing with WP:FRINGE or advocacy groups. This one should be a snowball case if we're following NPOV. I'll have to check in the morning when I'm not on my phone, but I believe this similar content was discussed to death already at this article or a similar one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As SageRad points out in refutal, Monsanto is an advocacy group. This is an important distinction, and recognition of that fact is going to be crucial in this discussion. Jusdafax 03:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is by definition WP:TEND if it is being used to influence content discussion here, and I'm not going to comment on behavior further here. Monsanto is a business, not an advocacy group with a specific goal. You can see advocacy-like action from both, but the Monsanto boogey-man is not the topic of this content, nor are we directly citing them for anything controversial. We are strictly discussing ENSSER here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am moving this here for discussion until we can get consensus on it, so we are not disrupting the article while we work on it: Here is the current version:

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), states that there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and that because of research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state if GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis.

References

1. Hilbeck; et al. (2015). "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (PDF). Environmental Sciences Europe. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

In my view, this is a FRINGE group advocating a FRINGE position. For those who argue, I will ask you to: a) point me to mainstream media (and I will even broaden that to include mainstream science journalism sources like Scientific American and the like) discussion of ENSSER and how it is described (I found none); b) look at the signatories to their petition claiming there is no consensus, and note the absenses - not even Jose Domingo (probably the leading scientist who is not part of the consensus) has signed, nor has Jordi Giné Bordonaba (co-author on his 2007 review), nor has A. L Van Eenennaam nor AE Young, nor has Magaña-Gómez; nor has Dona nor Arvanitoyannis.... all these are scientists who have published reviews who found some potential issues with safety. None of them have signed. Misplaced Pages should not give this group nor its claims much WEIGHT, per NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There are several reliable secondary sources which cite the group on various topics. And they actually are in line with the WHO here that assessements must be made on a case by case basis. Hence why framing it as a fringe group is POV.prokaryotes (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please name those sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Here, here, here, here, and at least 2 journal publications.prokaryotes (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my point. (the 2nd one, phys.org, is just a press release by ENSSER btw - check out the "provided by" statement at the bottom) Please note that I asked for mainstream media, or even mainstream science media, discussion of them. You provided none. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The first reference is published by The Ecologist which is mainstream enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. The second reference is Phys.Org and yes, it appears to be a press release, but are you suggesting that Phys.Org does not have editorial input or does not engage in fact checking? Again Phys.Org has its own Misplaced Pages article. The third article was published by Science and Development Network; again this has its own Misplaced Pages article. The fourth article was published by RT (TV network); again this has its own Misplaced Pages article.DrChrissy 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The group has exclusively made press releases about GE issues. Their own list of media coverage is distinctly underwhelming. I've found them panned in pro-GMO media and praised by GMO opponents. Their No scientific consensus has been cited three times in peer-reviewed publications. In the one of those three I have access to, Kohl et al., they are cited in the following manner: "The necessity for such a transparent and traceable summary is illustrated by a recent article by Hilbeck et al. (2015), discussing the diversity of scientific opinions and the problems in achieving a scientific consensus in order to conclude about GMO safety." FourViolas (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you ask John Entine, "ENSSER, for those not familiar with it, is an organization with a mission. Its members believe—this is faith and not science—that the debate over GMOs is over, that the technology is harmful and should be banned or restricted out of existence. Its members are among the most high profile anti-GMO activists in Europe." However, Jon Entine himself is an advocacy group. He is the founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, which is an industry mouthpiece essentially. He is a news person, not a scientist. Formerly worked for NBC news and now does news writing for the GMO industry. So it's a lot of "He said / She said" name calling back and forth across a partisan divide of this ideological issue.

Note that Entine's assessment is wrong in that ENSSER is not saying that "the debate on GMOs is over" but actually that is the position that the GMO industry would like to promote, that the debate is over and that there is "scientific consensus" that GMOs are completely safe. ENSSER is pushing against the closing of the debate in this way. In fact, to quote ENSSER: ""As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a "scientific consensus" on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is "over.""

Sure, ENSSER is a group of activist scientists and it is an advocacy group. But so is Monsanto. So is Jon Entine, who here says that ENSSER is an advocacy group, without irony. It's name calling all around. To categorize ENSSER as FRINGE and therefore inadmissible is not right. They're not fringe like flat earthers, or Holocaust deniers. They seem to represent a minority position -- but not a "tiny" position that would make them fringe. Misplaced Pages guidelines are very clear that minority positions are to be represented, though not positions held by only a tiny fraction of the population. SageRad (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's argument about the signatories of the ENSSER petition is seriously flawed. Jytdog seems to be arguing that the absence of particular signatures somehow undermines a petition, however, it is pure speculation on why these signatures are absent. Now if Jytdog has evidence that these absent signatories refused to sign the petition, that would be worth noting, although it would be only a single individual's opinion.DrChrissy 12:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction: I see six peer-reviewed citers. I think the core issue here, which could lead to productive discussion, is whether those six citations constitute respectable WP:USEBYOTHERS, particularly citation without comment. I'm not familiar with typical citations-per-month for an open letter in this field; can anyone speak to that specifically?

