Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 17 September 2015 (→Retraction of Seralini). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Misplaced Pages has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable." (source)

"But perhaps even more insidious are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned." (source)

"Misplaced Pages is at a crossroads ... in my view there are trucks of corporate and military/intelligence owned editors barreling down on concerned unpaid editors from all directions. The 'pedia is increasingly functioning as corporate/political PR, and those in the way are targeted, just as Scientologists target "Repressive Persons." There are times I can't believe my eyes and have to walk away." (source)

-- Jusdafax

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, April 2015:

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

From Genetically modified food: Consternation, confusion, and crack-up:

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

From Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies:

"(Medical) journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry."

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Epic Atsme response

I can't think of a better incentive for encouraging editors to improve articles or for recruiting new volunteers to our wonderful encyclopedia... I thought the following was pretty interesting, too: Why is Misplaced Pages losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. But hey, look at the bright side - WP won't run out of editors, at least for a while anyway. Outfits like Guerrilla Skeptics are busy recruiting new advocates editors every day: . I think SlimVirgin is well aware of what's going on, and I commend her efforts for actually trying to keep a handle on things.

It's pretty obvious why big $$$ has such an intense interest in WP - I can't think of a better place for them to peddle their wares, and that includes all aspects of it from mainstream to fringe. In the interim, editors will keep being cautioned (intimidated, actually) to not say anything negative about mainstream and they'll be kept in line with multiple DS notices advising everyone to mind our Ps and Qs while the travesties continue and those we once looked up to turn a blind eye. . The sad part is the fact that the hands of conventional or orthodox whatever you want to call it are not clean, either. . Yet, your biggest concern is over a little old BLP about an author who tried to expose the corruption. Has anybody noticed how much money FDA approved meds and treatments take in while they criticize alternative (now integrative according to Mayo), calling them quacks and charlatans for scamming people out of their money? . Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Atsme☯

Reference errors on 17 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kombucha page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs , my request to RHaworth

Hi again Petrarchan47, below is a C&P of my request I posted to RHaworth on this users Talk page

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs - Please restore article

Dear RHaworth, I totally disagree with the deletion of Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOsj. The reasons given for its deletion and totally incorrect. There is nothing about the article that is intentionally or unintentionally promotional in any way. If that were the case then we could argue that X-Men: Days of Future Past is nothing more than a shameless promotion for Lauren Shuler Donner and 20th Century Fox and their shareholders. And if that's the case then we had better set about deleting 99% of the film articles in Misplaced Pages. Either that or Misplaced Pages must rebrand itself. It must announce a new policy that anything to do with controversial subject or anything that may lead to people questioning the official version of things such as GMOs, BIG PHARMA, vaccinations, the military industry be banned. I'm in no way saying that your actions are anything to do with certain agendas taking place. Not at all. But I am saying now that there are serious discussions taking place. Serious discussions taking place about who may really control and influence Misplaced Pages. Many thanks. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So I'll see what the outcome is. I'll give it another shot. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article should have been speedily deleted, and have weighed in at the linked talk page. I would advise, from personal experience, that while it may feel cathartic to speak your truth about what you believe may be going on behind the scenes, it does no good whatsoever unless these issues are brought up in the proper forum with evidence provided. This is more easily said than done, of course; even finding the proper venue is quite a challenge, especially for a new-ish editor. I still would advise you to give up on WP and run like hell if you have any love of the truth and/or an aversion to propaganda. I would also stick by my suggestion, if you choose to stay, to find a mentor to discuss these issues with and from whom you can get grounded advice for moving forward. You are taking on the establishment thinking the truth and WP guidelines (as well as common sense and logic) are all you need to prevail. I once believed that too. I feel I am about to watch yet another editor be chewed up and spit out whilst an angry team of editors watches and cheers. This is not something I want to see. Whatever you do, please put yourself first. It isn't up to you to save WP - your own peace of mind does much more to benefit this world that any edits you might make on WP. petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bless you for your advice and at the right time and at the protection of my sanity, I'll remember it and use it to decide. Believe me, in another time, another place where race-hate was the issue istead of truth destruction, I was told a similar thing. Anyway I have puit it in at Deletion review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The review is happening Misplaced Pages:Deletion review - Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs so we'll see how it shapes up. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I know this is too little, too late, but I personally am saddened that you are encouraging a potential new editor to leave WP. Even if I don't agree with your and his viewpoints - I steadfastly believe that your viewpoint regarding GMO safety introduces propaganda to WP since an overwhelming majority of existing scientific research supports GMO safety, and since both Seralini and IARC are rife with errors - but I would never be a proponent for a viewpoint being silenced entirely, or for excluding editors that can contribute meaningfully to WP. Frankly, something like "a large majority of research supports GMO safety (cite); some studies have raised potential concerns (cite) but are themselves contested (cite)" would be an appropriate way to represent both viewpoints here per UNDUE. Hopefully the current ArbCom action will allow our opposing camps to be able to work together so such a thing is possible. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My friend, this new editor was run off the site and indefinitely banned for not following my advice. You might look into who had him banned and let then know how sad you are. I am exceedingly disappointed that you claim to know my position on GMO safety. I recommend you take a gander at the most recent review from Tufts/Krimsky. We aren't talking about camps or opinions when referencing MEDRS. (The only difference, by the way, between Seralini's rat study and one conducted by Monsanto is the length of time it was carried out.) Further, you insinuate that all studies finding harm have been contested. That is simply fact free. Krimsky 2015 looked at 8 separate reviews and 22 individual studies that have found harm. Domingo 2011 found that roughly half of all studies showed "cause for concern". Pointing this out makes me a good Wikipedian, it does not in any way speak to my views on GMOs. It is a bit Orwellian, in fact, that I need to explain this. The tendency to dichotomize, placing everything into camps rather than looking at the grey areas where truth usually lies, is not a good trait for editors. What I and many others have done at the GMO page, is to point out that major scientific bodies are being deliberately and blatantly misrepresented to create a pro-GMO public relations statement that is in violation of WPs core policies and principles. As an editor, I am obligated to speak out against this and in favor of the proper use of sources. To hear this labelled 'pro-GMO activism', or even "fringe", is simply bewildering to put it kindly. Finally, I wish you would consider striking your comment at ArbCom where you profess to be uninvolved *. petrarchan47คุก 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

He was banned? That is unfortunate, I didn't know that. I apologize if I struck a nerve, and for making assumptions I shouldn't based on the limited reading I've done thus far. Even today I was surprised by the extent of the edit warring within Glyphosate as I reviewed the logfile - it's worse than I was led to believe based on ArbCom entries thus far.

I certainly am not trying to drudge up old arguments here; I'm still learning, and still deciding. I'll do the additional reading as you have suggested. In the meantime, I will say that I feel the comment that I am uninvolved (or, as I actually put it, that my interactions with Jytdog, other involved editors, and the articles in question are limited) is still true, so I won't strike it. To wit, I have never edited Glyphosate or GMOs; my interaction with any of you on content pages is limited to Syngenta to the best of my recollection. I will readily profess, however, to being unhappy with what I believe to be a strong imbalance between the scientific proof on GMOs, and public policy enacted on GMOs, especially in the Eurobloc--public policy which, again in my opinion, is often based off of hysteria or (at best) flawed studies rather than good proof. That unhappiness, in turn, comes from my agricultural and biochemical background and studies. That is the source of my interest in this discussion and why I am more active in the ArbCom than I have been in actual content.

Rest assured that my only interest is ensuring that both sides of this discussion - regardless of my personal opinion, or where you or I sit - are appropriately represented according to the available evidence. I try to go out of my way to make sure all viewpoints, including those I disagree with, are covered, and I point to my edit history especially on Syngenta as proof of that. I am not tolerant of any viewpoint being silenced entirely (not even due to WP:FRINGE in most cases), nor of any viewpoint being overemphasized relative available evidence. Fortunately, that seems to be true for virtually everyone involved here - we're all trying to make WP better, and all trying to work within its policies. We simply disagree on the appropriate emphasis "relative available evidence", on what constitutes good evidence, and how to interpret said evidence - particularly in light of the personal biases all of us have.

When this ArbCom was first brought up, I thought it was little more than a personal attack on Jytdog (and perhaps Kingofaces and JzG) by a cabal of anti-GMO advocates trying to modify WP to suit their agenda, and ultimately, to persuade public readers of WP that GMOs are unsafe despite their scientific record. I really did. Since then, as I dig more and more into the evidence, my opinion has changed. I do still see, I think, an attempt to make WP overemphasize GMO and glyphosate safety questions relative available research, often founded on findings that are themselves criticized within the scientific community (such as Seralini and IARC), but I also see profound and rather draconian misbehavior by Jytdog (and others), especially recently, in a seeming attempt to silence entirely any coverage of safety questions. Neither behavior is appropriate on WP, and it is unfortunate that ArbCom has become the only recourse. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll still find an amendment to your comment wise, given these new awarenesses.

To save you from digging, here is Domingo, and here is Krimsky's meta review of GMO food safety studies (the only one in existence).

On the Seralini case

AMY GOODMAN: ...explain further what found.

SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, he found organ failure. First of all, he did one of the first long-term experiments. So, in other words, he did an experiment on the rats that lasted for a couple of years. Usually they would do a 90-day experiment on the animals. So this was a long-term experiment, which really was needed, because some of these effects you won’t see right away. And his results showed damage to organs, kidneys, and also proliferation of tumors at a much higher rate than the controls. And after his results came out, there was another surge of vilification of his work and his research and his reputation, on and on and on.

A few very unusual things happened. The first you mentioned, that his journal first supported him and said, "We have a very good refereed system, and he passed the referees," to get into this peer-reviewed journal. Within a year, however, they changed their mind, because of the political pressure that there was a solid journal, American U.S. journal, that said there were problems with one of the genetically modified products. So, the journal went ahead and retracted his article, without his permission.

And then they gave the reason for the retraction. And this is where a hundred scientists had signed a petition saying that the reasons they gave were not only unorthodox, they violated international standards. The reason they gave was very explicit. They said, "There is no fraud. There is no clear mistakes in this paper. The results were not definitive, and that’s why we’re retracting it." Now, if you use that criteria, you would have to retract 95 percent of all published work.

And from Daniel Hicks (AAAS scientist with the EPA), in his review of Krimsky 2015:

"In his conclusion, Krimsky argues that the burden of proof should be on the claim that GM foods are safe. This would mean that it’s insufficient to, say, critique the Séralini study on the grounds that small sample sizes mean it has low statistical power. Low power just means that the findings could be the result of chance. We can’t conclude from this critique that the findings werethe results of chance and so the study does not provide (weak, tentative) evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the safety claim, even weak, tentative evidence of hazards needs to be taken seriously. That means the only adequate way to respond to the Séralini study — the only way to show that it does not provide even weak, tentative evidence of hazards — is to replicate it, and thereby provide evidence that the findings were the result of chance."

According to Mike Hansen:

“Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.”

On the upcoming EU-funded Seralini study:

However, both the French Food Safety Agency14 (ANSES) and the European Food Safety Authority15 (EFSA) have agreed with Dr. Séralini that such long-term safety assessment should be done on GE foods. Indeed, the ANSES report on the Séralini study notes, “ANSES recommends initiating studies and research on the long-term effects of GMOs in combination with plant protection products ... calls for public funding on the national and European level to enable large-scale studies and research for consolidating knowledge of insufficiently documented health risks.”16 At a meeting in December, the “EFSA board meeting on Thursday last week there was agreement that long-term studies were needed and it was now just a question of how to fund them.”17 If the Séralini study is so flawed, why have ANSES and EFSA functionally agreed with its call for independently-funded long-term feeding studies on GE crops? On June 28, 2013 the European Commission announced they were spending 3 million Euros to fund a two-year carcinogenicity study on the same GE corn variety (NK603) that Dr. Séralini and colleagues used.18

Once in a while politics supersedes science, and it cannot be said that Monsanto is innocent in this regard, as I showed you in the Reuters article detailing moves by the company to get the WHO to do a retraction of their glyphosate findings. petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Stunning but fascinating. Thank you for this. Jusdafax 01:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure! petrarchan47คุก 07:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But when you've got foxes guarding the hen house, PAGs and facts take a back seat. petrarchan47คุก 12:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping up on this subject. I learn quite a bit from your efforts at Misplaced Pages. Thanks again. Jusdafax 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone new to this information should be aware that the type of lab rat and the length of the study may well be a serious problem. A large number of rats have cancer by that age. I looked at this entire "affair" very closely at one time some time back. Yesterday I looked at the Serilini web page and I do not feel that their explanation fully explains the problem. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(Notes: the rats began to get tumors at 120 days - 30 days after Monsanto's study would have ended; this wasn't a cancer study.) petrarchan47คุก 10:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Retraction of Seralini

From the publisher in his retraction statement:

"The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation.

"Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."

So even the journal admits that neither the rat number, nor any other technical aspect, played a role. The reason for the retraction was that results weren't definitive. This is not recognized as a valid reason for retracting a peer reviewed study.

On the retraction:

Krimsky 2015

"It is rare in scientific publishing to find such a preponderance of criticism directed at a peer-reviewed publication and equally as rare to find such an extensive and detailed response to the criticism—seven published pages.

"The analysis of how two respected scientists were treated so poorly by the scientific community over their peer-reviewed work raises questions about likely political and ideological influences in the science. I could find no comparable case in the history of science where someone’s published and peer-reviewed work was retracted because it was not definitive. Comparable works that found GMOs equivalent to their non-GMO parental strain were not retracted for the same reason since they too were not definitive"

• 150 scientists condemn retraction of Séralini study as bow to commercial interests - the other side of the story

• Statement from ENSSER:

“In short, the decision to retract Séralini’s paper is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow to its credibility and independence. It is damaging for the reputation of both the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and its publisher Elsevier. It will decrease public trust in science. And it will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. Such days and times are definitively over. Prof. Séralini’s findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data – the foundations on which independent science rests.”

• From the Guardian

"This was scientific dynamite. It was the first time that maize containing these specific genes had been tested on rats over two years - nearly their full lifespan - as opposed to the 90-day trials demanded by regulators. Around a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find similar effects. Séralini's study also looked at the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide when fed directly to rats.

"If the study stood up, then the consistent arguments of the industry that its GM maize is safe might be fatally undermined, with immense political, financial and social consequences.

"But barely had the paper surfaced than it was attracting heavyweight academic criticism. Commentators variously claimed the study to be “biased”, “poorly performed”, “bogus”, “fraudulent”, “sub-standard”, “sloppy agenda-based science”, “inadequate” and “unsatisfactory”. Séralini was said to have “sought harm” for the rats, the experiment was dismissed as “inhumane” and the research group was called “partisan”. France was ‘outed’ as ‘the most anti-science country in anti-science Europe’ .... it was a triumph for the scientific and corporate establishment which has used similar tactics to crush other scientists like Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute in Scotland, who was sacked (1999) after his research suggested GM potatoes damaged the stomach lining and immune system of rats..."

Ultimately, every criticism meant to discredit Seralini falls flat when one considers the upcoming EU-funded cancer study based on Seralini's model. The EU has decided to replicate Seralini's two year trial, rather than Monsanto's 9 months.

Seralini on the EU study:

"In spite of concerted attempts to denigrate and misrepresent the 2012 study of Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini on NK603 maize, it’s good to see that the EU has drawn the sensible lesson from the study and has issued a call for researchers to do a 2-year carcinogenicity study on NK603."

Even biotech cheerleaders had to acknowledge it. petrarchan47คุก 09:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A message posted

I have posted a message in response to ehat you have said on the Joseph Mercola talk page. I see attempts to bully you and some threats. I've noticed something to which I will tell you about sometime. All I can say is that it's good that you have kept your integrity. Too often decent people give in and go with the flow to climb the social ladder at Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately along the way they lose something precious. I'm glad you haven't. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That page was far too hostile for me. I've no interest in taking part in any more conversations there. petrarchan47คุก 00:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax You haven't seen ANYTHING yet. petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax trying to ping again... petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petra, yeah I'm afraid to look. But, what's up? Jusdafax 23:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all. Have you ever heard of "Guerrilla Skeptics on Misplaced Pages"? Look it up, if not. petrarchan47คุก 01:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (This has nothing, or very little, to do with the present fiasco @ GM, but rather with WP hosting attack pages and in general promoting a wildly pro-pharma/biotech POV, whilst allowing the abuse of editors and misuse of guidelines, like MEDRS, to do it.) petrarchan47คุก 01:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it, thanks. This is a topic I am not a master of, though any reasonably competent Misplaced Pages editor can see a hatchet job for what it is. Dare I suggest you create a subpage of articles that need improvement from the point of view of balance? I for one would appreciate knowing your specific problem articles. I for example only recently came across this article: Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms, which appears to have major issues. Jusdafax 02:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going out on a limb here to say that any article that has anything remotely to do with biotech or the Pharmaceutical industry has been hit. If you find ONE article that Monsanto would have interest in that does not appear to be written by a PR rep, I will pay you $100. As for pharma articles, I haven't run into one in the past year or so that isn't totally spun and that doesn't read like an FDA pamphlet. The circle of folks involved tend to !Vote in a pack, so the system, as you say, has been gamed. petrarchan47คุก 02:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC) -- But, I will point out specific articles, and even edits if you like. petrarchan47คุก 02:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

One example of the scale of this: Misplaced Pages was called out by a team of scientists, and over 300 signatories, for creating a false claim about the safety of GMOs, and for misrepresenting the science in it's GM foods article (see footnotes 3 and 16). That is shameful. And still, 8 months after the release of this paper and 2 months after an RfC pretty much ended up aligning with the claims from the group, there is no rush but rather stagnation and games played to keep from mentioning anything that isn't favorable to biotech. The most recent and highest quality source we have on the safety of GMO food also supports the findings in the paper, and the WP community who found that claims of a safety consensus were unsupported by the refs being used. This source, when brought to the talk page, was dismissed with what appears to be a lie ("We've already discussed this"). Now, any editor interested in science based articles should have added that review immediately, not delayed but celebrated that we have such a great source to quote! Is this not common sense? petrarchan47คุก 03:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• The organization you cited earlier has a pretty good whiff of Big pharma, which of course leads us to Big Pharma conspiracy theory. Interesting. As for this study, I'll take a look here in a bit, and comment further. Sometimes this stuff is easier to take in small, uh, doses! Jusdafax 03:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there are similar problems here. petrarchan47คุก 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, but I see consensus. It should be added now. Jusdafax 07:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be mindful to keep this in small doses. As for the GM suite of articles, Tsavage is summarizing the problems in some recent diffs, namely this, this and this. S/he's looked into these articles more deeply and for longer than I and is a joy to read, at any rate. I've been focused mostly on the GM foods page and on the unsupported claim of scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs (it was valid attempts to fix this that earned Pro a visit to the edit warring noticeboard).

From Tsavage regarding the GMO suite:

"A central problem here, 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, one of a set of spinoff articles that fractured this main article, and located 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 restrictive application of a general editing guideline. Articles should be improved independently, and not bound by the deficiencies of other articles. -- User:Tsavage ping petrarchan47คุก 20:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree, to be brief. To return to the original topic on this thread I just discovered this list - what an amazing group. I don't believe there is any similar group advocating for Alternative Medicine. Sort of unbalanced, I would think. Jusdafax 21:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Project Medicine dovetails with this group, and is very anti-alternative medicine (or any natural, non-pharma remedy), at least from what I've experienced. I know Atsme talked a bit about forming a group to help balance this out. Perhaps we can revive that idea. The Skeptics group leader brags that she has 100 editors under her control. If you get bored I can link you to past conversations we 've had on the subject, or you can be lazy and just trust me ;) petrarchan47คุก 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Infinite monkey theorem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infinite monkey theorem. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deluge (software)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deluge (software). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (software)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (software). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Interstellar probe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Interstellar probe. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plant-based diet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plant-based diet. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OR ping

You have been mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trypophobia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement at Arbcom case page

Hi. In your statement you quoted me as saying, "GMOs are inherently dangerous". What I actually wrote was, "GMOs are intrinsically harmful". If you put something in quotation marks, you should make sure that it is an exact match. The difference isn't huge in this case, but there is a basic principle involved. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Can you show me where you got the idea that editors are attempting to add this POV either to talk or article pages? I'll correct the wording in my statement. Best, petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the quote. I didn't actually say that editors are attempting to add that POV anywhere in particular. I believe, though, that my formulation expresses the underlying attitude of the anti-GMO camp. You have indicated your disagreement, and that's fine. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I misread you, and apologized in my comment section. Thanks again for sticking your neck out, we've been needing this for a long time. Cheers, petrarchan47คุก 22:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Petra, I thank you for bringing up numerous good points at the recent train wreck at ANI. The remarkable effort to use quotes from this page as some kind of "gotcha" mechanism was, as noted, part of a strangely clumsy and spectacular failure that had to be struck through in messy disgrace, as did parts of the complaint against you. Rightly or wrongly, it gives the appearance of an attempt at a larger "chilling effect." In any case, I refuse to be intimidated by those of obvious ill-will, and shall continue to speak out as I see fit, here and elsewhere.

As I mentioned in the now-closed ANI mess, the filing timing at the start of a holiday weekend could not have been worse, and yet, in the end, it may have been for the best. As for ArbCom, you are quite right to object to the framing of the initial filing, which I regard as flawed. Post ANI, should the Arbs agree to take the case, I am optimistic regarding the outcome. My best wishes, Jusdafax 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you consider expounding on the statement about framing, perhaps in a little comment at the case filing? If not, I'd still like to hear a tad bit more. Cheers, petrarchan47คุก 05:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still catching up on the ANI, and am digesting the implications, but you have done well to point out this statement in the initial ArbCom filing: "Underlying this problem at the deepest level is a disagreement about policy, which comes down to a disagreement about the proper application of the principles outlined at WP:FRINGE. In the scientific community the idea that GMOs are intrinsically harmful is a fringe theory." For the second sentence to stand is improper. Clearly there is considerable science that casts serious doubts, and this assumption in the initial statement is at least debatable. I have also taken a stand at the Afd you have correctly pointed out, which itself is an astonishing bit of gamesmanship gaining no support and is arguably actionable on it's own, and fits into a pattern of editing that I'd also call actionable. We are past the trout stage, I believe.