On a tangential note, this non-neutral paper has some great insights on why writing this Misplaced Pages article is so difficult: anti-GMO results can be inconclusive and hard to detect, and their critics frequently fail to play by the rules and best practices of scientific discourse. It also contains the amusing spectacle of a refereed scientific paper properly attributing the assertion that opposition to its author's position is COWDUNG. FourViolas (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert to OR

Recently editor Yobol reverted in this Dif, back to a version where content and references do not match. Additional he removed a statement by the WHO about outcrossing and that studies must be assessed on a case by cases basis. I notice that this is not the first edit when he reverts back to unsupported content, and removes reliable sourced content from authorities (WHO). Therefore i ask the editor to stop his unsupported reverting/POV-pushing and add per sources. prokaryotes (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

1) the version I am reverting to is one which is supported by the current content. Read the section regarding food safety, and my adjustment to the wording with the addition of "on the market" to match the content of the WHO document. 2) The discussion about "case by case" is already discussed in the 2nd paragraph of the section, so there is no need to repeat. Yobol (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The WHO study has nothing to do with the paragraph it is attributed to, they cite various issues, which you have removed. There is no other mention of outcrossing and the WHO report underlines that the ENSSER publications is not a fringe view. prokaryotes (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add the WHO source to the 2nd paragraph regarding need for case-by-case study, go right ahead. Using the WHO to bolster the ENSSER statement of course is YOUR point, in trying to POV push, which is not going to fly. Yobol (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I mention this because it has been contested here. Also notice that teh current lede cites more studies which call for case by case assessments, not only the WHO or ENNSER, also elsewhere we name more then a single source as well. prokaryotes (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional you do not respond to your removal of two important findings by the WHO. Please readd them and stop edit warring based on your POV.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added the WHO reference to the sentence regarding discussion of "case by case" analysis and added discussion of gene transfer and outcrossing to that sentence. In the future, it would be best to actually try to read the objections and make suggestions based on those rather than trying to bully your way through a discussion to get your own preferred version by accusing people of POV pushing, when your own hands are not clean. Yobol (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add the sentence regarding discussion of "case by case" analysis, thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, in what way do you understand that each of the "currently marketed GM food" products got to market? Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry i don't understand what you try to communicate, and your edit now makes no sense, "possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms are satisfied." Add the sentence as you wrote above regarding discussion of "case by case" analysis (WHO authority). prokaryotes (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think i understand now what you referring to, the sentence you edited broadly refers to testing, okay - but it sounds odd with the satisfied at the end. ALso this removes all the safety concerns from the author, in the section which is supposed to address these.prokaryotes (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I should have just come out and said it - each instance of currently marketed GM food got there, and gets there, and will get there (until laws/regulations dramatically change) on a case by case basis. Nothing in the WHO source contradicts the "scientific consensus' statement - everything in it supports that statement. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement that there is a general safety agreement for all GMOs is at odds with sources such as the WHO who explicitly state that GMOs must be tested on a case by case basis. If you insist that it includes "all GMOs currently on the market", then you require to back this up with a reliable source.prokaryotes (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The source you currently cite states in those regards " This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." What you are doing is in violation of OR.prokaryotes (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

the statement does not say "all GM food" it says "currently marketed GM food" - food that has reached the market on a case by case basis. And the WHO source says "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety 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. " Also, I don't know if you are aware of this, but WHO/FAO consultations have formed some of the crucial foundations for the regulation of GM foods used in developed countries Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog is distracting here, Yobol ignoring the discrepancies. The WHO states that outcrossing may be a problem for food safety and food security. The cite does not support the new edit by Yobol, which reads, "Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms are satisfied" And it also does not support, "The WHO also states that GMOs must be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Yobol and Jytdog both support in this edit original research.prokaryotes (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GM animal feed: problematic claim regarding soy meal