As you know, the case filing's initial issue regards ArbCom taking the case on. I think the odds are pretty good, and am likely to comment there, but being three days behind puts me at a disadvantage. Thanks again for your work, which has clearly been effective. Jusdafax 07:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and atta boys. Unfortunately, I've removed the statement about the framing to keep under 500 words. Maybe you'll have room to mention it. petrarchan47คุก 00:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Both. Jytdog has just edited his statement at arbcom, however, it is still 619 words. What is the history of the clerks insisting this is 500 words. In my experience of scientific publishing, an allowance of 10% is sometimes made, but the statement is still way beyond this. Perhaps of more concern is his tactic of linking to other long discussions in presenting evidence against other editors. To me, he appears to be gaming the word limit restriction. Perhaps the clerk will sort this all out in the future? Any thoughts?DrChrissy 13:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My advice is that editors should focus on their own statements. The issues that a statement should address are (a) should there be a case, and (b) if so, what should the case examine? The second is more important, because at this point is looks very probable that a case will be accepted. Leave it to the clerks to determine whether other parties are abiding by the rules. In this matter Jytdog's behavior is the main point of controversy, so the clerk might see it as reasonable to give him a bit of extra space for his statement. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Looie496. Good, clear advice. I am beginning to get rather concerned about Jytdog. He has clearly just followed me here. Why would an editor do this given the current atmosphere about his behaviour?DrChrissy 14:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You all know that I have spoken in favor of Jytdog at Arbcom based on my limited experience. You also know that I have no say on the proceedings, and as an uninvolved party probably should just "butt out". I'm only involved because I'm passionate about the same topics the involved parties are, and currently see wrongdoing on both sides. Anyway, I found this page while following up on several of the links DrChrissy and others have posted so I can better understand everyone's viewpoint, and available evidence, on the Arbcom issue. While here, I wanted to point out that one of the arbitrators gave explicit permission on User talk:Jytdog for his current 626-word statement, despite being over the limit. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jtrevor 99. I asked the question before the arbitrators gave their permission for an extended word count. This is the first time I have been deeply involved in an arbcom, and I should have probably kept my nose out and let the Clerk's get on with their job. I'm on a learning curve.DrChrissy 20:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries on the word count; I had noticed you asked before the arbitrator ruling but was unsure if you'd seen their response, since it was on a page (if I understand correctly) you're currently banned from. And I too am learning. This case really is none of my business, but I do have interest in how it turns out. In the meantime I will try to stick to the sidelines and stay well-informed both on how this procedure operates, and on all the facts relevant to the case. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Which page did you think I was banned from?DrChrissy 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were banned by Jytdog from his User Talk page. That's where the arbitrator granted permission. Am I mistaken? Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The ban is on posting to Jytdog's talk page. I don't believe we can ban other editor's from reading their Talk page. For example, Jytdog has told me that he monitors my sandbox. This is not illegal, but I find it rather spooky and it sometimes makes it difficult for me to draft content. FWIW, Jytdog is also banned from my Talk page but he has recently breached this twice.DrChrissy 21:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. That's a small but important distinction. Thanks for the clarification. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. You really need to read more carefully. I said you followed me, I did not say your edit was disruptive.DrChrissy 14:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Petrachan, my edit above was in response to Jytdog who made a rather misleading statement about my edits and then very quickly deleted it. This is a very old trick of his in which he tries to bait other editors. This is your Talk page and I will leave it up to you as to how it is presented.DrChrissy 14:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has a bad habit, and it is a bad habit, of saving edits before thinking them through, and then quickly deleting them, and I might well point that out at the case, but that does not mean that he is doing it for the intentional purpose of baiting anyone. And no one can be baited if they decline to take the bait. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Chrissy, this is an example of behaviour many editors have noted. You might consider adding this exchange to your comments. Sarah SV talk about this . On her TP she reminds him that deleting a personal attack doesn't disappear it from people's minds. It will all come out in the wash, hopefully. And yes, even under scrutiny the behaviour continues. petrarchan47คุก 14:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will consider it, but I am already at my word limit. I just looked at Jytdog's contributions. In his self revert, he indicates you might have banned him from your Talk page. Is this the case?DrChrissy 14:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Read CoretheApple's input. I'm not sure any of the longer term editors working on the BP page hasn't banned Jdog from their TP (That includes me, Core, Buster7 and Gandydancer). I've asked him at least 4 times to stay away for the reasons Core elucidates well. If Jdog wrote an entry here and then deleted it, it was his way of getting around this ban and to still say his piece. Is there a reason you two need to communicate? If so perhaps another talk page where neither of you are banned could work? petrarchan47คุก 15:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Apparently Gandy not banned him from her TP, my mistake. petrarchan47คุก 15:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just read Coretheapple's input - rather a coincidence. There is a need to communicate when it comes to Jytdog incorrectly interpreting PAGs, particularly with respect to use of scientific primary and secondary sources, age of sources and his interpretation of undue weight. Jytdog's response to perfectly legal material which might be against his POV, is to delete it. Sometimes he will say let's take it to talk, other times he does not. So, unfortunately, unless Jytdog stops these impositions, there is a need for he and I to communicate. But I hear what you are saying.DrChrissy 15:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Please feel free to communicate with Dr Chrissy, confining it to the section below and refraining from commenting here to me. petrarchan47คุก 15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Chrissy, Jytdog

DrChrissy, here is the comment to which you wanted to respond: petrarchan47คุก 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Petrachan, thank you for providing this forum for interaction.DrChrissy 18:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I put that article on my watchlist ages ago. You call fixing a typo disruptive? Give it a break. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I stated that you followed me. I said nothing about your edit, let alone calling it disruptive. You are misleading readers about my edit which I consider to be yet further incivility toward me. You say that you admit to mistakes. Admit this one, reinstate your reverted edit, strike through the offending material and apologise to both me for the edit and Petrachan for the incivility of posting on her talk page when you have been asked not to. This is a big ask, but I think considering the present scruitiny of your behaviour, I am being generous in offering you this opportunity (and Petrachan is being equally generous in proving you with the forum to apologise).DrChrissy 18:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the thing that is killing me, DrChrissy. You posted here all upset, when I corrected a typo on an article you have edited a lot (which has been on my watchlist for a long time). I made one edit, and you went through the roof. I have asked you nicely, several times, not to expand the field of your editing into articles that I edit but you have gone ahead anyway. How do those two things fit together for you? Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK - fair enough. I have offered you the opportunity to apologise yourself out of yet further incivility, but you have declined the opportunity. So be it.DrChrissy 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So I have not edited articles in what you consider your "space" at all up until today. When you objected, I self-reverted and unwatched, and you are still upset. When I asked you to stop, you accused me of acting badly and have gone deeper and broader into articles I edit, that you have never edited before. I don't understand how these two things can each be OK for you. We really do need an iBan DrChrissy. I am happy to stay away from you and articles you edit. Will you please just agree to stay away from me and articles I edit? Think how much happier WP was for you at the start of this year, before we encountered each other. Our paths didn't cross before then, and they don't have to keep crossing now. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are happy to stay away from me and articles I edit, why did you follow me to Testing cosmetics on animals‎ today (this is a real question)?DrChrissy 22:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't follow you there - I said that I have had this on my watchlist for a long time. This is not far from things I usually edit, DrChrissy. Cosmetics are FDA regulated products, the early stages of development of which are similar to new drugs, new dietary supplements, etc. But really - I have not edited that before, nor any other articles you edit regularly, even though they are of interest to me. I have exercised restraint and have not broadened our conflict. You have. Will you please stop? Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to get your story straight on the areas in which you have an interest. In your recent arbcom statement you claim stewardship of the ag biotech articles and editing in GMOs and COI matters (and others which my topic ban covers). Do you seriously expect users to believe it is not following me when a person with these stated interests claims they has been watching the Testing cosmetics on animals page and then makes their very first edit there only 1 hour after I edited there. Hmmmm...looks like arbcom will be deciding this one.DrChrissy 12:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am asking if you will agree to stay away from me and articles where I usually work; I will agree to keep doing the same with regard to you. If you don't agree it is going to get imposed on you and me. This is clear. If you won't agree, just let me know, as there will be no point in continuing this and we will just let it play out at Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would I possibly want to get involved in a voluntary "deal" with someone who in the last few days has refused to stay off my Talk page despite my direct request, and used their own talk page to attack me in the knowledge I could not defend myself there because they have banned me. I would not trust you for a nanosecond to uphold your part of any voluntary deal with me. This suggested deal is a very thinly veiled attempt to show you can collaborate - for the ARBCOM, no doubt. But, it is too little, too late. You have annoyed so many people so many times, the writing is now on the wall.DrChrissy 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As you will then. The trend at ANI was leading to an iban for sure, and possibly an extension of your topic ban. I believe that Arbcom will come to the same decision (at least). I warned you that further limits would be imposed on you if you continue extending the conflict; I see you intend to keep rolling the dice. Please note that even if Arbcom puts some restrictions me, the decision about you will be separate from that. Arbcom is famous for heads rolling all around, to prevent further disruption. Voluntarily agreeing to an iBan would obviate the need to address your behavior there, and would be more flexible. But again, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. How would an iBan for me against someone who is site-blocked be of any concern to me whatsoever. Just out of interest, you have yet to state which of "your" articles I have disrupted, other than presenting a difference of opinion. Are you prepared to do that?DrChrissy 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The likelihood that I will site-banned is vanishingly small. If that is where you are placing your bet, it is not a good one. But clearly you will not take my word for it. As you will then. Answering your question is simple. Look at the articles you started editing after our clash began. Do you remember this? Do you remember entering into the Scrambler thing? this dif? Acupuncture? You formerly never edited ag stuff like glyphosate or pesticide/herbicide related stuff like colony collapse disorder; all the genetic modified X stuff you have entered into. This is all very far from the ethology stuff that you formerly worked on. Our paths crossed at foie gras and ever since then you have moved more broadly and deeply into topics you know I edit. It was pursuit of me that led to your topic ban; and your continued pursuit is what keeps leading you back into it, per Adjwilley's remark here - read that all the way through. In that comment, Adjwilley was, and I am - and have been, suggesting you turn back from pursuing me. שׁוֺב as they say in Hebrew, in all senses, from this path of conflict you have chosen. Misplaced Pages is vast. Please go back to enjoying it. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On my talk page, I have said "...I primarily create and edit articles on animals, animal behaviour and animal welfare." You should perhaps know that I am a biologist, so my interests are considerably wider than just those stated here. Even so, if someone declares their interests on their user-page, I'm sure you would agree they are not limited to editing just those areas. My stated interest in animals and animal welfare means that it is entirely normal for me to edit articles on GM-animals, GM-organisms and colony collapse disorder. My interest in animal welfare means it is entirely normal to edit glyphosate - it kills animals and anything which kills animals is a welfare concern. I will not speak to the others as this may breach my topic ban. Jytdog, have you not realised your demands for me to stay away from articles that you edit is a clear indicator of topic/page ownership. This is something that has already been brought up at ArbCom regarding your editing. Here, you are simply providing yet another example of this behavioural tendency.DrChrissy 19:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate kills animals? Oy. And you did not speak at all to the pattern of your continued choice to expand your editing directly into articles I edit and you are clearly not going to. We are done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Glyphosate and Roundup both kill animals. The first half of my previous posting talks directly to my motivation for editing those articles for which you are showing current ownership. You apparently wish to own all articles in one/several topic area/s and request that I stay away from them - would you like to state what these areas are, or are they just "all articles I have ever edited and those I might wish to edit in the future"? This is not a rhetorical question, however, I see you have invoked your often used "We are done here" when you realise the discussion is not going the way you want it to. I suspect we may be re-visiting this thread at ArbCom, but for the meanwhile, thanks for your input here.DrChrissy 10:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah this edit. Water kills animals. So does air. The dose makes the poison. On the mutual iban thing, you clearly are unable to acknowledge that you purposefully started editing articles that I work on (as Adjwilley said seemed likely) and are unwilling to just part ways without further drama. So yes we will have to work this out at Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence that Glyphosate and Roundup are toxic to a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate animals is irrefutable. I suspect this thread is being followed by quite a large number of users and all you are doing is continuing to draw attention to your POV on these substances (manufactured by who?) and leading to questions of what motivates you to take such a strong stand-point against science. Anyway, this discussion should probably be on the Glyphosate:Talk page.

Let me take you back to my request above - "Just out of interest, you have yet to state which of "your" articles I have disrupted, other than presenting a difference of opinion." You have indicated some articles which you seem to believe you own but which I have edited perfectly legally, however, where is the evidence of these edits being disruptive?DrChrissy 14:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, many things are toxic, including glyphosate. The dose makes the poison. On the bigger picture, you clearly have no interest in working this out without further drama. We have nothing more to do here and will deal with this at Arbcom, where of course I will present evidence; that is what Arbcom is for. This was for trying to work things out without more drama. See you at arbcom. Thanks, Petrarchan, for offering this space for me to try to work this out. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I finished my last post with a direct question to you, but for the second time on this thread, you are disengaging from the subject before the issue is resolved. This was an extremely useful opportunity for you and I to resolve an issue without taking up the hard-pressed time of ArbCom. Your withdrawing from this and avoidance of answering a direct question is deliberately generating work for ArbCom - I doubt they will see that in a good light. For the second time on this thread, thank you for your input.DrChrissy 14:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for your correction. Indeed it is the Board of Directors of AAAS that did the voting. I believe the AMA statement was also from their Board of Directors as well. What did you mean by this:

  b) "Arc de Soleil" aka User:Sunrise

David Tornheim (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You added a quotation in your arbcom statement that mentioned a user who has since changed his handle. petrarchan47คุก 06:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I had the name slightly wrong. My comment is amended and should be clearer now. petrarchan47คุก 06:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself

Roaring over this "rip snorter", imagining what a WP article would look like, (pause to treat rug burns on my elbows from ROTFL). I know laughter is good for the soul, which may or may not be verifiable in WP:MEDRS. At the very least it's a stress reliever. Enjoy - --Atsme 19:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It stinks that I can't comment on this because of my topic ban! Thanks for the laugh!DrChrissy 19:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Doc, what I find especially convenient about it is not limited to self-prevention but, unlike the e-cig issues, its second-hand benefits as well. Atsme 20:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, someone, ban me from this topic. petrarchan47คุก 09:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)