The article claims “The high-protein defatted and toasted soy meal becomes livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the US soybean crop goes for livestock feed.” Of the two sources cited for this statement, neither says anything about dog food, one does not make the 98 percent claim, and although the other does make the latter claim, it is an error. Credible data are in USDA Agricultural Statistics 2013 and in the USDA ERS oilcrops spreadsheets, which indicate that that from 2010 through 2012, tonnage of US soybean oil production was 10 percent of US soybean production tonnage. Soybean oil exports were 12 percent of US soybean oil production. Most domestic use of soybean oil is for edible oil consumption, and most of the remainder is for industrial oils, fatty acids, soaps and biodiesel. Very little of the oil is used in animal feed. Thus these figures are enough to show that the Misplaced Pages article’s 98 percent figure is erroneous. (Perhaps it originated from misreading of the estimate that about 98 percent of soybean meal is used as animal feed.) Moreover, about 44 % of US soybean production was exported as beans, for which there are very incomplete end use statistics. Thus there can be no certainty regarding the amount of exported soybeans fed to livestock and poultry. Soybean meal consumption (estimated by USDA as 44% CP equivalent) by US livestock and poultry recently has been about 35 percent of US soybean production tonnage. Seed and feed use (as uncrushed beans) and the calculation residual recently have accounted for about 3 percent of US annual soybean production, with use for seed alone accounting for roughly 2 percent. Thus US soy consumption by animals can be estimated at roughly 35 percent of US soybean production tonnage. If soy meal used in dog food is to be mentioned, one could also mention use for fish feed, which is estimated (by Cromwell) to exceed that. It seems misleading to mention only defatted and toasted soy meal used for animal feed, with no acknowledgement of full-fat soy meal (also heat treated, to denature trypsin inhibitors), which is also an important animal feed. Schafhirt (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as you have WP:RS references supporting your information, go ahead and correct the article. The soy meal article may also need correction.Dialectric (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I already made this correction somewhere, maybe in this article or maybe in another. That "98% of U.S. soybean crop" figure is plain wrong. What i have seen is a figure that 98% of soybean meal goes to animal feed. Note that this is a very very different thing. Meal is what's left over after processing into oil, which is a large use of soybean crops. I don't have time to source and change this right now, but i wanted to confirm the correction and add my experience. Thanks for catching this. SageRad (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is an article on soybean mean here. SageRad (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not being an administrator, I cannot edit the Genetically modified food article. I did some editing on the Soybean meal article.Schafhirt (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protection information

I notice the article is protected until Sep. 8. Where can I find information on how that came about? --Tsavage (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here. prokaryotes (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are currently three reports at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

The mess was started when Jytdog reported Prokaryotes, an act Jytdog had threatened to do, then said he would not, then did anyway, then retracted two days later on the grounds it was "stale." That first filing is still, as of this posting, to be found near the top of the page after the original report was withdrawn, but no admin would touch it. I have maintained that that filing was an abuse of process.

In the second filing, Prokaryotes filed against Kingofaces. At that point the decision was made to solve the larger problem by page protection here. Ditto for the third related filing where Jytdog is reported by DrChrissy regarding the Glyphosate article, resulting in that article being protected as well.

To my knowledge there has been no admin action to date against any of the involved editors, which may indicate a broad deep-rooted aversion to being involved in this overall dispute. Jusdafax 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For editor's convenience, the diff of the case I have raised against Jytdog is here.DrChrissy 21:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't read any of that (yet, I guess), but initially sounds like it is as much about the rash of filings as the actual edit warring - considering the dozens of editors, thousands (millions?) of words, and weeks invested in ongoing discussion, the editing skirmishes seem mild. Page protection for a week seems extreme. --Tsavage (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're mentioning all these other cases as they don't have to do with this article excluding the first one mentioned by Prokaryotes. Please stick to the scope of this article on the talk page, especially per WP:FOC. People now have a link as to why the page is protected, so there's nothing more to add to this particular section on an article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, because these cases all feature the same cast of characters, the same type of article page protection, and are closely related. We are seeing a wide swath of Monsanto-related articles edited by a small group of people, and has led to at least two fairly drastic editing restrictions. Jusdafax 22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, please focus on content on article talk pages, a policy we sorely need to have followed more in this topic. If you want to discuss non-content topics and edit behavior like you just mentioned in your last comment, please take it to a more appropriate forum such as a user talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we take it to your talkpage Kingofaces?DrChrissy 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss on my talk page. The AN3 case is essentially reached its endpoint with page protection, and WP:DROPTHESTICK has been suggested by myself and other uninvolved editors at the board in order to focus on content instead. I for one intend to follow that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for positions of advocacy groups

I notice that this has a template after this in the article:

Opponents such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.

Would a page from these group's websites which states their position be acceptable to cite here? I understand that primary sources should generally be avoided for backing up specific factual claims, but it seems to me that the best source to cite for an advocacy group's position on something would be material published by the group itself. SarrCat ∑;3 02:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That should be fine. Secondary sources are useful for 2 reasons: Verification, and to determine weight. Primary sources from each organization resolve the first problem, but not the second. Is it important that these organizations have those views? Only secondary sources can address that, but in the meantime, verification is better than no verification.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some citations for the positions of the Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace. Can these please be inserted into the article in place of the ? I can't edit the article, seems there has been some drama and edit warring that has resulted in it being locked. SarrCat ∑;3 04:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "GMO Myths and Truths". organicconsumers.org. Organic Consumers Association. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture". ucsusa.org. Union of Concerned Scientists. Archived from the original on 12 June 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. "GMOs & Toxic Pesticides". greenpeace.org. Greenpeace. Archived from the original on 8 August 2015. Retrieved 5 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

• Comment We usually do not add a framing term in front of the company/organisation unless it is very specific about it, most parts of this article do not use a framing term, why should have these 3 organisations one? Readers who are not aware who Greenpeace is, can just click the link.prokaryotes (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What you call "framing" is providing context, which is exactly what an encyclopedia does. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So why do you add context to these 3 organisations, but not to others? Makes not much sense, unless you specifically aim for framing.prokaryotes (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• B-Class Agriculture articles
• Mid-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• B-Class Invention articles
• Unknown-importance Invention articles
• WikiProject Invention articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment